B-142652, MAY 24, 1960

B-142652: May 24, 1960

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE REQUIRED DELIVERY DATE WAS STATED AS "156 MONTHLY BEGINNING 30 APRIL 1960.'. THREE BIDS WERE RECEIVED. 730 WAS LOW. THE SECOND LOW BID WAS SUBMITTED BY HEINZ MUELLER ENGINEERING CO. WAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $28.10 EACH. 560 WAS SUBMITTED BY ELECTRIC INDICATOR CO. YOU WERE CONTACTED TO AFFORD YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER A BETTER DELIVERY DATE AND YOU WERE ADVISED THAT DELIVERY WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN EVALUATION OF QUOTATIONS FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT. ALTHOUGH A REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR COMPANY HAS STATED THAT AN EARLIER DELIVERY WAS PROMISED. A PREAWARD SURVEY OF YOUR FIRM WAS MADE BY AN INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL AND HE REPORTED TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICE THAT YOU WERE DELINQUENT ON 4 OF THE 5 NAVY CONTRACTS CURRENTLY BEING PERFORMED.

B-142652, MAY 24, 1960

TO GLOBE INDUSTRIES, INC.:

YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 15, 1960, PROTESTED THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO THE HEINZ MUELLER ENGINEERING CO., INC., UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATION NO. 934- 60, ISSUED BY THE U.S. NAVAL ORDNANCE PLANT, MACON, GEORGIA, ON MARCH 10, 1960.

THE SUBJECT REQUEST FOR QUOTATION SOLICITED PRICES FOR A NEGOTIATED FIXED -PRICE CONTRACT FOR FURNISHING 1,450 TACHOMETERS. THE REQUIRED DELIVERY DATE WAS STATED AS "156 MONTHLY BEGINNING 30 APRIL 1960.' THREE BIDS WERE RECEIVED. YOUR BID IN THE AMOUNT OF $27.40 EACH, OR A TOTAL OF $39,730 WAS LOW. YOU PROPOSED TO MAKE DELIVERY "156 MONTHLY BEGINNING FOURTEEN TO SIXTEEN WEEKS AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDER.' THE SECOND LOW BID WAS SUBMITTED BY HEINZ MUELLER ENGINEERING CO., INC., AND WAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $28.10 EACH, OR A TOTAL OF $40,745. IT PROPOSED DELIVERY OF THE PILOT LOT OF 5 TACHOMETERS WITHIN 45 DAYS AND 156 TACHOMETERS PER MONTH "55 DAYS AFTER APPROVAL.' THE THIRD BID IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,560 WAS SUBMITTED BY ELECTRIC INDICATOR CO., INC.

ON MARCH 24, 1960, AFTER OPENING OF BIDS, YOU WERE CONTACTED TO AFFORD YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER A BETTER DELIVERY DATE AND YOU WERE ADVISED THAT DELIVERY WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN EVALUATION OF QUOTATIONS FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE, MR. HOLT, ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICE THAT A PILOT LOT OF 5 TACHOMETERS COULD BE DELIVERED APRIL 30, 1960, WITH THE BALANCE TO BE DELIVERED AT THE RATE OF 156 TACHOMETERS PER MONTH, STARTING IN 12 WEEKS (JUNE 16). ALTHOUGH A REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR COMPANY HAS STATED THAT AN EARLIER DELIVERY WAS PROMISED, THE CONTRACTING OFFICE STATES THAT IT HAS NO RECORD OF THIS OFFER OF AN EARLIER DELIVERY DATE. A PREAWARD SURVEY OF YOUR FIRM WAS MADE BY AN INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL AND HE REPORTED TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICE THAT YOU WERE DELINQUENT ON 4 OF THE 5 NAVY CONTRACTS CURRENTLY BEING PERFORMED. ALSO, HE STATED THAT HE COULD FURNISH THE CONTRACTING OFFICE FURTHER INFORMATION AS TO YOUR DELINQUENCY ON CURRENT AIR FORCE CONTRACTS. IT WAS REPORTED THAT YOU HAD THE FACILITIES, PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT AND TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW TO PRODUCE THE TACHOMETERS.

WITH REGARD TO THE BID OF HEINZ MUELLER, THE CONTRACTING OFFICE REPORTS THAT THE BIDDER STATED THAT ITS FIRST MONTHLY DELIVERY WOULD BEGIN JUNE 1, 1960. A PREAWARD SURVEY OF THIS FIRM WAS FAVORABLE AS TO THE MATTER OF RESPONSIBILITY, CURRENT WORKLOAD, QUALITY, AND PRESENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE. AS TO THE CURRENT WORKLOAD, IT WAS STATED THAT THE FIRM'S PRESENT PRODUCTION WORKLOAD DID NOT UTILIZE ALL OF ITS FACILITIES.

WHILE THE FACT THAT YOU MAY HAVE BEEN DELINQUENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF CURRENT CONTRACTS, WITHOUT ASCERTAINING WHETHER YOU WERE CHARGEABLE WITH THE INVOLVED DELAY, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FOR CONSIDERATION IN MAKING AN AWARD, SINCE TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE AND SINCE HEINZ MUELLER OFFERED A BETTER DELIVERY SCHEDULE THAN YOUR BID, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AWARD WAS PROPER.