B-149183, NOV. 2, 1962
Highlights
WHICH CONTINUED TO CONSIDER THAT YOUR BID WAS BASICALLY NONRESPONSIVE FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR INITIAL DECISION OF JULY 31. IN WHICH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MACHINE OFFERED BY YOU WAS COMPARED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFICATION XFWGS-167. THIS COMPARISON WAS PREDICATED ON THE FACT THAT IN THE BILL OF MATERIALS. WHICH WAS A PART OF YOUR BID. THE MACHINE OFFERED WAS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS AN MD 4 TYPE. THERE ARE SHOWN NUMEROUS SQUARES. IT IS NOT AGREED THAT "ALL OF THE PRINCIPAL ITEMS" WERE SUBMITTED ON THE BILL OF MATERIALS. WERE NOT IDENTIFIED AS LINE ITEMS IN THE BILL OF MATERIALS. THIS PROPOSAL THEREFORE IS BASED ON USING FABRICATIONS FOR THE MOTOR- GENERATOR FRAMES. ELECTRIC PRODUCTS CONSIDERS THIS TO BE INFERIOR IN QUALITY TO MOTOR-GENERATORS USING CASTINGS AND WILL FURNISH CASTINGS AT NO INCREASE IN PRICE. * * *" IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT NO OFFER TO "FURNISH A FABRICATED STEEL CONSTRUCTION" IS MADE IN THE ABOVE QUOTATION FROM THE BIDDER'S PROPOSAL.
B-149183, NOV. 2, 1962
TO THE ELECTRIC PRODUCTS COMPANY:
YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 29, 1962, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 24, 1962, WHICH AFFIRMED OUR ORIGINAL DECISION OF JULY 31, 1962, DENYING YOUR PROTEST AGAINST REJECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY OF YOUR BID AS NONRESPONSIVE TO THE SPECIFICATIONS IN INVITATION FOR BIDS 600-701-62. IN VIEW OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN YOUR MOST RECENT LETTER, WE REQUESTED A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.
ON OCTOBER 11, 1962, WE RECEIVED THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, WHICH CONTINUED TO CONSIDER THAT YOUR BID WAS BASICALLY NONRESPONSIVE FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR INITIAL DECISION OF JULY 31, 1962. THE REPORT REFERS PARTICULARLY TO THE TABLE SPECIFICATIONS CONTAINED ON PAGE 2 OF THAT DECISION, IN WHICH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MACHINE OFFERED BY YOU WAS COMPARED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFICATION XFWGS-167. THIS COMPARISON WAS PREDICATED ON THE FACT THAT IN THE BILL OF MATERIALS, WHICH WAS A PART OF YOUR BID, THE MACHINE OFFERED WAS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS AN MD 4 TYPE, WHICH DID NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
IN REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS MADE IN YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 29, 1962, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY OFFERED THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
1. THE SUBJECT INVITATION FOR BIDS LISTED AND REQUIRED THAT ADEQUATE DATA AND DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE BE FURNISHED ON 12 PARAGRAPHS IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE COMPANY SUBMITTED DATA TO SATISFY ONLY THREE OF THESE. IN ITS DRAWING D57888, THERE ARE SHOWN NUMEROUS SQUARES, RECTANGLES AND CIRCLES, ALPHABETICALLY DESIGNATED. THEY APPEAR IN THE REQUIRED BILL OF MATERIALS, IDENTIFIED ONLY AS MANUFACTURERS' PART NUMBERS, WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF SIZE, MATERIAL, WEIGHT, CAPACITY OR OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS.
2. IT IS NOT AGREED THAT "ALL OF THE PRINCIPAL ITEMS" WERE SUBMITTED ON THE BILL OF MATERIALS. SEVERAL COMPONENTS, OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO BE SHOWN IN THE SCHEMATIC WIRING DIAGRAM, WERE NOT IDENTIFIED AS LINE ITEMS IN THE BILL OF MATERIALS. THE BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS CONSIDERS SUCH AN OMISSION A DEFICIENCY IN THE COMPANY'S PROPOSAL.
3. THE ELECTRIC PRODUCTS COMPANY PROPOSAL LETTER OF MAY 28, 1962, STATES:
"AMENDMENT 5 ALSO PROHIBITS THE USE OF CASTINGS IN THE MOTOR GENERATOR. THIS PROPOSAL THEREFORE IS BASED ON USING FABRICATIONS FOR THE MOTOR- GENERATOR FRAMES. ELECTRIC PRODUCTS CONSIDERS THIS TO BE INFERIOR IN QUALITY TO MOTOR-GENERATORS USING CASTINGS AND WILL FURNISH CASTINGS AT NO INCREASE IN PRICE. * * *"
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT NO OFFER TO "FURNISH A FABRICATED STEEL CONSTRUCTION" IS MADE IN THE ABOVE QUOTATION FROM THE BIDDER'S PROPOSAL. IN FACT, THE WORD "STEEL" IS NOT USED IN ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL OR AMENDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY THE BIDDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE COMPANY IS INACCURATE IN ITS PROTEST LETTER STATEMENT THAT "FABRICATED STEEL CONSTRUCTION" WAS PROPOSED.
4. THE COMPANY'S CLAIM THAT ITS EQUIPMENT IS WEATHERPROOF IS WELL PHRASED BUT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENT THAT THE MOTOR GENERATOR BE SPLASHPROOF. REQUIREMENT IN PARAGRAPH 3.7.4 OF XFWGS-167 STATES THAT THE MOTOR GENERATOR SHALL MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFICATION CC-M- 641B. THE COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE BIDDER ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ENCLOSURE AND THE EQUIPMENT AS A WHOLE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THEY ARE APPLICABLE TO THE MOTOR GENERATOR ITSELF. UNDER THE BIDDER'S PROPOSAL IF ANY DOORS WERE LEFT OPEN IN THE ENCLOSURE OR THE ENCLOSURE WERE REMOVED FROM THE MOTOR GENERATOR THE AIR FLOW WOULD NOT BE AS STATED BY THE BIDDER AND ANY MOISTURE OR OIL SPLASHING ON AND INTO THE MOTOR GENERATOR WOULD CAUSE A MALFUNCTION OR A FAILURE. A MOTOR GENERATOR THAT IS SPLASHPROOF AND BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 3.7.4 OF XVWGS-167 COULD BE USED OUTDOORS, IN INCLEMENT WEATHER EVEN, AND WITHOUT AN ENCLOSURE, WOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE. THE TERM "WEATHERPROOF" DOES NOT APPEAR IN SPECIFICATION CC-M-641; THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE VALIDLY USED TO INFER THAT THE MOTOR GENERATOR DOES COMPLY.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS WE MUST AGAIN AFFIRM OUR DECISION OF JULY 31, 1962.