B-148195, APR. 25, 1962

B-148195: Apr 25, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

ESQUIRE: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 12. PROTESTING AGAINST A DETERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT THE BID SUBMITTED BY FALCON ENGINEERING COMPANY UNDER INVITATION CIVENG-40 058-62-9 WAS NONRESPONSIVE. A BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION THAT THE FALCON ENGINEERING COMPANY BID WAS NONRESPONSIVE WAS EXPLAINED TO THE COMPANY IN THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S LETTER OF NOVEMBER 29. IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS: "* * * A REVIEW OF THE SPECIFICATIONS REVEAL THAT MAJOR COMPONENTS ARE (A) DRUM. A MORE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS AS TO WHY THE BID IS CONSIDERED NONRESPONSIVE IS INCLUDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT TO OUR OFFICE. THE REPORT STATES THAT THE DRAWING SUBMITTED WITH THE COMPANY'S BID IS DEFICIENT IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS: "/1) ALL COMPONENT PARTS OF THE MACHINE ARE NOT "SECURELY MOUNTED ON A COMMON RUGGED FABRICATED STEEL BASE.

B-148195, APR. 25, 1962

TO BEN PAUL NOBLE, ESQUIRE:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 12, 1962, PROTESTING AGAINST A DETERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT THE BID SUBMITTED BY FALCON ENGINEERING COMPANY UNDER INVITATION CIVENG-40 058-62-9 WAS NONRESPONSIVE.

THE SUBJECT INVITATION SOLICITED BIDS FOR TWO BARGE HAULAGE MACHINES AND RELATED CONTROLS. PARAGRAPH 1-02 (B) OF THE SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED:

"BIDDER'S DRAWINGS AND OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS.--- EACH BIDDER SHALL FURNISH WITH HIS BID ONE SET OF PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS AND OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS, INDICATING THE PROPOSED MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, ARRANGEMENT, AND DIMENSIONS OR SIZES, OF THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE HAULAGE MACHINES. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO PERMIT AN INTELLIGENT COMPARISON OF BIDS. PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS MAY BE USED AS, IF IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL, OR BE EXPANDED AND BECOME, FINAL DRAWINGS.'

A BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION THAT THE FALCON ENGINEERING COMPANY BID WAS NONRESPONSIVE WAS EXPLAINED TO THE COMPANY IN THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S LETTER OF NOVEMBER 29, 1961, IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

"* * * A REVIEW OF THE SPECIFICATIONS REVEAL THAT MAJOR COMPONENTS ARE (A) DRUM; (B) GEARING AND SHAFTS; (C) EDDY-CURRENT COUPLING; (D) MOTOR; (E) BRAKE; (F) LEVEL-WIND DEVICE; (G) BASE AND (H) ELECTRICAL CONTROL EQUIPMENT CABINET. ALTHOUGH YOUR BID DID CONTAIN SUFFICIENT DATA TO DETERMINE THE RESPONSIVENESS THEREOF WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THE MAJOR COMPONENTS, IT DID NOT CONTAIN SUFFICIENT DATA ON (A) DRUM; (B) GEARING AND SHAFTS; (C) BASE; AND (D) ELECTRICAL CONTROL EQUIPMENT CABINET.'

A MORE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS AS TO WHY THE BID IS CONSIDERED NONRESPONSIVE IS INCLUDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT TO OUR OFFICE. THE REPORT STATES THAT THE DRAWING SUBMITTED WITH THE COMPANY'S BID IS DEFICIENT IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS:

"/1) ALL COMPONENT PARTS OF THE MACHINE ARE NOT "SECURELY MOUNTED ON A COMMON RUGGED FABRICATED STEEL BASE," AS REQUIRED BY SUBPARAGRAPH 1-04 (A). THE ROPE DRUM AND LEVEL WINDING DEVICE ARE MOUNTED ONLY ON STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS, WHICH CONSIST OF TWO INDEPENDENT 8-INCH CHANNELS AND ARE NOT CONNECTED TOGETHER TO FORM A COMMON BASE.

"/2) NO DIMENSIONS ARE GIVEN FOR THE ELEMENTS OF THE LEVEL WINDING DEVICE BUT IT IS EVIDENT BY INSPECTION THAT THE DEVICE IS INADEQUATE IN STRENGTH AND RUGGEDNESS AND AS SHOWN WOULD NOT BE CAPABLE OF PERFORMING THE REQUIRED DUTY.

"/3) NEITHER THE TYPE, MAKE OR RATING OF THE SPEED REDUCER UNIT IS SHOWN, NOR IS THE UNIT SHOWN AS BEING MOUNTED ON THE STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK OF THE HAULAGE UNIT, AS REQUIRED BY SUBPARAGRAPH 1-04 (A) OF THE SPECIFICATIONS.

"/4) NONE OF THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, NAMELY THE MOTOR, BRAKE, EDDY- CURRENT COUPLING OR CONTROL CABINET, ARE SHOWN ON THE DRAWING. THE SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRE THAT ALL OF THESE COMPONENTS BE MOUNTED ON THE COMMON STRUCTURAL BASE WITH THE GEARING AND CABLE DRUM. SUBPARAGRAPH 1-02 (B) REQUIRES THAT THE BID DRAWING SHOW THE ARRANGEMENT, SIZE AND RATING OF ALL MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE HAULAGE UNITS.'

FALCON ENGINEERING COMPANY PROTESTED TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN AGAINST ITS BID. ESSENTIALLY, THE GROUNDS OF THE PROTEST WERE THAT IT TOOK EXCEPTION TO NOTHING AND PROPOSED TO FURNISH THE EQUIPMENT IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS. REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR PLANS, IT POINTED OUT THAT PARAGRAPH 1-02 (C) PROVIDED THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE ASSEMBLY DRAWINGS AND FURNISH THEM TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION OF THE EQUIPMENT.

HOWEVER, THE STATEMENT IN PARAGRAPH 1-02 (B) OF THE SPECIFICATIONS THAT PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS SHOWING MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, ARRANGEMENT AND DIMENSIONS OF THE MAJOR COMPONENTS SHALL BE FURNISHED IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL "TO PERMIT AN INTELLIGENT COMPARISON OF BIDS" MAKES IT APPARENT THAT THE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY REQUIRED THAT THE PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS BE SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETE AS TO PERMIT THEIR USE FOR EVALUATION OF BIDS, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER MIGHT HAVE TO FURNISH MORE DETAILED PLANS BEFORE FABRICATION OF EQUIPMENT MIGHT BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. THE FAILURE OF A BIDDER TO COMPLY WITH A REQUIREMENT IN THE INVITATION FOR BIDS THAT DESCRIPTIVE DATA NECESSARY FOR THE EVALUATION OF BIDS BE SUBMITTED WITH EACH BID REQUIRES THE REJECTION OF THE BID AS NONRESPONSIVE. 37 COMP. GEN. 845. FURTHER, THE FAILURE TO TAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OR STATEMENTS WHICH MAY CONSTITUTE AN OVER-ALL OFFER TO COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS, REGARDLESS OF THE DATA, CANNOT BE REGARDED AS COMPLYING WITH SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF AN INVITATION FOR THE FURNISHING OF MATERIAL DATA. 36 COMP. GEN. 415.

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE DATA SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE IMMEDIATE INVITATION WAS DEFICIENT IN THAT IT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE SPECIFICATIONS NOR TO THE DATA REQUIREMENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO BASIS UPON WHICH WE MAY LEGALLY OBJECT TO THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.