B-147760, FEB. 23, 1962

B-147760: Feb 23, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO ESTEY CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 7. ALLEGING THAT REMINGTON RAND DIVISION OF SPERRY RAND CORPORATION WAS PERMITTED TO DEVIATE FROM THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING EQUIPMENT IN THE ACADEMY LIBRARY. THAT SUCH DEVIATIONS WERE UNFAIR TO OTHER BIDDERS WHO HAD BASED THEIR BID PRICES UPON STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE INFORMATION SET OUT IN THE LETTER OF JANUARY 31 IS COMPLETE AND CORRECT. WHILE IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS COULD HAVE STATED THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS MORE CLEARLY. WE ARE INCLINED TO THE VIEW THAT THE INTERPRETATIONS PLACED THEREON BY THE CONTRACTING AGENCY ARE REASONABLE.

B-147760, FEB. 23, 1962

TO ESTEY CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 7, 1961, TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY, A COPY OF WHICH YOU FORWARDED TO THIS OFFICE, ALLEGING THAT REMINGTON RAND DIVISION OF SPERRY RAND CORPORATION WAS PERMITTED TO DEVIATE FROM THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING EQUIPMENT IN THE ACADEMY LIBRARY, AND THAT SUCH DEVIATIONS WERE UNFAIR TO OTHER BIDDERS WHO HAD BASED THEIR BID PRICES UPON STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS.

UNDER DATE OF JANUARY 31, 1962, THE CHIEF, CONTRACTS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS, REPLIED IN DETAIL TO THE SEVERAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 7, 1961. FROM OUR REVIEW OF THE BIDS SUBMITTED BY REMINGTON RAND AND BY YOUR COMPANY, THE INVITATION FOR BIDS, THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO REMINGTON RAND AND VARIOUS OTHER RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY RELATIVE TO THIS PROCUREMENT, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE INFORMATION SET OUT IN THE LETTER OF JANUARY 31 IS COMPLETE AND CORRECT. WHILE IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS COULD HAVE STATED THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS MORE CLEARLY, WE ARE INCLINED TO THE VIEW THAT THE INTERPRETATIONS PLACED THEREON BY THE CONTRACTING AGENCY ARE REASONABLE, AND THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT THEREFORE WAS NOT SUCH AS TO BE UNFAIR TO OTHER BIDDERS.

AS INDICATED IN THE LETTER OF JANUARY 31, THE CONTRACTING AGENCY HAS TAKEN CORRECTIVE ACTION WHICH SHOULD PRECLUDE SIMILAR MISINTERPRETATIONS OF SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS. IN VIEW THEREOF, AND SINCE THE CONTRACT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN FULLY PERFORMED, NO FURTHER ACTION IS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS OFFICE.