B-145985, JUN. 29, 1961

B-145985, JUN. 29, 1961

TO HOOVER AND DEMPSEY:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 26, 1961, PROTESTING AGAINST THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD INVITATION FOR STENOGRAPHIC REPORTING SERVICES (CONTRACT NO. HB-1-61), ISSUED ON MAY 9, 1961.

YOU ALLEGE THAT THE SUBJECT INVITATION IS AMBIGUOUS IN TWO RESPECTS. FIRST, THE INVITATION ASKS FOR A PRICE FOR SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED "AT PLACE OF HEARING OR IN WASHINGTON, D.C., " SO THAT BIDDERS DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE SERVICES ARE TO BE PERFORMED. SECOND, ITEM NO. 2 OF THE INVITATION ASKS FOR A PRICE FOR REPORTING, TRANSCRIBING ON DUPLICATION MASTER, DUPLICATION, AND FURNISHING TRANSCRIPTION TO THE PUBLIC PER PAGE PER SET. YOU CONTEND THAT THE INVITATION DOES NOT STATE WHAT A SET IS; WHETHER IS ONE COPY, TWO, FIVE, SEVEN, OR ANY NUMBER, AND FURTHER THAT THE IMPLICATION IN THE WORDING IS THAT THE REPORTING SERVICES ARE TO BE RENDERED TO THE PUBLIC AND NOT TO THE GOVERNMENT.

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING, YOU CONTEND THAT THE INVITATION SHOULD BE CANCELLED, AND THAT A NEW EXPLICIT INVITATION SHOULD BE ISSUED FOR THE SERVICE.

WE HAVE EXAMINED A COPY OF THE INVITATION IN QUESTION. WITH RESPECT TO THE PLACE OF HEARINGS, PAGE NO. 1 OF THE INVITATION UNDER THE HEADING "SCHEDULE" PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

"STENOGRAPHIC SERVICES IN REPORTING FORMAL AND INFORMAL HEARINGS HELD WHEN AND AS REQUIRED BY OR AT THE DIRECTION OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD, IN WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1961 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1962; SUCH SERVICES TO BE RENDERED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH HEREIN.'

IN ADDITION, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF PAGE NO. 2 OF THE INVITATION UNDER THE HEADING "SCOPE AND INTENT" STATES:

"IT IS INTENDED THAT CONTRACT'S RESULTING FROM THIS INVITATION FOR BIDS SHALL COVER THE FURNISHING OF STENOGRAPHIC REPORTING SERVICE AS MAY BE REQUIRED FROM TIME TO TIME DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS LISTED HEREIN, IN WASHINGTON, D.C.'

WE FIND THAT THE INVITATION CLEARLY SET FORTH WASHINGTON, D.C., AS THE SITE FOR THE HEARINGS, DESPITE THE DOUBTLESS INADVERTENT REFERENCE ON THE FACE SHEET TO DELIVERY F.O.B.'AT PLACE OF HEARING OR IN WASHINGTON, D.C.'

THE SECOND PART OF YOUR PROTEST CONCERNS THE LANGUAGE IN ITEM NO. 2 OF THE INVITATION, WHICH IS SET FORTH ON PAGE 2 AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE

"UNIT PRICE FOR DELIVERY

AS FOLLOWS

WITHIN WITHIN WITHIN

UNIT 10 5 3 DAILY

DAYS DAYS DAYS

"2. REPORTING SERVICE: SHALL INCLUDE SERVICES OF REPORTING, TRANSCRIBING ON DUPLICATION MASTER, DUPLICATION, AND FURNISHING TRANSCRIPTIONS TO THE PUBLIC. (QUOTE PRICE PER PAGE PER SET ...........'

YOU SAY THAT THE IMPLICATION OF THIS WORDING IS THAT THE REPORTING SERVICES ARE TO BE RENDERED TO THE PUBLIC, NOT TO THE GOVERNMENT; AND THAT IT DOES NOT STATE WHAT A SET IS; WHETHER IT IS ONE, TWO OR MORE COPIES.

ON PAGE NO. 4 OF THE INVITATION, UNDER HEADING "SALE OF TRANSCRIPTS," REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE SALE OF TRANSCRIPTS TO THE PUBLIC. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE INVITATION THAT THE SERVICES ARE TO BE PERFORMED FOR THE GOVERNMENT. AS TO THE NUMBER OF PAGES PER SET, THE PROCURING ACTIVITY STATES THAT IT REFERS TO THE PRICE PER PAGE TO THE PUBLIC OF A DUPLICATE COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT UNDER EACH OF THE CATEGORIES--- 10 DAYS, 5 DAYS, 3 DAYS OR DAILY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WERE SO INFORMED BY THE CONTRACTING AGENCY PRIOR TO BIDDING, AND THAT YOUR BID WAS SUBMITTED AND CONSIDERED ON THAT BASIS.