B-132164, JUL. 15, 1957

B-132164: Jul 15, 1957

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

RINGER AND ASSOCIATES: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 8. IT IS STATED THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS IN QUESTION WERE CONDUCTED BY THE NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND EVALUATION LABORATORY AT PORT HUENEME. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LABORATORY WERE NEGOTIATING WITH THE COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A RADIOLOGICAL DECONTAMINATION SWEEPER. IT IS INDICATED THAT YOU REPRESENTED THE COLEMAN COMPANY IN ITS FIRST NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE NAVY ON THIS PROJECT. FURTHER SETS FORTH THAT IT WAS EVENTUALLY DECIDED THAT THE CONTRACT SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED TO YOUR FIRM. BECAUSE THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE LABORATORY CONCLUDED THAT THE COLEMAN PROPOSAL WAS A BETTER ONE FROM THE GOVERNMENT VIEWPOINT.

B-132164, JUL. 15, 1957

TO MR. KARL RINGER, RINGER AND ASSOCIATES:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 8, 1957, RELATIVE TO YOUR PROTEST AGAINST A NEGOTIATED CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER FIRM FOR THE ADAPTATION OF AN AIRFIELD VACUUM SWEEPER FOR RADIOLOGICAL DECONTAMINATION WORK.

IN A LETTER DATED JULY 8, 1957, FROM THE BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, IT IS STATED THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS IN QUESTION WERE CONDUCTED BY THE NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND EVALUATION LABORATORY AT PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LABORATORY WERE NEGOTIATING WITH THE COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A RADIOLOGICAL DECONTAMINATION SWEEPER. IT IS INDICATED THAT YOU REPRESENTED THE COLEMAN COMPANY IN ITS FIRST NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE NAVY ON THIS PROJECT. HOWEVER, BEFORE THESE NEGOTIATIONS HAD REACHED ANY DEFINITE CONCLUSION, YOU ADVISED THE LABORATORY THAT YOU HAD SEVERED YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY AND YOU SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL FOR THE SAME GENERAL STUDY. THE LABORATORY GAVE SOME CONSIDERATION TO THIS PROPOSAL.

THE LETTER OF JULY 8, 1957, FURTHER SETS FORTH THAT IT WAS EVENTUALLY DECIDED THAT THE CONTRACT SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED TO YOUR FIRM, FIRST, BECAUSE THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE LABORATORY CONCLUDED THAT THE COLEMAN PROPOSAL WAS A BETTER ONE FROM THE GOVERNMENT VIEWPOINT; AND, SECOND, BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME QUESTION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF DEALING WITH YOU ON A PROJECT WHICH YOU HAD FIRST ENTERED INTO AS AN EMPLOYEE OF A COMPETING FIRM. THE STUDY WAS, THEREFORE, AWARDED TO THE COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY.

IN REGARD TO THE DETAILS OF YOUR COMPLAINT, WE ARE ADVISED THAT THE LABORATORY DENIES THAT ANY LETTER OF INTENT TO YOU WAS EVER PREPARED AND WITHHELD; DENIES THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WAS FINALLY CONSIDERED THE BEST FOR THIS PROJECT; DENIES THAT YOU WERE GIVEN EVASIVE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION; AND INSISTS THAT YOU WERE GIVEN FULL, CAREFUL AND COURTEOUS CONSIDERATION AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

IN VIEW OF SUCH REPORT, NO FURTHER ACTION IN REGARD TO YOUR PROTEST APPEARS TO BE REQUIRED BY OUR OFFICE AND THE MATTER WILL BE CONSIDERED AS CLOSED.