B-154544, OCT. 12, 1964

B-154544: Oct 12, 1964

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

VICE PRESIDENT: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 14. THE JUNE 30 DECISION HELD THAT THE BID SUBMITTED BY YOUR COMPANY WAS NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE THE CARTER PRESSURE NOZZLE HAD NEVER RECEIVED QUALIFICATION APPROVAL FROM THE BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS. YOU SUGGEST THAT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION MAY BE WARRANTED BECAUSE IT IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR COMPANY THAT AT A CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE NAVY AND THE AIR FORCE ON APRIL 16. IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE AIR FORCE WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT QUALIFICATION APPROVAL ON PRESSURE-LOCKING NOZZLES UNDER SPECIFICATIONS MIL-N-5877A. YOU SUGGEST THAT IT MAY BE THAT NO BIDDER WAS RESPONSIVE SINCE THE PRESSURE NOZZLE REQUIRED TO BE QUALIFIED PURSUANT TO THE MIL SPECIFICATION IS ONE HAVING A 45-DEGREE ANGLE WHEREAS THE ONE BEING PROCURED IS A STRAIGHT-THROUGH NOZZLE WHICH NO BIDDER WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE QUALIFIED.

B-154544, OCT. 12, 1964

TO MR. L. J. CAMPBELL, VICE PRESIDENT:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 14, 1964, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION B-154544 OF JUNE 30, 1964, REGARDING THE PROTEST UNDER MARINE CORPS INVITATION FOR BIDS 98.

THE JUNE 30 DECISION HELD THAT THE BID SUBMITTED BY YOUR COMPANY WAS NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE THE CARTER PRESSURE NOZZLE HAD NEVER RECEIVED QUALIFICATION APPROVAL FROM THE BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS. YOU SUGGEST THAT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION MAY BE WARRANTED BECAUSE IT IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR COMPANY THAT AT A CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE NAVY AND THE AIR FORCE ON APRIL 16, 1959, AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE AIR FORCE WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT QUALIFICATION APPROVAL ON PRESSURE-LOCKING NOZZLES UNDER SPECIFICATIONS MIL-N-5877A, AND BECAUSE THE CARTER PRESSURE NOZZLE OFFERED BY YOUR COMPANY HAD RECEIVED SUCH APPROVAL AS REVEALED IN OUR JUNE 30 DECISION. MOREOVER, YOU SUGGEST THAT IT MAY BE THAT NO BIDDER WAS RESPONSIVE SINCE THE PRESSURE NOZZLE REQUIRED TO BE QUALIFIED PURSUANT TO THE MIL SPECIFICATION IS ONE HAVING A 45-DEGREE ANGLE WHEREAS THE ONE BEING PROCURED IS A STRAIGHT-THROUGH NOZZLE WHICH NO BIDDER WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE QUALIFIED.

OUR OFFICE HAS OBTAINED A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16, 1959, MEETING. THOSE MINUTES STATE THAT IT WAS AGREED BETWEEN THE NAVY AND THE AIR FORCE THAT THE BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS, THE PREDECESSOR TO THE BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS, WOULD GRANT QUALIFICATION APPROVAL FOR QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LISTING BASED UPON REQUESTS OF THE AIR FORCE WITH THE EXPRESS UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THE PRODUCT FAILED TO PASS BUREAU QUALIFICATION TEST RERUNS IT WOULD BE DELETED FROM THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LISTING. IN THAT REGARD, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT WHEN THE AIR FORCE AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS DIVISION ADVISED THE J. C. CARTER COMPANY ON JULY 7, 1961, OF QUALIFICATION APPROVAL, IT STATED THAT SHOULD THE NOZZLE FAIL TO MEET QUALIFICATION TESTS RERUN BY THE NAVY BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS IT WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST. ALTHOUGH THE NEGATIVE TEST RERUN RESULTS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE J. C. CARTER COMPANY AND IT MAY NOT HAVE RECEIVED FORMAL NOTICE OF THE REMOVAL OF ITS PRODUCT FROM THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST, THE FACT REMAINS THAT ON MARCH 1, 1962, THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS WROTE THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS DIVISION THAT THE J. C. CARTER NOZZLE HAD FAILED TO PASS THE QUALIFIED TESTS AND SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE QUALIFIED TESTS AND SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST. WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT SOME MISUNDERSTANDING MAY HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY THE FACT THAT THE AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS DIVISION REPLIED TO THE BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS ON MARCH 23, 1962, AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE PRODUCT NOT BE REMOVED FROM THE LISTING AT THAT TIME AND BY THE FACT THAT NO REPLY WAS MADE TO THIS LETTER; NEVERTHELESS, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE APRIL 1959 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SERVICES AND THE JULY 1961 QUALIFICATION APPROVAL BY THE AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS DIVISION, THE PRODUCT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUED QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LISTING BECAUSE OF THE NEGATIVE TEST RERUN RESULTS.

MOREOVER, WE BELIEVE THAT THE QUESTION YOU RAISE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ANGLE OF THE NOZZLE DESCRIBED IN THE MIL SPECIFICATION AND THE DRAWINGS REFERENCE IN THE INVITATION FOR BIDS IS ANSWERED BY REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT IN THE DRAWINGS THAT THE SPECIFICATION GOVERNS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS. THIS WOULD CREATE AN IMPLICATION THAT THE CONFIGURATION REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE DRAWING SO THAT THE NET EFFECT WOULD SEEM TO BE A REQUIREMENT FOR A STRAIGHT-THROUGH NOZZLE THAT HAS HAD ITS PERFORMANCE FEATURES APPROVED THROUGH THE QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRED BY THE MIL SPECIFICATION.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE DO NOT FEEL WARRANTED IN DISTURBING OUR JUNE 30 DECISION.

Nov 22, 2017

Nov 21, 2017

  • A-P-T Research, Inc.
    We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part.
    B-414825,B-414825.2

Nov 20, 2017

Nov 16, 2017

  • HBI-GF, JV
    We deny the protest.
    B-415036
  • Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc.
    We dismiss the protest because it raises a matter of contract administration over which we do not exercise jurisdiction.
    B-414410.4

Nov 15, 2017

Looking for more? Browse all our products here