B-143382, SEP. 22, 1960

B-143382: Sep 22, 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 TELEGRAM OF JULY 1. REQUESTED BIDS FOR FURNISHING A MOTION PICTURE INSPECTION MACHINE WITH FILM CLEANER AND CONDITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS WHICH WERE ATTACHED THERETO AND WHICH PROVIDE. SCOPE * * * THE FILM PROCESSOR SHALL BE A PART OF THE INSPECTION MACHINE AND SHALL BE SO DESIGNED THAT IT WILL CLEAN. METERS - THE MACHINE IS TO BE EQUIPPED WITH ACCURATE METERS FOR THE FOLLOWING EASUREMENTS: "2. WHICH HAVE BEEN MOISTENED AUTOMATICALLY BY THE OPERATION OF AN AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED FLUID FEED. GENERAL - THE INSPECTION MACHINE PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS TO BE SO CONSTRUCTED AS TO PERMIT THE BEST POSSIBLE SPEED OF OPERATION * * *.'.

B-143382, SEP. 22, 1960

TO PAULMAR, INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF JULY 1, 1960, PROTESTING THE AWARD MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF MINES, WASHINGTON, D.C., UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 200 ISSUED ON JUNE 2, 1960.

THE INVITATION, SCHEDULED TO BE OPENED AT 2:00 P.M. ON JUNE 15, 1960, REQUESTED BIDS FOR FURNISHING A MOTION PICTURE INSPECTION MACHINE WITH FILM CLEANER AND CONDITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS WHICH WERE ATTACHED THERETO AND WHICH PROVIDE, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"I. SCOPE * * * THE FILM PROCESSOR SHALL BE A PART OF THE INSPECTION MACHINE AND SHALL BE SO DESIGNED THAT IT WILL CLEAN, CONDITION, AND INSPECT THE FILM IN ONE OPERATION. * * *

"II. SPECIFICATIONS FOR FILM INSPECTION MACHINE

"E. METERS - THE MACHINE IS TO BE EQUIPPED WITH ACCURATE METERS FOR THE FOLLOWING EASUREMENTS:

"2. MEASURING FILM FOOTAGE. EACH METER SHALL BE READILY RESET TO ZERO.

"III. SPECIFICATIONS FOR FILM CLEANER AND CONDITIONER ATTACHMENT

"A. CLEANER - FILM CLEANING SHALL BE AUTOMATIC AND SHALL BE DONE BY PASSING THE FILM BETWEEN TWO CLEANING TAPES, WHICH HAVE BEEN MOISTENED AUTOMATICALLY BY THE OPERATION OF AN AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED FLUID FEED.

"IV. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

"E. GENERAL - THE INSPECTION MACHINE PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS TO BE SO CONSTRUCTED AS TO PERMIT THE BEST POSSIBLE SPEED OF OPERATION * * *.'

BY THE PROCURING AGENCY'S TELEGRAM OF JUNE 10, 1960, INTERESTED BIDDERS WERE ADVISED THAT ARTICLE 3 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS HAD BEEN AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW PARAGRAPH (C) THERETO PROVIDING THAT THE MACHINE WAS TO BE EQUIPPED WITH A BLOWER EXHAUST SYSTEM FOR REMOVING FUMES FROM THE WORKING AREA AND AID IN THE MORE RAPID DRYING OF THE FILM.

TWO BIDS WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION. THE HARWALD COMPANY, INC., OFFERED TO FURNISH ITS MODEL "U" INSPECT-O-FILM MACHINE, TOGETHER WITH ITS "PROTECT-O-FILM PROCESSING HINE," FOR THE TOTAL PRICE OF $3,545 (AS COMPLYING WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS), AND YOU OFFERED TO FURNISH "THE PAULMAR 60" MACHINE FOR THE PRICE OF $2,075, BOTH BIDS BEING SUBJECT TO A DISCOUNT OF 1 PERCENT FOR PAYMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS.

THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE PROCURING AGENCY DECIDED TO AWARD THE CONTRACT TO THE HARWALD COMPANY, INSTEAD OF TO YOU, IS SET FORTH IN THE STATEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF AWARD DATED JUNE 21, 1960, AS FOLLOWS:

"THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HAS TESTED BOTH THE PAULMAR AND THE HARWALD FILM INSPECTING AND CLEANING MACHINES, AND THEY REPORT THAT THE PAULMAR MACHINE:

SCRATCHES THE FILM;

DOES NOT SATISFACTORILY CLEAN THE FILM (SPECIFICATIONS I AND III A);

HAS AN INACCURATE FOOTAGE COUNTER (II-E-2);

FREQUENTLY BREAKS THE FILM IN STARTING UP (IV-E).

THEY USE AND RECOMMEND THE HARWALD MACHINE. THE HARWALD FILM INSPECTION MACHINE IS ALSO USED AND RECOMMENDED BY THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, WASHINGTON OFFICE, AND BY THE BUREAU OF MINES AT PITTSBURGH, PA.

PAULMAR'S BID IS INCOMPLETE AND DEFECTIVE IN THAT IT RETURNED STANDARD FORM 33 SIGNED BY IT BUT WITHOUT STANDARD FORM 32 OR THE GOVERNMENT'S SPECIFICATIONS, BOTH OF WHICH HAD BEEN ATTACHED TO STANDARD FORM 33 AS A PART THEREOF. PAULMAR SUBSTITUTED ITS BROCHURE ENTITLED "THE PAULMAR 60" FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S SPECIFICATIONS.'

SINCE THE PROCURING AGENCY CONCERNED DETERMINED, AFTER WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS, THAT THE MACHINE WHICH YOU OFFERED TO FURNISH IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION FAILED TO MEET FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AND OF THE AGENCY, THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE NO BASIS UPON WHICH WE WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN QUESTIONING THE AWARD IN THIS CASE.