B-185566, MAY 19, 1976
Highlights
REQUEST FOR SECOND ROUND OF BEST AND FINAL OFFERS WAS NOT OBJECTIONABLE WHERE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINES THAT DUE TO CHANGED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS (DECLINE IN PRIME INTEREST RATE) ORIGINAL OFFERS MAY RESULT IN UNREALISTIC PRICING IS AFFIRMED. A REQUEST BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR A SECOND ROUND OF BEST AND FINAL OFFERS BECAUSE CHANGED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS MAY RESULT IN UNREALISTIC PRICING WAS NOT OBJECTIONABLE. SYCOR'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS BASED ON PUBLIC STATEMENTS REFLECTING POSITIONS TAKEN IN OUR DECISIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT ADDITIONAL ROUNDS OF BEST AND FINAL OFFERS SHOULD BE CALLED FOR IN NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS ONLY FOR VALID REASONS AND NOT SIMPLY IN THE EXPECTATION THAT SUCCESSIVE ROUNDS MAY REDUCE PRICES.
B-185566, MAY 19, 1976
PRIOR DECISION HOLDING THAT WHEN 120-DAY OFFER ACCEPTANCE PERIOD EXPIRED, REQUEST FOR SECOND ROUND OF BEST AND FINAL OFFERS WAS NOT OBJECTIONABLE WHERE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINES THAT DUE TO CHANGED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS (DECLINE IN PRIME INTEREST RATE) ORIGINAL OFFERS MAY RESULT IN UNREALISTIC PRICING IS AFFIRMED.
SYCOR, INC.:
SYCOR, INC. (SYCOR), HAS REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION B-185566, APRIL 27, 1976, WHICH DENIED SYCOR'S PROTEST AGAINST THE REOPENING OF PRICE NEGOTIATIONS BY THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. DSAH00-75-R-0055.
OUR PRIOR DECISION HELD THAT WHERE THE 120-DAY OFFER ACCEPTANCE PERIOD HAD EXPIRED AND COST AND TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED, A REQUEST BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR A SECOND ROUND OF BEST AND FINAL OFFERS BECAUSE CHANGED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS MAY RESULT IN UNREALISTIC PRICING WAS NOT OBJECTIONABLE.
SYCOR'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS BASED ON PUBLIC STATEMENTS REFLECTING POSITIONS TAKEN IN OUR DECISIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT ADDITIONAL ROUNDS OF BEST AND FINAL OFFERS SHOULD BE CALLED FOR IN NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS ONLY FOR VALID REASONS AND NOT SIMPLY IN THE EXPECTATION THAT SUCCESSIVE ROUNDS MAY REDUCE PRICES. SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, ILC DOVER, B-182104, NOVEMBER 29, 1974, 74-2 CPD PARA. 301, AND B-176283, FEBRUARY 5, 1973. IN THIS CASE, WE FOUND - AND REMAIN OF THE VIEW - THAT THE LENGTHY OFFER ACCEPTANCE PERIOD AND THE CHANGE IN THE ECONOMIC CLIMATE EVIDENCED BY A DECLINE IN THE PRIME INTEREST RATE JUSTIFIED AN ADDITIONAL ROUND. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DID NOT REQUEST A NEW ROUND OF BEST AND FINAL OFFERS MERELY ON THE HOPE OF REDUCING PRICES BUT ON THE BELIEF THAT THE ORIGINAL OFFERS REPRESENTED UNREALISTIC PRICING IN TERMS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION.
THEREFORE, WE AFFIRM OUR PRIOR DECISION.