B-143398, OCT. 11, 1960

B-143398: Oct 11, 1960

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO CROWN LEE CORPORATION: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE ON JULY 5. THERE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED YOUR LETTER OF JULY 20. A COPY THEREOF WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE FOR CONSIDERATION. - PRESUMABLY REFERRING TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 00-25-68-60- - AND YOU STATED THAT "THIS YEAR'S FCR IS WITHOUT THESE REQUIREMENTS.' . PRESUMABLY MEANING THAT THE FCR REQUIREMENTS IN THE INSTANT MATTER WERE NOT SO EXACTING AS LAST YEAR. YOUR LETTER THEN CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: "THE COMPANY THAT I QUESTION COULD NOT PASS AN FCR HAVING THE REQUIREMENTS THAT I WAS SUBJECTED TO. TO GIVE THIS COMPANY AN AFFIRMATIVE FCR IS AN OPEN ADMISSION THAT THE ONLY PURPOSE OF AN FCR IS TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCRIMINATE AND AWARD A CONTRACT AS THE POLITICAL PRESSURES SIRE.'.

B-143398, OCT. 11, 1960

TO CROWN LEE CORPORATION:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE ON JULY 5, 1960, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANOTHER CONCERN UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. PMBC-60-126, DATED JUNE 6, 1960, ISSUED BY THE NORTON AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA. UNDER DATE OF JULY 13, 1960, WE ADVISED YOU THAT THE MATTER OF YOUR PROTEST HAD BEEN TAKEN UP WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AND THAT WE WOULD ADVISE YOU OF OUR DECISION AFTER WE HAD CONCLUDED DEVELOPMENT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THERE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED YOUR LETTER OF JULY 20, 1960, RELATING FURTHER TO THE MATTER OF YOUR PROTEST, AND A COPY THEREOF WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE FOR CONSIDERATION.

IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 20, 1960, YOU MADE REFERENCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF A FACILITY CAPABILITY REPORT RUN ON YOUR COMPANY "LAST YEAR"--- PRESUMABLY REFERRING TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 00-25-68-60- - AND YOU STATED THAT "THIS YEAR'S FCR IS WITHOUT THESE REQUIREMENTS.' -- PRESUMABLY MEANING THAT THE FCR REQUIREMENTS IN THE INSTANT MATTER WERE NOT SO EXACTING AS LAST YEAR. YOU PROTESTED THE USE OF "DUAL METHODS," STATING THAT YOU COULD NOT BE COMPETITIVE WITH A VARIATION OF FACILITY CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS BEING USED FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES. YOUR LETTER THEN CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH:

"THE COMPANY THAT I QUESTION COULD NOT PASS AN FCR HAVING THE REQUIREMENTS THAT I WAS SUBJECTED TO. TO GIVE THIS COMPANY AN AFFIRMATIVE FCR IS AN OPEN ADMISSION THAT THE ONLY PURPOSE OF AN FCR IS TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCRIMINATE AND AWARD A CONTRACT AS THE POLITICAL PRESSURES SIRE.'

WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1960, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, SUBMITTING A FULL REPORT CONCERNING THE MATTER OF YOUR PROTEST. IT HAS BEEN NOTED FROM THE REPORT THAT BY LETTER OF JULY 1, 1960, TO THE NORTON AIR FORCE BASE, YOU PROTESTED THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT IN THIS CASE. IN REPLY THERETO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED YOU BY LETTER OF JULY 15, 1960, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"3. I FIND THAT AWARD IS BEING MADE TO A RESPONSIBLE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT INSTRUCTIONS. THE PRE-AWARD SURVEY REVEALS THAT THE PROPOSED CONTRACTOR WAS ADEQUATE PRODUCTION CAPABILITY, FINANCIAL RESOURCES, AND TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE TO PERFORM THE PROPOSED CONTRACT IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER.'

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT PRIOR TO THE AWARD IN THIS CASE, A FACILITY CAPABILITY SURVEY WAS MADE OF THE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR'S FACILITY AND THE CONTRACTOR WAS DETERMINED TO BE CAPABLE OF PERFORMING THE SERVICES REQUIRED BY THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE ADVISES THAT REPORT OF THE SURVEY TEAM WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FACILITY ADVISORY BOARD OF THE AIR PROCUREMENT DISTRICT RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE SURVEY.

THE RECORD BEFORE OUR OFFICE SHOWS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HAS GIVEN FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE MATTERS SET FORTH IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 20, 1960, AND CONCLUDED THAT YOUR PROTEST IS WITHOUT VALID BASIS. RESPECTING YOUR ALLEGATIONS, THE REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1960, CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

"A. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY IRREGULARITY IN THE CONDUCT OF THE FACILITY SURVEY. IT WAS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRESCRIBED REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES, WHICH WERE THE SAME AS THOSE FOLLOWED IN CONDUCTING THE FACILITY SURVEY IN FY 1960 ON REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 00- 25-68-60-1.

"B. THE AWARD WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF PRICES MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT.

"C. INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE PROCUREMENT WAS RELEASED TO ALL PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS AT THE SAME TIME. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANYONE RECEIVING ADVANCE INFORMATION.

"D. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY DISCRIMINATION IN THE PROCESSING OF THE PROCUREMENT NOR ANY EVIDENCE OF THE EXERTION OF ANY POLITICAL INFLUENCE ON ANYONE CONNECTED WITH THIS PROCUREMENT.'

IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AS REPORTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE IN THIS CASE, AND THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC DETAILS FROM YOU, YOUR PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.