B-147284, NOV. 13, 1961

B-147284: Nov 13, 1961

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 OF SEPTEMBER 26. THE QUANTITY UNDER ITEM LA OR 1 (1) A WAS INCREASED TO 87. AMONG THE PAPERS INCLUDED WITH THE INVITATION WAS MGSA FORM 350. " IF BID IS BASED ON FOB ORIGIN PRICE. BIDS WERE RECEIVED FROM 14 FIRMS AND THEY WERE PUBLICLY OPENED ON AUGUST 28. SHOWS THAT YOU WERE BIDDING ON 112. MGSA FORM 350 WAS NOT FILLED IN TO SHOW THE PLACE OF MANUFACTURE OR THE POINT OF ORIGIN. NOR WAS SUCH INFORMATION SHOWN ELSEWHERE IN THE BID. EVALUATION OF THE BID WAS NOT POSSIBLE. THE BID WAS REJECTED AS NOT BEING RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INVITATION. YOU PROTEST THE ACTION TAKEN ON THE BASES THAT THE OMISSIONS WERE MINOR IRREGULARITIES WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN WAIVED.

B-147284, NOV. 13, 1961

TO LASKO METAL PRODUCTS, INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1961, PROTESTING THE REJECTION OF YOUR BID, SUBMITTED UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. QM/MGS/44-193-62-90, ISSUED BY THE RICHMOND QUARTERMASTER DEPOT, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

THE INVITATION, ISSUED ON JULY 28, 1961, REQUESTED BIDS FOR FURNISHING A QUANTITY OF MESS KIT PANS. ITEM LA OR 1 (1) A COVERED 83,640 UNITS F.O.B. ORIGIN AND ITEMS LB THROUGH LG OR 1 (1) B THROUGH 1 (1) G COVERED 28,480 UNITS TO BE DELIVERED TO VARIOUS DESTINATIONS. ITEMS LA THROUGH LG REQUESTED BIDS BASED ON UTILIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OWNED TOOLS AND ITEMS 1 (1) A THROUGH 1 (1) G REQUESTED BIDS BASED ON NON-UTILIZATION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED TOOLS. AN EQUAL QUANTITY WASSET ASIDE FOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH FIRMS LOCATED IN LABOR SURPLUS AREAS. THE INVITATION PROVIDED THAT IN THE EVALUATION OF F.O.B. ORIGIN BIDS A SHIPPING WEIGHT OF 1.4 POUNDS PER PAN WOULD BE USED AND THAT THE DESTINATION POINT WOULD BE OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA. BY AMENDMENT NO. 1, ISSUED AUGUST 18, 1961, THE QUANTITY UNDER ITEM LA OR 1 (1) A WAS INCREASED TO 87,640 UNITS. AMONG THE PAPERS INCLUDED WITH THE INVITATION WAS MGSA FORM 350, ENTITLED "PRODUCTION FACILITIES.' SAID FORM PROVIDES THAT "ALL BIDDERS MUST FURNISH INFORMATION AS STIPULATED IN ITEM "A; " IF BID IS BASED ON FOB ORIGIN PRICE, ITEM "E" MUST ALSO BE ACCOMPLISHED.'

BIDS WERE RECEIVED FROM 14 FIRMS AND THEY WERE PUBLICLY OPENED ON AUGUST 28, 1961. YOUR BID, SUBMITTED ON AN ALL OR NONE BASIS FOR ALL ITEMS, SHOWS THAT YOU WERE BIDDING ON 112,120, RATHER THAN 116,120 UNITS AS INCREASED BY ADDENDUM NO. 1. MGSA FORM 350 WAS NOT FILLED IN TO SHOW THE PLACE OF MANUFACTURE OR THE POINT OF ORIGIN, NOR WAS SUCH INFORMATION SHOWN ELSEWHERE IN THE BID. ALSO, YOU FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF OR TO RETURN ADDENDUM NO. 1 WITH THE BID. ON AUGUST 30, 1961, THE PROCUREMENT AGENT CONTACTED YOU AND REQUESTED THAT YOU EXECUTE AND RETURN MGSA FORM 350, SHOWING YOUR PRODUCTION FACILITIES AND POINT OF ORIGIN FOR THE F.O.B. SHIPMENTS. HE STATED HE WOULD SEND YOU A COPY IN CASE YOU COULD NOT LOCATE THE FORM. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT SEND YOU A COPY OF THE FORM AFTER BEING ADVISED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER TO OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION AFTER BID OPENING. SINCE YOUR BID, AS SUBMITTED, DID NOT SHOW THE POINT OF ORIGIN FOR THE F.O.B. ORIGIN SHIPMENT, EVALUATION OF THE BID WAS NOT POSSIBLE, AND THE BID WAS REJECTED AS NOT BEING RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INVITATION.

YOU PROTEST THE ACTION TAKEN ON THE BASES THAT THE OMISSIONS WERE MINOR IRREGULARITIES WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN WAIVED. IT IS STATED THAT YOUR COPY OF MGSA FORM 350 WAS FILLED IN BUT THE TYPIST NEGLECTED TO TYPE IN THE INFORMATION ON THE BID YOU SUBMITTED.

MGSA FORM 350 SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED, IF THE BID WAS BASED ON F.O.B. ORIGIN PRICE, THAT BIDDERS MUST SHOW THE POINT OF ORIGIN. THIS INFORMATION IS ESSENTIAL FOR EVALUATION OF BIDS AND, THEREFORE, THE FAILURE TO FURNISH THE F.O.B. ORIGIN POINT MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS A MINOR DEFICIENCY IN THE BID WHICH MAY BE WAIVED AS AN INFORMALITY, NOR MAY SUCH INFORMATION BE SUPPLIED AFTER THE BID OPENING. 38 COMP. GEN. 819, 40 ID. 160. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO BASIS TO QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN IN REJECTING THE BID AND, THEREFORE, YOUR PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.