B-155868, AUG. 2, 1965

B-155868, AUG. 2, 1965

TO APPLIED RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 7, 1965, CONCERNING THE REJECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL FOR FURNISHING AN ELECTRON MICROBEAM PROBE UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 6359-R-10, ISSUED BY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND, WRIGHT -PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO.

YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE REJECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL WAS DENIED IN OUR DECISION OF APRIL 6, 1965, FOR THE REASON THAT THE AIR FORCE REPORTED THAT THE EQUIPMENT OFFERED BY YOU, AS DESCRIBED IN YOUR PROPOSAL, FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS:

"A1. IT MUST BE POSSIBLE TO FOCUS THE PROBE TO A SPOT AT LEAST AS SMALL AS ONE MICRON IN DIAMETER * * *.

"A4. THE VACUUM SYSTEM SHALL HAVE SUITABLE SAFETY FEATURES TO PROTECT THE APPARATUS IN THE EVENT OF POWER OR WATER FAILURE.

"B. A MAGNIFICATION OF AT LEAST 300X IS REQUIRED.

"C. X AND Y TRANSLATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO UP AND DOWN MOTION.'

IN YOUR LETTER OF MAY 7, 1965, IT IS STATED "THESE FOUR TECHNICAL REASONS ARE IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO INFORMATION PROVIDED TO WRIGHT PATTERSON WITH THE BID PACKAGE AND IN A QUALIFYING LETTER REQUESTED OF US BY LT. H.S. ROEY OF THE CONTRACT DEPARTMENT ON OCTOBER 27, 1964.' IN VIEW OF YOUR CONTENTIONS, A FURTHER REPORT WAS REQUESTED FROM THE AIR FORCE AND WE ARE ADVISED WITH RESPECT THERETO AS FOLLOWS:

"2. POINT ONE (1) OF ARL'S LETTER STATES "IT WAS STATED TO THE GROUP AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON BY APPLIED RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC. (ARL)PERSONNEL THAT, IN FACT, THE BEAM DIAMETER CAN BE FOCUSED TO LESS THAN 1 MICRON.' THIS STATEMENT APPEARS NOWHERE IN THE PROPOSAL NOR WAS IT SUBMITTED AS ADDITIONAL VERBAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION DURING THE EVALUATION TO AFML PERSONNEL AS IMPLIED BY ARL. THEREFORE, THE BEAM SPOT SIZE WAS EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN REPLY TO THE RFP,"ELECTRON BEAM DIAMETER--- 3000 MICRONS TO LESS THAN 2 MICRONS CONTINUOUSLY ADJUSTABLE.'

"3. POINT TWO (2) OF ARL'S LETTER STATES THAT "VACUUM SYSTEM OPERATION IN ANY MICROPROBE REQUIRES SUITABLE SAFETY FEATURES TO PROTECT THE APPARATUS IN EVENT OF POWER OR WATER FAILURE.' THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED FROM ARL STATES "PNEUMATICALLY ACTUATED GATE VALVE BETWEEN DIFFUSION PUMP AND SPECTROMETER TANK TO AUTOMATICALLY CLOSE UPON POWER FAILURE.' NO MENTION WAS MADE IN THE ARL PROPOSAL OR VERBALLY, OF A SAFETY INTERLOCK IN CASE OF WATER FAILURE. THIS FEATURE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED IN THE RFP AND TO ASSUME AN INSTRUMENT WOULD CONTAIN THIS ITEM WOULD BE POOR PROCUREMENT PRACTICE. THE ALLEGATION MADE BY ARL THAT THE PHILIPS UNIT DOES NOT HAVE A FEATURE TO REDUCE THE PROPENSITY TO CONTAMINATION DURING SAMPLE AND ELECTRON GUN FILAMENT CHANGES IS INVALID SINCE A MANUAL VACUUM VALVE IS PROVIDED TO ISOLATE THE COLUMN FROM VACUUM SYSTEM TO PRECLUDE CONTAMINATION DURING THESE CHANGES.

"4. POINT THREE (3) OF ARL'S LETTER STATES "THE MAGNIFICATION OF THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING THE 2.5 X LENS WILL BE FROM 250X TO 500X.' SINCE A DESCRIPTION OF THE MAGNIFICATION OF THE SYSTEM PROPOSED BY ARL WAS VERY CONFUSING, A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. PARSONS AND LT. LANE, MAMP, AND LT. ROEY, SERRA, AND MR. ABLEMANN, ARL, WAS REQUIRED TO CLARIFY THIS POINT. AS A RESULT OF THIS CONVERSATION, THE MAGNIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED ARL (AMX) MICROPROBE WAS DETERMINED TO BE 25OX WHICH WAS BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY THE RFP. SUBSEQUENTLY, A LETTER CONFIRMING THE VERBAL CONVERSATION WITH ARL WAS RECEIVED ON 29 OCTOBER 1964. THE LETTER WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE VERBAL INFORMATION RECEIVED, IN THAT ARL NOW PROVIDED A RANGE WHICH WOULD MEET THE MINIMUM REQUESTED IN THE RFP.

"5. POINT FOUR (4) OF ARL'S LETTER CONCERNS SPECIMEN STAGE MOTION. THE DISADVANTAGE OF A SPECIMEN STAGE THAT HAS NO UP AND DOWN MOTION IS THAT IN ORDER TO FOCUS THE BEAM ON SPECIFIC SPECIMEN SURFACE AREAS WHICH MAY BE NON-COMPLANAR AT HIGH MAGNIFICATION, THE LENS CURRENT MUST BE VARIED. THIS IS UNSATISFACTORY BECAUSE AS MANY CRITICAL PARAMETERS AS POSSIBLE SHOULD BE HELD CONSTANT DURING THE ANALYSIS. THE ARL (AMX) MICROPROBE WAS EVALUATED AS NOT HAVING AN UP AND DOWN MOTION BASED ON THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED. THE ARL REBUTTAL TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL PURPORTS TO QUOTE FROM THE BID, WHEN IN FACT IT DOES NOT AGREE WITH WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED 2 PAGES WHICH UNDERLINE SECTIONS OF THE PERTINENT PARAGRAPHS FROM THE ARL BID.

"6. IN SUMMARY, EVALUATING PERSONNEL DISAGREE WITH STATEMENTS IN THE ARL REBUTTAL WHICH INDICATE THAT CERTAIN POSITIVE CONCLUSIONS WERE SELF- EVIDENT. IT IS FELT THAT INFORMATION SUPPLIED IN THE PROPOSAL WAS NOT COMPLETE, NOR DID IT SPECIALLY RESPOND TO MANY OF THE ITEMS SPELLED OUT IN THE RFP. ASSUMPTIONS CANNOT BE MADE THAT SPECIFICATIONS ARE MET BECAUSE THE BIDDER HAS NOT TAKEN EXCEPTION TO THEM (I.E. POINT 1), OR BECAUSE IT IS LOGICAL TO INCLUDE CERTAIN EQUIPMENT (I.E. POINT 2). SINCE THE BIDDER DID NOT PROVIDE CLEAR, POSITIVE STATEMENTS WHICH CONVEY COMPLIANCE TO POINTS REQUESTED IN THE RFP THE EVALUATION ACCORDINGLY REFLECTS THESE DISCREPANCIES. WHEN COMPARED TO THE 2 OTHER PROPOSALS PRESENTED IN RESPONSE TO THE RFP, THE ARL PROPOSAL WAS CONSIDERED POOR IN COMPARISON BECAUSE OF LACK OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION. AN EFFORT WAS MADE TO OBTAIN A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAPABILITY OF THE PROPOSED EQUIPMENT AND PRESENT ARL'S MICROPROBE IN THE BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT. THIS INCLUDED VERBAL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM THE BIDDER TO SHORE UP SEVERAL POINTS OF AMBIGUITY.'

AS STATED IN THE DECISION OF APRIL 6, 1965, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE EQUIPMENT OFFERED COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE RFP. IT APPEARS TO US THAT THE DISAGREEMENT CAN BE TRACED TO YOUR FAILURE TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE AND DETAILED TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND TO YOUR RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT CONTAINED IN YOUR ACCOMPANYING LETTER THAT:

"THE AMH CATEGORICALLY MEETS ALL OF THE SPECIFICATIONS LISTED BY YOUR TECHNICAL PEOPLE. I HAVE ENCLOSED A TENTATIVE SET OF SPECIFICATIONS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS INSTRUMENT FOR YOUR PERUSAL. BY AND LARGE YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE INSTRUMENT'S SPECIFICATIONS DO, IN FACT, EXCEED MANY OF THOSE REQUIRED BY YOUR TECHNICAL STAFF.'

THE RFP SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED AND REQUIRED THAT TECHNICAL DATA BE SUBMITTED TO DESCRIBE THE EQUIPMENT OFFERED AND THIS IS CLEARLY SHOWN FROM THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:

PARAGRAPH 1, PAGE 1 OF THE RFP DATED AUGUST 12, 1964:

"THE AIR FORCE INVITES YOUR ORGANIZATION TO SUBMIT A NEW PROPOSAL COVERING THE DELIVERABLE ITEM CALLED FOR IN SUBJECT PURCHASE REQUEST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REVISED EXHIBIT A ATTACHED. THIS REQUEST SUPERSEDES RFP DATED 22 OCTOBER 1963 AND IS BEING MADE TO INCORPORATE THE LATEST ADVANCES IN THE STATE-OF-THE-ART.'

PARAGRAPH 1 OF EXHIBIT C OF THE RFP:

"A. YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, WHICH WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IN THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT, SHOULD BE SPECIFIC AND COMPLETE. DOLLAR VALUES SHOULD BE COMPLETELY REMOVED SO THAT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION MAY BE MADE WITHOUT REGARD TO COST. THE DIFFICULTY OF PREDICTING ALL ENGINEERING PROBLEMS IN ADVANCE IS UNDERSTOOD, AND IT IS APPRECIATED THAT EXPENSES LOOM LARGE WHEN ADVANCE PROPOSALS ARE PREPARED. PROPOSALS, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE PRACTICAL. ELABORATE FORMAT, BINDERS AND THE LIKE ARE NEITHER NECESSARY NOR DESIRED; LEGIBILITY, CLARITY, AND COHERENCE BEING VERY IMPORTANT.

"B. THE PROPOSALS SHOULD CONTAIN AN OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED LINES OF INVESTIGATION, METHOD OF APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM, ANY RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE TECHNICAL EXHIBIT, THE PHASES OR STEPS INTO WHICH THIS PROJECT MIGHT LOGICALLY BE DIVIDED, ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED TO COMPLETE EACH PHASE OR STEP, AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED PERTINENT TO THE PROBLEM. THE PROPOSAL SHOULD NOT MERELY OFFER TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TECHNICAL EXHIBIT BUT SHOULD OUTLINE THE ACTUAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED AS SPECIFICALLY AS POSSIBLE. FURTHER, THE TECHNICAL EXHIBIT IS NOT INTENDED AS A STATEMENT OF WORK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, BUT RATHER AS AN INDICATION OF SOME OF THE POSSIBLE APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM AS RECOGNIZED BY THIS AGENCY. THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT LIMITED TO THE SUGGESTED APPROACHES BUT IS ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT HIS OWN APPROACHES FOR EQUAL OR EVEN PREFERRED CONSIDERATION.'

PARAGRAPH 5B OF EXHIBIT D OF THE RFP:

"C. BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE WORK CALLED FOR IN THIS PROCUREMENT, IT IS NOT BEING FORMALLY ADVERTISED BUT WILL BE NEGOTIATED. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL SELECT THE BEST OVERALL PROPOSAL, BASED ON THE TECHNICAL MERIT, COST, AND OTHER FACTORS. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE WITH ANY CONTRACTOR AND TO REJECT AS THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST MAY APPEAR, ANY AND ALL QUOTATIONS AND PROPOSALS RECEIVED, OR TO WAIVE ANY MINOR INFORMALITY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.'

UNDER THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THE RFP, WE BELIEVE THAT A CLEAR AND COMPLETE PRESENTATION OF THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE EQUIPMENT OFFERED WAS REQUIRED AND THAT THE FAILURE OF A PROPOSAL TO TAKE EXCEPTION TO STATED REQUIREMENTS COULD NOT PROPERLY BE CONSTRUED AS INDICATING THAT THE OFFEROR PROPOSED TO COMPLY. IN OTHER WORDS, SILENCE, VERBAL ASSURANCE, OR AN OVERALL OFFER OF COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS, AS CONTAINED IN THE LETTER ACCOMPANYING YOUR PROPOSAL, COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON. RATHER, A CLEAR AND SPECIFIC SHOWING, IN WRITING, OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS BEING OFFERED AND WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IF THE OFFER WAS ACCEPTED.

ACCORDINGLY, SINCE THE AIR FORCE REPORTS THAT THE DATA SUBMITTED WITH YOUR PROPOSAL FAILED TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, WE FIND NO BASIS TO QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN.