B-147610, JAN. 2, 1962

B-147610, JAN. 2, 1962

TO WASHINGTON ALUMINUM COMPANY, INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO A COPY OF YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1961, TO THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, PROTESTING THE REJECTION OF THE LOW BID SUBMITTED BY YOUR DISTRIBUTOR UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. B-4564 -62.

THE INVITATION REQUESTED BIDS FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING PEDESTAL-TYPE FLOORING IN THE COMPUTER ROOM OF BUILDING 42 AT THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS. THE INVITATION PROVIDED THAT BIDDERS SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS, DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE, CATALOGS, CUTS AND MANUFACTURER'S LITERATURE OF PRECISELY THE EQUIPMENT PROPOSED TO BE FURNISHED.

BIDS WERE OPENED ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1961, AND THE FOLLOWING THREE BIDS WERE RECEIVED: A. W. LEE, INC. (YOUR DISTRIBUTOR) $ 7,700 LISKEY ALUMINUM, INC. $ 8,700 ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANY, INC. $10,417

AS YOU WERE ADVISED BY THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS IN LETTER DATED OCTOBER 17, 1961, THE LOW BID OF A. W. LEE, INC., WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE BID DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS:

"/SEC. 2.3) NO RESILIENT BEARING ALIGNMENT IS PROVIDED FOR THE PANELS.

(SEC. 2.6) NO PROTECTION IS PROVIDED AT THE EDGE OF THE PANEL.

(SEC. 2.7) SAMPLES SUBMITTED ARE ELECTRO PLATED, NOT HOT DIP GALVANIZED OR ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS AS SPECIFIED. NO PROVISIONS ARE MADE ON THE STRINGERS TO PREVENT SHIFTING OF PANELS. THE SAMPLES SUBMITTED PERMITS A SHIFT OF 3/4 INCHES AND DESIGNED SUCH THAT ONCE SHIFTING BEGINS THE PANEL LIFTS ITSELF FROM THE SUPPORTS.

(SEC. 2.8) NO PROVISIONS ARE MADE TO SECURE PEDESTALS TO EXISTING FLOOR.

(SEC. 2.9) NO UNDERPAYMENT IS PROVIDED BENEATH THE TILE.'

IN YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 15, 1961, IT IS STATED THAT SINCE SIMILARITY OF DESIGN DOES NOT EXIST AMONG MANUFACTURERS OF THIS PARTICULAR PRODUCT "A COMPETITIVE SPECIFICATION SHOULD NOT BE COMPOSED ON THE SINGULAR CHARACTERISTICS OF ONE MANUFACTURER, ESPECIALLY IF THE PRODUCTS OF OTHER MANUFACTURERS ARE SUITABLE AND ACCEPTABLE FOR THE INTENDED SERVICE.'

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORTS THAT THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY UNDULY RESTRICTIVE OR PROPRIETARY PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIFICATION AND THAT THIS WOULD SEEM TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT TWO ACCEPTABLE BIDS WERE RECEIVED. FURTHERMORE, THE VARIOUS REASONS GIVEN FOR THE REJECTION OF THE BID OF A. W. LEE, INC., APPEAR TO INDICATE THAT THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT DRAWN AROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF ONE MANUFACTURER. ACCORDINGLY WE FIND NO LEGAL BASIS ON THE PRESENT RECORD TO QUESTION THE REJECTION OF THE BID OF A. W. LEE, INC., AS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS.