B-164444, MAR. 13, 1969
Highlights
PAINE: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE RENEWED PROTEST OF CUMMINS DIESEL OF WISCONSIN. THE PROTEST WAS THE SUBJECT OF A REPORT OF FEBRUARY 17. WE HAVE. WE HAVE FREQUENTLY ADVISED BIDDERS TO SEEK CLARIFICATION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO BID OPENING RATHER THAN WAITING UNTIL AFTER BID PRICES HAVE BEEN REVEALED. WE THINK IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE ON THE PART OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO REFUSE A CUMMINS' REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INSPECT CONFORMING EQUIPMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT'S POSSESSION. CUMMINS WAS ADVISED THAT THE EQUIPMENT COULD NOT BE SHUT DOWN FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES. YOU HAVE ADVISED US THAT NASA. IS CONDUCTING AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF THE SUBJECT SPECIFICATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE IN FACT UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITION.
B-164444, MAR. 13, 1969
TO DR. PAINE:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE RENEWED PROTEST OF CUMMINS DIESEL OF WISCONSIN, INCORPORATED, AGAINST THE REJECTION OF ITS BID UNDER ADVERTISED SOLICITATION NO. CC-304-8 ISSUED MARCH 18, 1968, BY THE KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FLORIDA, TO PROCURE FIVE GENERATOR SETS. THE PROTEST WAS THE SUBJECT OF A REPORT OF FEBRUARY 17, 1969, FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. (CODE KDI).
WE HAVE, BY OUR DECISION OF TODAY TO CUMMINS, COPY ENCLOSED, INDICATED THAT WE INTEND TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION ON THE MATTER DESPITE CERTAIN INADEQUACIES WHICH APPEAR ON THE RECORD OF THIS PROCUREMENT. PARTICULAR, WE RECOMMEND THAT GREATER EFFORTS BE MADE TO ANSWER WHAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE LEGITIMATE REQUESTS OF PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF PROPOSED EQUIPMENT. WE HAVE FREQUENTLY ADVISED BIDDERS TO SEEK CLARIFICATION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO BID OPENING RATHER THAN WAITING UNTIL AFTER BID PRICES HAVE BEEN REVEALED. B-165999, FEBRUARY 27, 1969. IN THIS SAME VEIN, WE THINK IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE ON THE PART OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO REFUSE A CUMMINS' REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INSPECT CONFORMING EQUIPMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT'S POSSESSION. CUMMINS WAS ADVISED THAT THE EQUIPMENT COULD NOT BE SHUT DOWN FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT CUMMINS ASKED THAT THE GENERATORS BE SHUT DOWN FOR INSPECTION. RECOMMEND THAT NASA PROCUREMENT PERSONNEL BE INSTRUCTED TO EXERCISE GREATER CARE IN THEIR HANDLING OF INQUIRIES OF THIS TYPE FROM PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS IN ADVANCE OF BID OPENING.
FINALLY, YOU HAVE ADVISED US THAT NASA, WASHINGTON, IS CONDUCTING AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF THE SUBJECT SPECIFICATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE IN FACT UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITION, AS ALLEGED BY CUMMINS. WE REQUEST THAT WE BE FURNISHED A COPY OF THIS ENGINEERING EVALUATION FOR OUR RECORD WHEN ACTION ON THE MATTER IS COMPLETED.