B-161137, SEP. 12, 1967

B-161137, SEP. 12, 1967

BIDS - SPECIFICATIONS - DRAFT SUBMISSION TO ALL COMPETITORS DECISION TO MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CO. CONCERNING PROTEST AGAINST PROCEDURES OF GSA IN PREPARATION OF SPECIFICATIONS AND SOLICITATION OF BIDS. MANUFACTURER WHO PROTESTS THAT FAILURE OF PROCURING AGENCY TO VISIT PLANT DURING SURVEY INCIDENT TO PREPARATION OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR RECORDING EQUIPMENT PLACED COMPETITORS WHOSE PLANTS WERE VISITED IN MORE FAVORABLE POSITION, ALTHOUGH RECORD INDICATES THAT MANUFACTURER WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON PROPOSED SPECIFICATIONS AND DETERMINATION TO VISIT PLANTS IN PARTICULAR AREA WAS BASED ON LIMITED TRAVEL FUNDS WAS NOT UNJUSTIFIED. THEREFORE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATION THAT ACTION WAS NOT PROPER PROTEST IS DENIED.

TO MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CO.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 23, 1967, PROTESTING THE PROCEDURES EMPLOYED BY THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA), IN THE PREPARATION OF SPECIFICATIONS AND SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT, FSC, GROUP 58, PART III, SUPPLEMENT NO. 1, DATED MARCH 3, 1967.

YOUR LETTER OF PROTEST, WHICH WAS ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE, READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

"WHEN THE DECISION TO SURVEY THE MANUFACTURERS WAS MADE BY THE STANDARDS DIVISION, WE WERE NOT VISITED AS WERE OUR MAJOR COMPETITORS FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.

"WHEN THE PROPOSED SPECIFICATIONS WERE SENT TO THE CONCERNED MANUFACTURERS FOR COMMENT, WE DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY, NOR HAVE WE BEEN SENT ANY OF THE SPECIFICATIONS SINCE THE FIRST SPECIFICATIONS WERE PUBLISHED.

"WHEN THE FINAL INTERIM SPECIFICATIONS WERE PUBLISHED AND THE INVITATIONS TO BID WERE SENT OUT, WE FOUND THAT WE COULD ONLY BID ON ONE TYPE OF RECORDER IF WE MADE EXTENSIVE MODIFICATIONS, INSTEAD OF TEN RECORDERS AS WE HAD IN THE PAST EVEN THOUGH ON THE MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACT, WE WERE SUPPLYING 83 PERCENT OF THE 136-8 CLASSIFICATION AS REPORTED BY THE PROCURING OFFICE IN PAST INVITATIONS TO BID.' YOU THEREFORE FEEL THAT YOU WERE NOT GIVEN THE SAME COURTESIES EXTENDED TO YOUR COMPETITORS AND THAT THIS PLACES THEM IN A MORE FAVORED POSITION, AND YOU CONTEND THAT THE METHOD OF PROCUREMENT EMPLOYED BY GSA DID NOT GENERATE THE NECESSARY COMPETITION.

THE INVOLVED INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) IS NO. FPNH0-R-27480-A-3-24 67, WHICH INCLUDES 77 LINE ITEMS OF SOUND RECORDING AND REPRODUCING EQUIPMENT AND INTERCOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT. FORTY-ONE OF THE ITEMS ARE TAPE RECORDERS, PROFESSIONAL AND SEMIPROFESSIONAL, COVERED BY INTERIM FEDERAL SPECIFICATION W-R-00168A, DATED DECEMBER 12, 1966, AND BATTERY OPERATED, PORTABLE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL SPECIFICATION W R-170A OF MAY 16, 1966, AND INTERIM AMENDMENT NO. 1, DATED DECEMBER 16, 1966. THE REMAINING 36 ITEMS ARE INTERCOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT FOR LANGUAGE LABORATORY USE AND ARE COVERED BY INTERIM FEDERAL SPECIFICATION W-I-00520 OF MAY 9, 1966. GSA REPORTS THAT BIDS WERE OPENED MARCH 24, 1967, THAT NO BIDS WERE RECEIVED ON 19 OF THE 77 ITEMS, THAT YOUR COMPANY BID ONLY ON ITEM NO. 5835-998-2134, A SEMIPROFESSIONAL GRADE B, DUAL SPEED, DUAL TRACK, TAPE RECORDER, AND THAT THE ONLY OTHER BID RECEIVED ON THIS ITEM WAS LOWER THAN 3M-S.

IT IS REPORTED THAT WHEN THE SPECIFICATIONS INVOLVED IN THE CITED IFB WERE BEING DEVELOPED IN MAY 1965, IT WAS DECIDED BY THE STANDARDIZATION DIVISION, FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE, THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO VISIT A CROSS-SECTION OF THE MANUFACTURERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBSERVING MANUFACTURING PROCEDURES AND DISCUSSING THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF TAPE RECORDING EQUIPMENT WITH THE MANUFACTURERS' ENGINEERS. PURSUANT TO THIS DECISION, MR. ROGER DANIERO, AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER ASSIGNED TO THE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS BRANCH OF THE STANDARDIZATION DIVISION VISITED THE FOLLOWING PLANTS:

SONY, SUN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA

MARTEL ELECTRONICS, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

ASTRO SCIENCE CORPORATION, S. EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA

AMPEX, REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA

STANCIL HOFFMAN, HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA

RHEEM CALIFONE, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

MIDWESTERN INSTRUMENTS, TULSA, OKLAHOMA WE ARE ADVISED THAT NEITHER 3M NOR ANY OTHER PRODUCER WAS OMITTED BY DESIGN IN THE SENSE THAT A DETERMINATION WAS MADE TO AVOID VISITING A PLANT. IT IS NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MIDWESTERN INSTRUMENTS, THE MANUFACTURERS VISITED ARE LOCATED IN THE SAME GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, ALL BEING IN CALIFORNIA, AND MIDWESTERN IS EN ROUTE. FURTHERMORE, GSA WAS CONCERNED WITH SPECIFICATIONS COVERING FOUR TYPES OF EQUIPMENT, AND IT IS REPORTED THAT 3M, WHOSE PRODUCTION FACILITIES ARE LOCATED IN CHICAGO, MANUFACTURES ONLY ONE OF THE FOUR, WHEREAS THE GROUP VISITED INCLUDES PRODUCERS OF EACH OF THE FOUR, AND AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE VISITED MANUFACTURES MORE THAN ONE TYPE.

WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR ALLEGED FAILURE TO RECEIVE THE PROPOSED SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMMENT OR OTHERWISE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON FEBRUARY 8 AND MARCH 29, 1965, RESPECTIVELY, COPIES OF PROPOSED FEDERAL SPECIFICATIONS W-R-170 AND W-R-168 WERE SENT TO GROUPS OF 27 AND 22 MANUFACTURERS FOR COMMENT. SEVENTEEN OF THESE MANUFACTURERS, INCLUDING REVERE-WOLLENSAK, (NOW KNOWN AS REVERE MINCOM) WHICH, ON THE DATES MENTIONED, WAS THE DIVISION OF 3M THAT MANUFACTURED TAPE RECORDERS, WERE SENT COPIES OF BOTH SPECIFICATIONS. ADDITIONALLY IT IS STATED THAT MR. DANIERO PERSONALLY HANDED A COPY OF INTERIM FEDERAL SPECIFICATION W-R- 00168 TO MR. DAVID UBEL, AUDIO VISUAL PRODUCTS SALES MANAGER FOR 3M, AT THE AUDIO VISUAL TRADE SHOW IN WASHINGTON, D.C., IN SEPTEMBER 1965, AT WHICH TIME MR. DANIERO REPORTEDLY SPENT MORE THAN TWO HOURS WITH 3M ENGINEERS DISCUSSING THE PROPOSED REVISION OF THE SPECIFICATION.

THE FILE INCLUDES A COPY OF A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 26, 1965, TO MR. DANIERO, FROM MR. W. F. JENSEN, AUDIO VISUAL SALES ANALYST, REVERE WOLLENSAK DIVISION, ACKNOWLEDGING, WITH THANKS, RECEIPT OF PROPOSED FEDERAL SPECIFICATION W-R-170, AND STATING THAT REVERE-WOLLENSAK DOES NOT MARKET A PORTABLE, BATTERY-OPERATED TAPE RECORDER, AND IS THEREFORE NOT IN A POSITION TO COMMENT MEANINGFULLY ON THE PROPOSED SPECIFICATION, BUT WOULD LIKE TO BE RETAINED ON THE MAILING LIST. ALSO, BY LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1965, TO MR. DANIERO, MR. UBEL ACKNOWLEDGED THE ABOVE- MENTIONED DISCUSSION OF INTERIM SPECIFICATION W R-00168 WITH MR. DANIERO AND STATED THAT IT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOUR ENGINEERS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT, AND FOR POSSIBLE SUGGESTION OF ALTERNATIVES. DETAILED COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF REVERE-MINCOM'S ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAST MENTIONED SPECIFICATION, AND AMENDMENT 1 THERETO, WERE SUBMITTED BY MR. UBEL IN A LETTER DATED JANUARY 11, 1966. AS A RESULT OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS CHANGES WERE MADE IN SEVEN PARAGRAPHS OF THE SPECIFICATION PRIOR TO ITS REVISION AND ISSUANCE AS INTERIM FEDERAL SPECIFICATION W-R 00168A. THE COMMENTS OF 3M RELATIVE TO INTERIM FEDERAL SPECIFICATION W-I-00520 WERE NOT SOLICITED, SINCE 3M DOES NOT MANUFACTURE THE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT COVERED THEREBY.

IT APPEARS THAT YOUR BID ON ITEM 5835-998-2134 WAS ON YOUR WOLLENSAK 1500 AV MONOPHONIC TAPE RECORDER-REPRODUCER MODIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS TO COMPLY WITH INTERIM FEDERAL SPECIFICATION W-R-00168A:

(A) TO INCLUDE A VOLUME UNIT METER CONFORMING TO USASI STANDARD C16.5- 1954.

(B) TO PROVIDE A LOW IMPEDANCE MICROPHONE CONFORMING TO FEDERAL SPECIFICATION W-M-340, WITH A LOW IMPEDANCE INPUT (30-250 OHMS).

(C) TO PROVIDE A TYPE I, SERIES SJ POWER CORD CONFORMING TO FEDERAL SPECIFICATION J-C-175. IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE FOUR SEPARATE TYPES OF TAPE RECORDERS, INVOLVING 10 DIFFERENT PIECES OF EQUIPMENT, ON THE CURRENT MULTIPLE AWARD FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE. ONE TYPE (STEREO CARTRIDGE), INVOLVING THREE DIFFERENT PIECES OF EQUIPMENT, IS ESSENTIALLY A HOME-TYPE RECORDER. HOWEVER, GSA ENGINEERS HAVE ADVISED THAT YOU COULD HAVE BID THE OTHER SEVEN COMPARABLE ITEMS OF SEMIPROFESSIONAL RECORDERS ON THE CURRENT IFB IF THEY HAD BEEN MODIFIED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE RECORDER WHICH YOU OFFERED FOR ITEM 5835-998-2134.

YOU HAVE GIVEN NO REASONS, NOR ARE ANY PERCEIVED, FOR YOUR CONCLUSION THAT GSA'S ACTION IN VISITING YOUR COMPETITORS PLACED THEM IN A MORE FAVORED POSITION. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, THAT GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES VISIT MANUFACTURERS IN THE SITUATION INVOLVED HERE. GSA DECIDED THAT SUCH ACTION WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES CONCERNED, AND THE CHOICE OF A REPRESENTATIVE GROUP OF MANUFACTURERS WHO COULD BE VISITED WITHOUT UNNECESSARILY EXTENSIVE TRAVEL WAS EMINENTLY JUSTIFIED. YOU WERE ACCORDED THE SAME COURTESIES AS THE NUMEROUS OTHER MANUFACTURERS WHO RECEIVED COPIES OF PROPOSED FEDERAL SPECIFICATIONS W-R-168 AND W-R-170, BUT WHOSE PLANTS WERE NOT VISITED, PLUS THE ADVANTAGE OF THE LENGTHY PERSONAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN 3M ENGINEERS AND MR. DANIERO. CONTRARY TO THE STATEMENTS MADE IN YOUR LETTER OF PROTEST, YOU WERE GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE SPECIFICATIONS, AND DID SO, AND THE RECITED FACTS FAIL TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY STIFLING OF COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY, AS ALLEGED BY YOU.

FINALLY, IT IS REPORTED THAT BIDS SUBMITTED ON SEMIPROFESSIONAL EQUIPMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CURRENT IFB BASED ON INTERIM FEDERAL SPECIFICATION W-R- 00168A RANGED FROM $100 TO $300, AS COMPARED TO PRICES FROM $100 TO $600 FOR COMPARABLE EQUIPMENT ON THE CURRENT MULTIPLE AWARD FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE. SINCE THE NEW PRICES ARE GENERALLY LOWER, AND SINCE GSA ENGINEERS ARE SATISFIED THAT THE CITED SPECIFICATION ADEQUATELY DESCRIBES TAPE RECORDING EQUIPMENT WHICH IS SUITABLE FOR WIDE USAGE BY VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, THE CONCLUSION SEEMS JUSTIFIED THAT THE DESIRED GOAL OF OBTAINING OPTIMUM QUALITY RECORDERS AT LOW COST CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH USE OF THE SPECIFICATION IN QUESTION.