B-147680, FEB. 6, 1962

B-147680: Feb 6, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

COMPANY: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 27. THE VARIOUS OPERATIONS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE MANUALS ARE DESCRIBED IN A SCHEDULE AND PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS WERE REQUIRED TO QUOTE A UNIT PRICE FOR EACH OPERATION. PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS WERE ADVISED UNDER CLAUSE 17 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE INVITATION THAT IF THE COMPANY'S BID IS FAVORABLY CONSIDERED. IT IS REPORTED THAT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE MANUALS WAS $14. THE PHILADELPHIA AIR PROCUREMENT DISTRICT WAS REQUESTED TO CONDUCT A PREAWARD SURVEY OF YOUR COMPANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1-905.4 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR). THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN AFFORD THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SUFFICIENT INFORMATION UPON WHICH HE COULD MAKE A DETERMINATION.

B-147680, FEB. 6, 1962

TO WARE BROS. COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 27, 1961, PROTESTING AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, IN REJECTING YOUR LOW BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION NO. 41-606-62- 8.

THE INVITATION DATED JULY 25, 1961, REQUESTED BIDS ON A TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE BASIS, FO THE PRINTING AND BINDING OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF MANUALS DURING THE PERIOD FROM DATE OF AWARD TO OCTOBER 31, 1962. THE VARIOUS OPERATIONS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE MANUALS ARE DESCRIBED IN A SCHEDULE AND PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS WERE REQUIRED TO QUOTE A UNIT PRICE FOR EACH OPERATION. PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS WERE ADVISED UNDER CLAUSE 17 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE INVITATION THAT IF THE COMPANY'S BID IS FAVORABLY CONSIDERED, A SURVEY TEAM MAY CONTACT THE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING ITS TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PERFORM. IN RESPONSE YOU SUBMITTED A BID DATED AUGUST 21, 1961, WHEREIN YOU OFFERED TO PERFORM THE VARIOUS OPERATIONS NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE MANUALS AT THE UNIT PRICES SPECIFIED THEREIN. IT IS REPORTED THAT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE MANUALS WAS $14,971.95 AND THAT THE FIVE OTHER BIDS THEREON RANGED FROM $15,120.05 TO $28,531.60. SINCE YOUR FIRM SUBMITTED THE LOWEST BID, THE PHILADELPHIA AIR PROCUREMENT DISTRICT WAS REQUESTED TO CONDUCT A PREAWARD SURVEY OF YOUR COMPANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1-905.4 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR). THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN AFFORD THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SUFFICIENT INFORMATION UPON WHICH HE COULD MAKE A DETERMINATION--- REQUIRED BY LAW (10 U.S.C. 2305 (C) ( AND REGULATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO LAW (SECTION 1-904, ASPR/--- REGARDING YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A PROSPECTIVE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR. HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT AGENCY REPORTS THAT, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT A REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR FIRM REFUSED ON TWO OCCASIONS TO PERMIT A PLANT SURVEY OF YOUR FACILITIES, THE FACILITY ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT NO AWARD BE MADE TO YOUR FIRM.

THEREFORE, AWARD WAS MADE TO LITHO PRESS, INC., SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, ON OCTOBER 12, 1961, AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE, RESPONSIVE BIDDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,120.05. WE FIND NO BASIS TO DISAGREE WITH THE ACTION TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROCUREMENT.

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE INABILITY OF THE PROCUREMENT AGENCY TO CONDUCT THE NECESSARY PREAWARD SURVEY WAS DUE SOLELY TO ACTIONS OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR FIRM. IN YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 27, 1961, YOU STATE THAT THE PRIMARY REASON WHY YOU DID NOT PERMIT AN INSPECTOR FROM THE PHILADELPHIA AIR PROCUREMENT DISTRICT TO CONDUCT A PLANT SURVEY OF YOUR FACILITIES FOR THE PROCUREMENT IN QUESTION WAS THAT APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE DATE IN QUESTION, THE SAME INSPECTOR HAD MADE AN INVESTIGATION OF YOUR PLANT AT THE REQUEST OF THE KELLY AIR FORCE BASE. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE REFERRED-TO INVESTIGATION WAS MADE 36 DAYS BEFORE THE DATE IN QUESTION AND WHILE THE REPORT AT THAT TIME WAS FAVORABLE TO YOUR FIRM, YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED BY SECTION 1-905.2, ASPR, TO OBTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY, INCLUDING THE PROBABLE EFFECT OF EXISTING BUSINESS COMMITMENTS ON COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE SCHEDULES, ON "AS CURRENT A BASIS AS FEASIBLE.' UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO REJECT YOUR ..END :