B-149132, SEP. 5, 1962

B-149132: Sep 5, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE FOUR BIDS RECEIVED WERE OPENED ON MAY 31. AWARD WAS MADE ON JUNE 11. YOU BASE YOUR PROTEST IN PART ON THE GROUND THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE IMPROPER IN THAT (1) THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THOSE UNDER WHICH YOU HAD MANUFACTURED THE LATEST VERSION OF THE ITEM UNDER A PREVIOUS CONTRACT. (2) THE DELIVERY PERIOD WAS TOO BRIEF. THE DRAFTING OF SPECIFICATIONS IS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION. ORDINARILY WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED BY THIS OFFICE. 17 COMP. THE DEPARTMENT OF ARMY REPORTS THAT THIS PROCUREMENT WAS CONSIDERED EXTREMELY URGENT. THAT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE INSTANT SPECIFICATION AND THE MORE RECENT ONE OF MARCH 1960 WERE NOT DEEMED MATERIAL.

B-149132, SEP. 5, 1962

TO SEAVIEW ELECTRIC COMPANY:

IN YOUR TELEGRAM OF JUNE 11, 1962, YOU PROTESTED AN AWARD TO ANOTHER BIDDER OF CONTRACT 20336-PP-62-G3-14, SET ASIDE FOR SMALL BUSINESS UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) SC-36-039-62-11810-C3, ISSUED BY THE U.S. ARMY SIGNAL SUPPLY AGENCY, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA ON MAY 21, 1962. THE RFP CALLED FOR 19,200 MICROPHONES AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $176,000. THE FOUR BIDS RECEIVED WERE OPENED ON MAY 31, 1962, AND AWARD WAS MADE ON JUNE 11, 1962, TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER.

YOU BASE YOUR PROTEST IN PART ON THE GROUND THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE IMPROPER IN THAT (1) THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THOSE UNDER WHICH YOU HAD MANUFACTURED THE LATEST VERSION OF THE ITEM UNDER A PREVIOUS CONTRACT, AND (2) THE DELIVERY PERIOD WAS TOO BRIEF. THAT CONNECTION, THE DRAFTING OF SPECIFICATIONS IS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION, AND ORDINARILY WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED BY THIS OFFICE. 17 COMP. GEN. 554. THE DEPARTMENT OF ARMY REPORTS THAT THIS PROCUREMENT WAS CONSIDERED EXTREMELY URGENT, AND THAT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE INSTANT SPECIFICATION AND THE MORE RECENT ONE OF MARCH 1960 WERE NOT DEEMED MATERIAL. WE HAVE NO BASIS UPON WHICH TO QUESTION THESE DETERMINATIONS.

YOU ALSO PROTEST THE AWARD OF THIS CONTRACT ON THE GROUND THAT A PROPOSAL WAS NOT SOLICITED FROM YOUR COMPANY. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY REPORTS THAT BECAUSE OF THE URGENT NEED FOR THE ITEMS, THE FIRMS SELECTED FOR SOLICITATION WERE RESTRICTED TO PREVIOUS SUCCESSFUL SUPPLIERS. ALTHOUGH YOU HAD SUPPLIED THE ITEM UNDER PRIOR CONTRACTS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT YOUR FINANCIAL POSITION COULD NOT PRESENTLY SUSTAIN THE INSTANT AWARD IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $176,000. THIS DETERMINATION WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT IN THE MONTH JUST PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THIS INVITATION, AS A RESULT OF A PREAWARD SURVEY BY THE DEPARTMENT IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT YOU WERE NONRESPONSIBLE IN CONNECTION WITH A PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN LOUDSPEAKERS AT YOUR OFFERED PRICE OF $140,532.

WE ARE ADVISED THAT ON MAY 8, 1962, THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION GAVE NOTICE OF ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE PREAWARD SURVEY BY ADVISING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY THAT IT WOULD NOT ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY TO YOUR COMPANY FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF THE LOUDSPEAKERS. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN A PROCUREMENT OF A LESSER DOLLAR VALUE THAN THE INSTANT ONE, THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION DETERMINED WITHIN TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE INSTANT RFP THAT YOU WERE NONRESPONSIBLE, A DETERMINATION WHICH WOULD BE CONCLUSIVE UPON THIS OFFICE, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT WAS IMPROPER TO EXCLUDE YOUR COMPANY FROM THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT. ALSO, SEE ASPR 1-905.2.