B-123822, JUL. 8, 1955

B-123822: Jul 8, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

MORSE AND COMPANY: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEFAX RECEIVED HERE MAY 2. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HAS FURNISHED A REPORT IN THE MATTER WHEREIN THE VIEW IS EXPRESSED THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE AND THAT THEY CONFORM TO ACCEPTED CURRENT INDUSTRY PRACTICES. ALTHOUGH THE BASIS OF YOUR PROTEST IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR. IT IS REPORTED THAT YOU COULD HAVE BID ON YOUR 300 RPM SINGLE CRANK SHAFT ENGINE WHICH. THAT YOU DESIRED TO BID ON YOUR 720 RPM OPPOSED PISTON ENGINE WHICH WAS OUTSIDE THE PERMISSIBLE SPEED RANGE FOR THE INTENDED USE. IT IS REPORTED FURTHER THAT RESPONSIVE BIDS WERE RECEIVED FROM EIGHT MANUFACTURERS AND THAT A SATISFACTORY BID WAS RECEIVED ON ACCEPTABLE EQUIPMENT.

B-123822, JUL. 8, 1955

TO FAIRBANKS, MORSE AND COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEFAX RECEIVED HERE MAY 2, 1955, ACKNOWLEDGED MAY 9, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT BY WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY UNDER THEIR FILE NO. AP8-15.2 FOR FURNISHING DIESEL GENERATOR SETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS S-1476-1 FOR USE AT CERTAIN AIR FORCE INSTALLATIONS. YOU REQUEST THAT ALL BIDS BE REJECTED AND THAT NEW BIDS BE REQUESTED ON REVISED SPECIFICATIONS.

IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST BY THIS OFFICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HAS FURNISHED A REPORT IN THE MATTER WHEREIN THE VIEW IS EXPRESSED THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE AND THAT THEY CONFORM TO ACCEPTED CURRENT INDUSTRY PRACTICES. ALTHOUGH THE BASIS OF YOUR PROTEST IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR, IT IS REPORTED THAT YOU COULD HAVE BID ON YOUR 300 RPM SINGLE CRANK SHAFT ENGINE WHICH, HOWEVER, WOULD NOT BE COMPETITIVE WITH 450 RPM ENGINES ALLOWABLE UNDER THE SPECIFICATIONS; AND THAT YOU DESIRED TO BID ON YOUR 720 RPM OPPOSED PISTON ENGINE WHICH WAS OUTSIDE THE PERMISSIBLE SPEED RANGE FOR THE INTENDED USE. IT IS REPORTED FURTHER THAT RESPONSIVE BIDS WERE RECEIVED FROM EIGHT MANUFACTURERS AND THAT A SATISFACTORY BID WAS RECEIVED ON ACCEPTABLE EQUIPMENT.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THERE APPEARS NO PROPER BASIS UPON WHICH THIS OFFICE WOULD BE WARRANTED IN OBJECTING TO THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT ON THE BASIS OF THE BIDS RECEIVED.