B-132873, OCT. 1, 1957

B-132873: Oct 1, 1957

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 YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 6. BIDS WERE REQUESTED FOR 226 ITEMS OF FURNISHINGS. NEGOTIATIONS SUBSEQUENTLY WERE CONDUCTED. SHOWS THAT SUCH NEGOTIATIONS WERE CONDUCTED WITH YOU ON JUNE 21. - WAS $49. WHEREUPON AWARD WAS MADE TO NEPTUNE AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE RECORD OF THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THIS PROCUREMENT AND FIND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE AWARD AS MADE WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.

B-132873, OCT. 1, 1957

TO STANDARD STORE EQUIPMENT CO., INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 6, 1957, PROTESTING THE ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY IN MAKING AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANOTHER BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF A SERVICE CLUB AT FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. QM-18-043-2584-57.

BY THE REQUEST REFERRED TO, ISSUED MAY 9, 1957, BIDS WERE REQUESTED FOR 226 ITEMS OF FURNISHINGS. NEGOTIATIONS SUBSEQUENTLY WERE CONDUCTED, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN 10 U.S.C. 2304/10), WITH THOSE BIDDERS WITHIN THE RANGE OF CONSIDERATION. THE RECORD, FORWARDED WITH A REPORT FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (LOGISTICS), SHOWS THAT SUCH NEGOTIATIONS WERE CONDUCTED WITH YOU ON JUNE 21, 26, AND 29, 1957, AND WITH NEPTUNE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY ON JUNE 26, 1957. THE ABSTRACT OF BIDS REVEALS THAT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF NEGOTIATIONS YOUR FINAL NET PRICE FOR ALL THE ITEMS TO BE AWARDED-- BEFORE APPLICATION OF PRICING FORMULAE FOR RUGS AND UPHOLSTERY MATERIALS--- WAS $49,575.21, AS COMPARED WITH THE NET PRICE OF $48,099.14 QUOTED BY NEPTUNE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, WHEREUPON AWARD WAS MADE TO NEPTUNE AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER.

WE HAVE REVIEWED THE RECORD OF THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THIS PROCUREMENT AND FIND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE AWARD AS MADE WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. CONSEQUENTLY, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT YOUR PROTEST FURNISHES NO PROPER BASIS ON WHICH WE WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN QUESTIONING THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN IN THIS CASE.