B-147321, NOV. 21, 1961

B-147321: Nov 21, 1961

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO MUNSTOM ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING CORP.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF OCTOBER 2 AND YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 12. YOU CONTEND THAT YOUR BID WAS SUBSTANTIALLY RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION. THAT YOU INTENDED TO MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS AND WOULD HAVE DONE SO IF GIVEN THE AWARD AND THAT THEREFORE AWARD SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO YOU AS LOW BIDDER. A MERE REPETITION OF THE INVITATION REQUIREMENTS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THIS DATA WILL BE USED IN EVALUATING THE BID(1) AS EVIDENCE OF THE BIDDERS' TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND (2) TO DETERMINE. THE DATA WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN ANY RESULTING CONTRACT. FAILURE OF THE BIDDER TO SUBMIT DESCRIPTIVE DATA WITH THE BID WILL PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION OF THE BID ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS NOT RESPONSIVE.

B-147321, NOV. 21, 1961

TO MUNSTOM ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING CORP.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF OCTOBER 2 AND YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 12, 1961, AND ITS ENCLOSURES, PROTESTING AGAINST THE REJECTION OF YOUR BID UNDER IFB-90-2-162B1 ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY JULY 31, 1961. YOU CONTEND THAT YOUR BID WAS SUBSTANTIALLY RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION, THAT YOU INTENDED TO MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS AND WOULD HAVE DONE SO IF GIVEN THE AWARD AND THAT THEREFORE AWARD SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO YOU AS LOW BIDDER.

THE INVITATION REQUESTED BIDS--- TO BE OPENED AUGUST 31, 1961--- FOR FURNISHING VARIOUS QUANTITIES OF ILS MONITORS AND SPARE PARTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED TO THE INVITATION. PARAGRAPH VI OF THE SPECIAL INVITATION CONDITIONS PROVIDED:

"DESCRIPTIVE DATA: THE BIDDER MUST FURNISH WITH HIS BID A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EQUIPMENT HE INTENDS TO FURNISH INCLUDING SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS OF THE UNITS HE PROPOSES TO FURNISH UNDER ITEMS 1 AND 2. A MERE REPETITION OF THE INVITATION REQUIREMENTS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THIS DATA WILL BE USED IN EVALUATING THE BID(1) AS EVIDENCE OF THE BIDDERS' TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND (2) TO DETERMINE, WITHOUT FURTHER REFERENCE TO THE BIDDER, WHETHER THE BIDDER COMPREHENDS THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND PROPOSES TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS BY EMPLOYING METHODS WHICH CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO RESULT IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE DATA WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN ANY RESULTING CONTRACT. FAILURE OF THE BIDDER TO SUBMIT DESCRIPTIVE DATA WITH THE BID WILL PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION OF THE BID ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS NOT RESPONSIVE, AND THE SUBMISSION OF DESCRIPTIVE DATA DESCRIBING EQUIPMENT THAT DEVIATES MATERIALLY FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE CAUSE FOR REJECTION OF THE BID.'

IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION, FIVE BIDS WERE RECEIVED AS FOLLOWS (COMPUTED ON THE MIDDLE QUANTITIES COVERED BY THE INVITATION):

TABLE

1. MUNSTON ELECTRONIC MFG.CORP. $310,875.00

2. DECITRON ELECTRONICS CORP. 333,350.00

3. PEER INCORPORATED 461,625.00

4. ECCO ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS CORP. 490,500.00

5. LITTON SYSTEMS, INC. 625,606.40

WITH RESPECT TO THE BIDS RECEIVED, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

"THE BID SUBMITTED BY ECCO ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS CORP. WAS DETERMINED TO BE NON-RESPONSIVE FOR FAILURE OF THE COMPANY TO FURNISH ANY DESCRIPTIVE DATA WITH ITS BID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE CONDITION.

"THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA SUBMITTED BY PEER INCORPORATED CONSISTED OF A THERMOFAX COPY OF "SECTION 1, GENERAL DESCRIPTION" AND "FIGURE 1" FROM THE PRELIMINARY (TYPE II) INSTRUCTION BOOK ON FA-5190 MONITOR PRODUCED BY LITTON INDUSTRIES UNDER CONTRACT FA-369, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1959. THE DATA DID NOT INCLUDE CIRCUIT DESCRIPTIONS, BLOCK DIAGRAMS OR SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS AS REQUIRED BY THE INVITATION. THUS NO EVALUATION WAS POSSIBLE AND THE BID WAS ALSO DECLARED NON-RESPONSIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE CONDITION.

"THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA SUBMITTED BY MUNSTON ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING CORP. (MUNSTON), AND DECITRON ELECTRONICS CORP. DESCRIBED EQUIPMENT WHICH DEVIATED MATERIALLY FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE FACT THAT MADE THESE BIDS TOTALLY NON-RESPONSIVE WAS THAT EACH BIDDER, RATHER THAN SUBMITTING DATA TO THE PRESCRIBED SPECIFICATIONS, HAD PHOTOSTATED OR OTHERWISE COPIED SCHEMATICS AND OTHER INFORMATION FROM AN INSTRUCTION BOOK FOR MONITORS BUILT AS LONG AS FIVE YEARS AGO. SINCE THE NEW SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE FOURTH MAJOR REVISIONS OF THOSE USED FOR THE 1955 PROCUREMENT, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE BIDDERS HAD PAID LITTLE ATTENTION TO THE CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS AND HAD EXPECTED TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR ABILITY BY SIMPLE COPY WORK.

"THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE BID WHICH MET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE INVITATION WAS THAT SUBMITTED BY LITTON SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED. AN AWARD OF CONTRACT WAS MADE TO LITTON SYSTEMS, INC. ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1961, AS THE ONLY RESPONSIVE BIDDER.

"WITH RESPECT TO THE BID SUBMITTED BY MUNSTON, THERE ARE LISTED BELOW 15 SEPARATE DEFICIENCIES IN THEIR DESCRIPTIVE DATA WHICH SHOWS MUNSTON'S LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS. THESE DEFICIENCIES WERE EXTRACTED FROM AN ENGINEERING REPORT TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER:

"1. TUBE TYPE NUMBERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM, THUS AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSAL IS DIFFICULT. SINCE THE CA-1593 MONITOR HAS BEEN COPIED, IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE SAME TUBE TYPES ARE PROPOSED. VERY FEW OF THESE TYPES ARE PRESENTLY AUTHORIZED BY THE SPECIFICATION (WHICH CALLS FOR THE USE OF HIGH RELIABILITY TYPE TUBES. THESE TUBES ARE APPROXIMATELY 25 PERCENT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE ONES USED IN THE CA-1593 MONITOR.)

"2. A NUMBER OF CONTROLS, PROHIBITED BY SPECIFICATION ARE SHOWN ON THE SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM. THESE ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE GENERAL PERFORMANCE AS THEY ARE INCLUDED TO COMPENSATE FOR FIXED RESISTORS THAT ARE NOT OF THE REQUIRED ACCURACY. THE UNAUTHORIZED CONTROLS ARE LISTED BELOW:

TABLE

"R337 AURAL LEVEL CONTROL

"R270 ZERO ADJUST CONTROL

"R370 AGC ADJUST

"R228 VOICE LEVEL CONTROL

"R258 TEST JACK OUTPUT LEVEL CONTROL

"3. THE AUXILIARY OUTPUT CIRCUITS (COURSE POSITION AND COURSE WIDTH TEST JACKS) ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH FIGURE 1 WHICH CALLS FOR EACH TEST JACK CONNECTED DIRECTLY IN THE OUTPUT OF THE COURSE POSITION AND COURSE WIDTH AMPLIFIERS.

"4. THE SCREEN AND PLATE LEADS OF V201 ARE TIED TOGETHER. SUCH A CIRCUIT IS INCAPABLE OF PERFORMING AMPLIFIER FUNCTIONS.

"5. AN AGC CONTROL SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED CIRCUITRY HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 3.13.2 OF THE SPECIFICATION.

"6. THE NEGATIVE 150 VDC SUPPLY IS NOT FAILSAFE AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 3.18.

"7. FUSES IN THE ALARM AND FAIL-SAFE RELAY COIL LEADS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY TABLE III OF THE SPECIFICATION.

"8. THE FAIL-SAFE RELAY CIRCUIT (PROTECTOR RELAY K209) IN THE COURSE WIDTH CHANNEL IS IDENTICAL TO THE 1955 MONITOR AND IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT THE CIRCUIT IS NOT POSITIVE IN ACTION. THIS CIRCUIT WAS MODIFIED IN THE FIELD ON THE CA-1593 (1955), CA-1680 (1958) AND FA-5010 (1959) MONITORS TO PROVIDE MORE POSITIVE ACTION AND TO MEET FAIL-SAFE REQUIREMENTS.

"9. THE ALARM RELAY CIRCUITRY ASSOCIATED WITH RELAYS K201 THROUGH K204 IS IDENTICAL TO THE 1955 MONITOR AND IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT THIS CIRCUITRY DID NOT (AND WILL NOT) MEET SPECIFICATION STABILITY REQUIREMENTS. THIS CIRCUITRY WAS MODIFIED IN THE FIELD ON THE 1955 MONITOR IN ORDER TO BE USEABLE.

"10. THE BALANCE CIRCUITS OF V208 AND V209; V226 AND V227 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE 1955 MONITOR AND/IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT THIS CIRCUITRY DID NOT (AND WILL NOT) MEET SPECIFICATION STABILITY REQUIREMENTS.

"11. THE RF CHANNEL CIRCUITRY IS IDENTICAL TO THE 1955 MONITOR. THIS CIRCUIT WAS DESIGNED TO MEET STABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF PLUS OR MINUS 0.6 DB (TOTAL 1.2 DB) WHEREAS THE SPECIFICATION PERMITS A TOTAL VARIATION OF ONLY 0.6 DB. IT IS WELL KNOWN TO US THAT THE STABILITY OF THE DC AMPLIFIER (AS PROPOSED) WILL NOT MEET SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

"12. THE MODULATION CHANNEL CIRCUITRY IS IDENTICAL TO THE 1955 MONITOR. THIS CIRCUIT WAS DESIGNED TO MEET STABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF PLUS OR MINUS .5 DB (1.0 DB TOTAL) WHEREAS THE SPECIFICATION PERMITS A TOTAL VARIATION OF ONLY 0.5 DB.

"13. THE COURSE POSITION AND COURSE WIDTH CHANNEL CIRCUITRY IS IDENTICAL TO THE 1955 MONITOR. THESE CIRCUITS WERE DESIGNED TO MEET STABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF 0.6 DB TOTAL VARIATION WHEREAS THE SPECIFICATION PERMITS A TOTAL VARIATION OF ONLY 0.4 DB IN EACH CHANNEL. TEST DATA TAKEN BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY WILL DISCLOSE THAT THE CA-1593 MONITOR WILL NOT MEET THE STABILITY REQUIREMENTS REFERENCED IN 11, 12 AND 13 ABOVE.

"14.MENTION WAS MADE THAT CHOPPERS WILL BE USED IN THE AGC CIRCUIT BUT IN LIEU OF A DIAGRAM OF A CHOPPER CIRCUIT, A DC AMPLIFIER IS SHOWN. WE ARE QUITE CERTAIN THAT A DC AMPLIFIER WILL NOT MEET STABILITY REQUIREMENTS. AS NO CHOPPER CIRCUIT IS SHOWN, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVALUATE THIS PORTION OF THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA.

"15. ONLY ONE SENTENCE IS USED TO DESCRIBE THE TYPE A AND TYPE B FIELD DETECTORS. NO SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM WAS SUBMITTED. THE DETECTORS ARE RATHER COMPLEX AND DO REPRESENT A LARGE PORTION OF THE ENGINEERING INVOLVED ON THE OVERALL MONITOR SYSTEM. IN ADDITION, THEY REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY 20 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL MONITOR COST. AS A MATTER OF HISTORY, THE LATEST CONTRACTOR (LITTON) HAS SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME TRYING TO MEET 1961 REQUIREMENTS AND THE 1961 REQUIREMENTS ARE ONLY 3/5 AS TIGHT AS THE 1962 REQUIREMENTS. WE BELIEVE THAT SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS ON THE LOCALIZER AND GLIDE SLOPE FIELD DETECTORS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR PROPER EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN.

"IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED FROM THE DRAWINGS SUBMITTED WITH MUNSTON ID:

"A. ITS MONITOR SCHEMATIC DRAWING Q7689-1--- WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AUDIO INPUT AND CONTROL CIRCUIT THIS DRAWING IS A COPY OF TYPE CA 1593 MONITOR PURCHASED FROM LITTON INDUSTRIES IN 1955 UNDER CONTRACT CCA- 31618. THE CONTROL CIRCUIT IS COPIED FROM FIGURE 2 OF THE SPECIFICATION. ALL COMPONENT VALUES AND DESIGNATION SYMBOLS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS SHOWN ON THE CA-1593 MONITOR SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM. THIS DRAWING DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FOUR MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE 1955 SPECIFICATIONS CONTAINED IN THE CURRENT SPECIFICATION.

"B. POWER SUPPLY, DRAWING Q7689-1A--- THIS SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM IS AN EXACT COPY OF THE CA-1593 POWER SUPPLY PURCHASED IN 1955 UNDER CONTRACT CCA- 31618. THESE DRAWINGS DO NOT MEET THE PRESENT SPECIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE TYPE OF TUBES, VOLTAGE ADJUST CONTROL AND FUSES TO BE USED. (THIS IS REFERRED TO AS DISCREPANCY NO. 16 IN EXHIBIT C OF MUNSTON'S LETTER)

"C. ILS MONITOR BLOCK DIAGRAM DRAWING Q7689-4. THIS DIAGRAM IS AN EXACT COPY OF FIGURE 1 OF SPECIFICATION FAA-R-932D, THUS IT SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE IN EVALUATING THE BID SUBMITTED BY MUNSTON.'

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE STATES ITS OPINION THAT THE DEFICIENCIES ABOVE SET OUT INCLUDE MATERIAL DEVIATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS. IT IS STATED THAT THE DETECTORS REFERRED TO REPRESENT 20 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL COSTS OF THE EQUIPMENT; ALSO THAT THIS YEAR'S SPECIFICATION INCLUDES MUCH MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS AS TO STABILITY OF THE DETECTORS THAN DID PRIOR SPECIFICATIONS AND THEREFORE IS EXPECTED TO REQUIRE A LARGE AMOUNT OF ENGINEERING TIME.

WITH RESPECT TO THE CONFERENCE OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1961, BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF YOUR CORPORATION AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE, IT IS REPORTED THAT AFTER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CONTENTIONS IN THE MATTER THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE REMAINED OF THE OPINION THAT YOUR BID WAS NOT RESPONSIVE.

IT IS NOT PRIMARILY A FUNCTION OF OUR OFFICE TO RESOLVE DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT. UPON DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND A CLAIMANT OR OTHER PERSON DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT, THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RULE OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS IS TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENTS OF FACT FURNISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS THEREOF. 16 COMP. GEN. 325; ID. 410. ALSO, IT IS WELL-ESTABLISHED THAT THE DRAFTING OF SPECIFICATIONS DESIGNED TO MEET THE MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE BIDS RECEIVED ARE RESPONSIVE TO SUCH SPECIFICATIONS ARE PRIMARILY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REQUIRING THE MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES. 21 COMP.GEN. 1132, 1136.

HAVING REGARD FOR THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ABOVE SET FORTH, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS IN REJECTING YOUR BID AND MAKING THE AWARD TO LITTON SYSTEMS, INC. THEREFORE, YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.