B-112560, FEB 27, 1953

B-112560: Feb 27, 1953

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE EVERSON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 25. YOU STATE IN YOUR LETTER THAT THE EVERSON CHLORINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT MEETS THE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AND SHOULD BE APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE "ESPECIALLY WHEN A CONSIDERABLE SAVING OF MONEY IS INVOLVED.". WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT YOUR PROTEST RELATES TO INVITATION NO. 02-606-53-38 WHICH SOLICITED BIDS FOR REHABILITATION OF WATER AND SEVAGE SYSTEMS AT YUMA COUNTY AIRPORT. A CONTRACT FOR THE WORK WAS AWARDED TO F.J. WITH RESPECT TO THIS PHASE OF THE MATTER AND TO THE REASONS WHY AWARD WAS NOT MADE TO YOU FOR THE CHLORINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT. THE REPORT IS AS FOLLOWS: "1.

B-112560, FEB 27, 1953

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

EVERSON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 25, 1952, AND ENCLOSURES, PROTESTING THE DISAPPROVAL OF CHLORINATORS ORDERED FROM CALIFORNIA, FOR WORK BEING PERFORMED AT THE YUMA AIR FORCE BASE, YUMA, ARIZONA, UNDER CONTRACT NO. AF02-(606)-22, DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 1952.

YOU STATE IN YOUR LETTER THAT THE EVERSON CHLORINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT MEETS THE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AND SHOULD BE APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE "ESPECIALLY WHEN A CONSIDERABLE SAVING OF MONEY IS INVOLVED."

IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST OF THIS OFFICE FOR A REPORT OF THE FACTS IN THE MATTER, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HAS FORWARDED A REPORT BY THE COMMANDING GENERAL, HEADQUARTERS WESTERN AIR DEFENSE FORCE, HAMILTON AIR FORCE BASE, HAMILTON, CALIFORNIA, WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT YOUR PROTEST RELATES TO INVITATION NO. 02-606-53-38 WHICH SOLICITED BIDS FOR REHABILITATION OF WATER AND SEVAGE SYSTEMS AT YUMA COUNTY AIRPORT, YUMA, ARIZONA. A CONTRACT FOR THE WORK WAS AWARDED TO F.J. BUCKNER CORPORATION ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1952, REQUIRING THE CONTRACTOR, AMONG OTHER ITEMS, TO REPAIR AND RECONDITION THE CHLORINATORS.

WITH RESPECT TO THIS PHASE OF THE MATTER AND TO THE REASONS WHY AWARD WAS NOT MADE TO YOU FOR THE CHLORINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT, THE REPORT IS AS FOLLOWS:

"1. CONTRACT NUMBER AF-02(606)-22, 4750TH AIR BASE GROUP (WEAPONS TRAINING), YUMA COUNTY AIRPORT, YUMA, ARIZONA, (REFERENCE INCLOSURE NO. 2), SPECIFIED REHABILITATION OF EXISTING CHLORINATING EQUIPMENT. THIS EQUIPMENT IS THE HIGHEST TYPE MANUFACTURED BY THE WALLACE AND TIERNAN COMPANY. IT IS FULLY AUTOMATIC AND COMPLETE WITH DIFFERENTIAL CONVERTERS FOR THE PROPORTIONAL METERING OF CHLORINE GAS UPON FLUCTUATING DEMANDS CREATED BY VARIABLE VELOCITIES IN THE WATER SYSTEM AT THIS BASE.

"2. THE PRIME CONTRACTOR ON ABOVE-REFERENCED CONTRACT, F.J. BUCKNER CORPORATION, OF HIS OWN VOLITION, CONTACTED THE EVERSON COMPANY AND OBTAINED A QUOTATION OF $7,800.00 FOR NEW EVERSON STERELATORS, AS INDICATED IN ATTACHED LETTER FROM THE 4750TH AIR BASE GROUP (WEAPONS TRAINING), YUMA COUNTY AIRPORT, INCLOSURE NO. 3. THIS PROPOSED EQUIPMENT WAS APPARENTLY FULLY AUTOMATIC AND FUNCTIONALLY COMPETITIVE TO THE PRESENTLY INSTALLED WALLACE AND TIERNAN EQUIPMENT; HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR REQUESTED A 42,000.00 INCREASE IN HIS CONTRACT (REFERENCE INCLOSURE NO. 4). THIS HEADQUARTERS APPROVED THIS INSTALLATION, PROVIDED NO INCREASE IN CONTRACT COST WAS INCURRED (REFERENCE INCLOSURE NO. 5); WHEREUPON, THE CONTRACTOR PLACED AN ORDER WITH THE EVERSON COMPANY, WITHOUT AUTHORITY, FOR CHEAPER EQUIPMENT, AT TOTAL COST OF $4,145.00. ***

"3. WHEN THIS HEADQUARTERS LEARNED THAT THE CONTRACTOR INTENDED SUBSTITUTING NEW EQUIPMENT, WHICH WAS FUNCTIONALLY INFERIOR TO THE PRESENTLY INSTALLED EQUIPMENT; I.E., WOULD START AND STOP AUTOMATICALLY BUT WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY PROPORTION CHLORINE GAS UPON DEMAND, THE COMMANDING OFFICER, 4750TH AIR BASE GROUP (WEAPONS TRAINING), YUMA COUNTY AIRPORT, WAS DIRECTED TO HAVE THE CONTRACTOR ABIDE BY THE PROVISIONS OF HIS CONTRACT AND REHABILITATE THE EXISTING EQUIPMENT.

"4.REHABILITATION OF PRESENTLY INSTALLED EQUIPMENT BY WALLACE AND TIERNAN PERSONNEL WAS COMPLETED 8 DECEMBER 1950, AT COST OF $4,750.00 TO THE CONTRACTOR. EQUIPMENT WAS COMPLETELY REPAINTED WITH THREE (3) COATS OF DU PONT ENAMEL; ONE NEW PEDESTAL WAS INSTALLED; ALL NECESSARY PARTS AND UNIT ASSEMBLIES WERE REPLACED; ALL EQUIPMENT WAS PLACED IN FACTORY - OPERATING CONDITION AND CARRIES A ONE (1) YEAR GUARANTEE, THE SAME AS NEW EQUIPMENT.

"5. UNDER THIS PORTION OF THE CONTRACT, AS ACCOMPLISHED, THE CONTRACTOR HAS CLEARED APPROXIMATELY $400.00. UNDER HIS PROPOSAL TO INSTALL THE SEMI -AUTOMATIC EQUIPMENT, HE WOULD HAVE CLEARED APPROXIMATELY $1,000.00. EITHER CASE, THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME, $5,150.00; HOWEVER, AS ACCOMPLISHED, THE GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF FULLY AUTOMATIC EQUIPMENT FOR THE LEAST POSSIBLE COST. THIS CONNECTION, ATTENTION IS INVITED TO PARAGRAPH 4 OF MR. EVERSON'S LETTER, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE QUITE ACCURATE, SINCE ONE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT IS INHERENTLY DESIGNED FOR A MUCH MORE COMPLEX AND SENSITIVE FUNCTION THAN THE OTHER."

THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER EQUIPMENT SUCH AS HERE INVOLVED IS NECESSARY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT IS ONE PRIMARILY FOR DETERMINATION BY THOSE CHARGED WITH OPERATING RESPONSIBILITY. THE ABOVE REPORT WOULD INDICATE THAT THE MATERIAL ORDERED BY THE PRIME CONTRACTOR FROM YOU IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONTRACT INVOLVED WAS FUNCTIONALLY INFERIOR TO THE PRESENTLY INSTALLED EQUIPMENT IN THAT IT WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY PROPORTION CHLORINE GAS UPON DEMAND. IF TRUE, YOUR EQUIPMENT FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

ACCORDINGLY, ON THE RECORD THERE IS NO PROPER BASIS UPON WHICH THIS OFFICE WOULD BE WARRANTED IN QUESTIONING THE ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE IN THE MATTER.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED "A CONSIDERABLE SAVING OF MONEY" HAD YOUR EQUIPMENT BEEN PURCHASED, ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT THE PRIME CONTRACT IS A FIXED PRICE CONTRACT SO THAT THE PURCHASE OF CHEAPER EQUIPMENT WOULD HAVE RESULTED ONLY IN A SAVING TO THE CONTRACTOR AND NOT TO THE GOVERNMENT.