B-123566, B-123567, AUG. 4, 1955

B-123566,B-123567: Aug 4, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE COPIES OF YOUR LETTERS DATED MARCH 23. IT APPEARS FROM INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE THAT ALL BIDS WERE REJECTED BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS HAD CHANGED. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT. WAS BEING REWRITTEN AS OF JUNE 2. NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT PARAGRAPH WERE CONTEMPLATED. THE TURNER AIR FORCE BASE ADVISED THAT A NUMBER OF FIRE DETECTING COMPANIES HAD BEEN CONTACTED AND THEY HAVE STATED THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE. IT IS REPORTED THAT IDENTICAL SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN USED AT OTHER BASES WHERE OVER TEN DIFFERENT FIRMS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUBMIT BIDS WITHOUT RESTRAINT.

B-123566, B-123567, AUG. 4, 1955

TO LORD-TABER COMPANY, INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE COPIES OF YOUR LETTERS DATED MARCH 23, 1955, CONCERNING YOUR PROTESTS AGAINST SPECIFICATIONS FOR FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS AS INCORPORATED IN INVITATIONS FOR BIDS NOS. 09-608-55 21 AND 34- 601-55-294, ISSUED BY THE TURNER AIR FORCE BASE, ALBANY, GEORGIA, AND THE TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA.

IN THE CASE OF INVITATION NO. 34-601-55-294, IT APPEARS FROM INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE THAT ALL BIDS WERE REJECTED BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS HAD CHANGED. THEREFORE, WE WOULD BE WARRANTED IN CONSIDERING ONLY YOUR PROTEST IN REGARD TO INVITATION NO. 09-608-55-21. AS TO THAT INVITATION, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT, WHILE PARAGRAPH TP-9, PAGE T-3 OF THE TECHNICAL PROVISIONS, WAS BEING REWRITTEN AS OF JUNE 2, 1955, NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT PARAGRAPH WERE CONTEMPLATED.

IN ITS REPORT OF JUNE 2, 1955, TO THE DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT AND PRODUCTION, HEADQUARTERS, USAF, THE TURNER AIR FORCE BASE ADVISED THAT A NUMBER OF FIRE DETECTING COMPANIES HAD BEEN CONTACTED AND THEY HAVE STATED THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE. ALSO, IT IS REPORTED THAT IDENTICAL SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN USED AT OTHER BASES WHERE OVER TEN DIFFERENT FIRMS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUBMIT BIDS WITHOUT RESTRAINT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN QUESTIONING THE SPECIFICATIONS AS BEING UNDULY RESTRICTIVE.

ACCORDINGLY, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT, ON THE PRESENT RECORD, NO FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ..END :