B-142715, JUL. 15, 1960

B-142715: Jul 15, 1960

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 DATED APRIL 23. FOUR BIDS WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION. BY REASON OF A HIGHER DISCOUNT OFFERED BY YOU YOU WERE DETERMINED TO BE THE LOW BIDDER ON BOTH ITEMS. YOUR BID WAS REJECTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF A DETERMINATION THAT YOU DID NOT QUALIFY AS A RESPONSIBLE BIDDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 1-905.4 OF THE NAVY PROCUREMENT DIRECTIVES AND THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION. WHICH DETERMINATION WAS LATER SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD. THE DETERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF BY THE CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD WERE BASED ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN A REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 19.

B-142715, JUL. 15, 1960

TO THE MANHATTAN LIGHTING EQUIPMENT CO., INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED APRIL 23, 1960, AND SUBSEQUENT LETTERS, WITH ENCLOSURES, PROTESTING THE ACTION OF THE GENERAL STORES SUPPLY OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, IN REJECTING YOUR BID UNDER INVITATION NO. JD-IFB-155-/7 4/-1639-60, OPENING DATE JANUARY 21, 1960.

THE INVITATION AND AMENDMENT NO. 1 THERETO SOLICITED BIDS FOR FURNISHING TWO ITEMS OF FUSE PULLERS FOR THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE NAVY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE INVITATION. FOUR BIDS WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION, INCLUDING LOW TIE BIDS ON ITEMS NOS. 1 AND 2 BY YOUR FIRM AND BY THE SUPERIOR FUSE AND MFG.CO., INC. BY REASON OF A HIGHER DISCOUNT OFFERED BY YOU YOU WERE DETERMINED TO BE THE LOW BIDDER ON BOTH ITEMS.

HOWEVER, YOUR BID WAS REJECTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF A DETERMINATION THAT YOU DID NOT QUALIFY AS A RESPONSIBLE BIDDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 1-905.4 OF THE NAVY PROCUREMENT DIRECTIVES AND THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION, WHICH DETERMINATION WAS LATER SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD. THE DETERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF BY THE CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD WERE BASED ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN A REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 19, 1960, FROM THE INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL, NEW YORK CITY, WHICH INDICATED THAT YOUR FIRM FREQUENTLY HAD BEEN DELINQUENT IN DELIVERIES TO OTHER NAVAL ACTIVITIES AND OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AGENCIES AND THAT YOUR FIRM MAINTAINS NO CONTROL OVER OPEN CONTRACTS TO INSURE TIMELY DELIVERY. YOU WERE FURNISHED INFORMATION AS TO THE DELINQUENT DELIVERIES AS OUTLINED IN THAT REPORT IN OUR LETTER TO YOU DATED JULY 11, 1960, B-142401.

IN OUR LETTER OF JULY 11, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THIS INFORMATION AS TO YOUR UNTIMELY DELIVERIES REPRESENTED A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION TO REJECT YOUR BID. WE, THEREFORE, MUST REACH A SIMILAR CONCLUSION HERE.

YOUR ATTENTION AGAIN IS INVITED TO THE STATEMENT MADE IN THE NUMEROUS PRIOR LETTERS TO YOU ON THIS SAME SUBJECT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FINAL DETERMINATION AS TO A BIDDER'S RESPONSIBILITY RESTS WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICES INVOLVED, AND THE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THIS OFFICE CANNOT IMPOSE ITS JUDGEMENT ON THAT OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICIALS WHERE THERE APPEARS TO BE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE ACTION OF THOSE OFFICIALS.