B-156086, JUN. 21, 1965

B-156086, JUN. 21, 1965

TO CONTROL ENGINEERING CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 16, 1965, IN REGARD TO OUR LETTER OF APRIL 5, 1965, TO YOU IN WHICH WE STATED THAT WE FOUND NO VALID BASIS FOR OBJECTING TO THE ACTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY IN CONSIDERING YOUR BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 600- 448-65 TO BE NONRESPONSIVE.

THE FACTS IN THIS CASE WERE SET OUT IN DETAIL IN OUR LETTER OF APRIL 5, 1965, AND WILL NOT BE RESTATED HERE.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU CONTEND THAT WHILE WE CONCLUDED THAT IN MATTERS INVOLVING TECHNICAL OPINION AS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS WE ACCEPT THE OPINION OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCY, THERE IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE THE MATTER OF TECHNICAL OPINION BUT MERELY DISCREPANCIES IN THE INVITATION AND AN AMBIGUITY IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. ON PAGES 5 TO 7 OF YOUR LETTER YOU PRESENT VARIOUS QUESTIONS ON MATTERS IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH WE REQUESTED FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND WHICH HAS BEEN RECENTLY FURNISHED. IT APPEARS THAT AWARD OF THE CONTRACT HAS NOT AS YET BEEN MADE.

YOUR DIRECT QUESTIONS APPEARING ON PAGES 5 TO 7 OF YOUR LETTER WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. AS TO QUESTION NO. 1 CONCERNING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE BID OF RAM ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REPORTS THAT---

"/1) THE VIDEO LINE AMPLIFIER PROPOSED BY RAM ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT. THE SPECIFICATIONS CALL FOR A FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF PLUS OR MINUS 0.25 DB TO 7 MC AND PLUS OR MINUS 3DB TO 8MC. RAM ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED STATES IN ITS TECHNICAL DATA THAT ITS LINE DISTRIBUTION AMPLIFIER, WHICH IT MANUFACTURES, IS FLAT PLUS OR MNIUS 1DB TO SMC, WHICH MORE THAN SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT IN THE SPECIFICATION.'

IN YOUR SECOND QUESTION YOU ASK "WHERE DOES MR. BLACK DRAW THE LINE ON NON-RESPONSIVENESS? " MR. BLACK WAS THE BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THIS PROCUREMENT. IT IS THE POSITION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT IF A BIDDER OFFERS A PRODUCT WHICH IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS THAT BIDDER WILL BE DECLARED NONRESPONSIVE.

WITH REGARD TO YOUR THIRD QUESTION AS TO WHY INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH ENGINEERING WAS QUALIFIED, IT IS REPORTED THAT THIS FIRM HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED AS QUALIFIED. AS TO THE MATTER OF DIFFERENCES IN THE PRICES BID FOR PUBLICATIONS, PARTICULARLY AS TO THE FACT THAT VIDEO SYSTEMS, INC., BID NOTHING FOR PUBLICATIONS, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES THAT THIS FACT DOES NOT APPEAR GERMANE TO THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE BASIC EQUIPMENT.

AS TO YOUR FIFTH, SIXTH AND SEVENTH QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE BID OF VIDEO, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES THAT VIDEO IS NOT CONSIDERED TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED TO PERFORM UNDER THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS AND WHILE THE MATTER OF ITS PUBLICATIONS BEING PROPER NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED, IT WAS DISCOVERED DURING A PREAWARD SURVEY THAT VIDEO'S PUBLICATIONS WOULD NOT BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND VIDEO WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ANY CHANGE IN THE ITEM IT PROPOSED TO FURNISH.

FINALLY, WHILE YOU RAISED THE QUESTION AS TO HOW THE CONTRACTING AGENCY IS ABLE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF YOUR BID AND THAT OF THE NEXT LOW BIDDER, RAM ELECTRONICS, IF IT IS FOUND TO BE QUALIFIED, IT IS STATED THAT NO AWARD OF THE CONTRACT HAS AS YET BEEN MADE BUT THAT ANY AWARD OF A CONTRACT UNDER THE INSTANT INVITATION WILL BE MADE TO THE LOW RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, ALL FACTORS CONSIDERED.

NOTHING HAS BEEN PRESENTED WHICH WARRANTS ANY CHANGE IN THE CONCLUSION HERETOFORE REACHED IN THIS MATTER AND OUR DECISION OF APRIL 5, 1965, IS AFFIRMED.