B-150900, APR. 25, 1963

B-150900: Apr 25, 1963

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO THE SCHENUIT RUBBER COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE TRANSMITTAL TO OUR OFFICE OF COPIES OF YOUR LETTERS DATED FEBRUARY 22 AND MARCH 1. BIDS WERE OPENED ON FEBRUARY 7. THE 2 LOWEST BIDS ON ITEM NO. 1 OF THE INVITATION WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY YOUR COMPANY AND THE CARLISLE CORPORATION. THE BID PRICES WERE IN THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNT OF $5. IT WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED THAT THE CONTRACT AWARD ON ITEM NO. 1 SHOULD BE MADE TO THE CARLISLE CORPORATION AS THE LOW BIDDER ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING EVALUATIONS: TABLE SCHENUIT BID CARLISLE BID BID PRICES $5. 405.77 THE FREIGHT COST FIGURES WERE DEVELOPED ON THE BASIS OF TRANSPORTATION RATES APPLICABLE TO THE UNIT WEIGHTS OF THE INNER TUBES AND PACKING MATERIAL AS SHOWN IN THE 2 BIDS.

B-150900, APR. 25, 1963

TO THE SCHENUIT RUBBER COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE TRANSMITTAL TO OUR OFFICE OF COPIES OF YOUR LETTERS DATED FEBRUARY 22 AND MARCH 1, 1963, TO THE DIRECTORATE OF PROCUREMENT AND PRODUCTION, OGDEN AIR MATERIEL AREA, HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO THE CARLISLE CORPORATION, CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, ON ITEM NO. 1 OF INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 42-600-63 -399, ISSUED JANUARY 24, 1963, COVERING A PROPOSED PROCUREMENT OF 945 AIRCRAFT INNER TUBES (ITEM NO. 1), AND 164 AIRCRAFT TIRES (ITEMS NO. 2).

BIDS WERE OPENED ON FEBRUARY 7, 1963, AND THE 2 LOWEST BIDS ON ITEM NO. 1 OF THE INVITATION WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY YOUR COMPANY AND THE CARLISLE CORPORATION. THE BID PRICES WERE IN THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNT OF $5,292, LESS A DISCOUNT OF 2 PERCENT FOR PAYMENT WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS, AND $5,197.50. IT WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED THAT THE CONTRACT AWARD ON ITEM NO. 1 SHOULD BE MADE TO THE CARLISLE CORPORATION AS THE LOW BIDDER ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING EVALUATIONS:

TABLE

SCHENUIT BID CARLISLE BID

BID PRICES $5,292.00 $5,197.50

LESS: DISCOUNT 105.84 (2 PERCENT)---

NET BID PRICES $5,186.16 $5,197.50

ADD: FREIGHT 236.66 208.27

DELIVERED COSTS $5,422.82 $5,405.77

THE FREIGHT COST FIGURES WERE DEVELOPED ON THE BASIS OF TRANSPORTATION RATES APPLICABLE TO THE UNIT WEIGHTS OF THE INNER TUBES AND PACKING MATERIAL AS SHOWN IN THE 2 BIDS, MULTIPLIED BY THE QUANTITIES TO BE SHIPPED TO THE 3 SPECIFIED DESTINATIONS. YOUR MAXIMUM SHIPPING WEIGHTS WERE DETERMINED TO BE 1,600, 1,960 AND 4,000 POUNDS AND LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATES WERE APPLIED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL COST OF FREIGHT TO THE 3 DESTINATIONS IF THE GOVERNMENT ACCEPTED YOUR BID ON ITEM NO. 1 OF THE INVITATION.

IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT CARLOAD RATES SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED SINCE YOU REPRESENTED THAT EACH SHIPMENT WOULD EXCEED A GROSS WEIGHT OF 35,000 POUNDS, BASED UPON INFORMATION WHICH LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THE AIR FORCE WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO REQUIRE A CONSOLIDATION OF THE SHIPMENTS OF THE INNER TUBES WITH SHIPMENTS FROM BALTIMORE OF SUPPLIES BEING PURCHASED UNDER OTHER AIR FORCE CONTRACTS. YOU HAVE REFERRED TO THE DIRECTION CONTAINED IN SECTION 31F OF AFLC FORM 232, REFERENCED IN CLAUSE 30 OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS MADE A PART OF THE INVITATION, WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A SUCCESSFUL BIDDER TO CONSOLIDATE SHIPMENTS ON GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING TO COMMON DESTINATIONS OF ONE OR MORE CONTRACTS.

AT PAGE 6 OF THE SCHEDULE OF THE INVITATION IT WAS PROVIDED THAT EACH BID WOULD BE EVALUATED TO THE DESTINATION SPECIFIED BY ADDING TO THE F.O.B. ORIGIN PRICE ALL TRANSPORTATION COSTS, AND THAT GUARANTEED SHIPPING WEIGHTS WERE REQUIRED FOR DETERMINATION OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS. THOSE PROVISIONS CLEARLY WERE MEANT TO PROVIDE A COMMON STANDARD WITH REFERENCE TO THE FREIGHT COST ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED IN BID EVALUATIONS AND IT WOULD THEREFORE HAVE BEEN IMPROPER FOR THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO HAVE USED CARLOAD RATES IN THE EVALUATIONS WHEN DETERMINED THAT THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT OF EACH SHIPMENT UNDER ANY SEPARATELY PROPOSED AWARD UNDER ITEM NO. 1 OF THE INVITATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO PERMIT SHIPMENT AT A MINIMUM CARLOAD RATE. AS INDICATED IN 40 COMP. GEN. 160, THE GUARANTEED SHIPPING WEIGHT OF THE ITEM TO BE PROCURED IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN EVALUATING THE GOVERNMENT'S TRANSPORTATION COSTS APPLICABLE TO EACH RESPONSIVE BIDDER'S OFFER, AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH EVALUATION IS TO FIX THE EXACT MAXIMUM DELIVERED COST OF THE ITEM TO THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE MAKING A CONTRACT AWARD. THAT OBJECTIVE COULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED IF CONSIDERATION WERE TO BE GIVEN TO POSSIBLE CONSOLIDATIONS OF SHIPMENTS UNDER THE PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH SHIPMENTS OF OTHER MATERIAL ON GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING.

IT IS ALSO OUR OPINION THAT YOUR REPRESENTATION THAT EACH SHIPMENT WOULD EXCEED A GROSS WEIGHT OF 35,000 POUNDS WAS NOT RESPONSIVE TO ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INVITATION, INASMUCH AS IT WAS CONTEMPLATED IN THE TRANSPORTATION DATA FORM THAT THE SPECIFIED WEIGHT AT LINE G. WOULD INVOLVE PARTIAL DELIVERIES AND, THEREFORE, BE LESS THAN THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF ALL SHIPMENTS OF INNER TUBES TO EACH DESTINATION.