B-150950, APR. 23, 1963

B-150950: Apr 23, 1963

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF FEBRUARY 28 AND MARCH 22. BIDS WERE SOLICITED ON TWO BASES. IT WAS PROVIDED THAT GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION COSTS WOULD NOT BE A FACTOR IN EVALUATING BIDS. YOUR PROTEST IS DIRECTED TO THE MANNER IN WHICH BIDS WILL BE EVALUATED. YOU STATE THAT YOUR UNIT BID PRICE IN THAT CASE WAS $1.229 FOR RAIL SHIPMENT AND $1.209 FOR MOTOR SHIPMENT AND THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER'S UNIT PRICE (STANDARD CONTAINER CORPORATION) WAS $1.19 FOR RAIL SHIPMENT AND $1.09 FOR MOTOR SHIPMENT. YOU STATE THAT YOU WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT SHIPMENTS OUT OF THE CONTRACTOR'S POINT OF ORIGIN. HAVE BEEN ALL BY RAIL. PARAGRAPH 1-1305.5 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE EXACT DESTINATIONS OF SUPPLIES BEING PURCHASED ARE NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME BIDS ARE SOLICITED BUT THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE DESTINATIONS SUCH AS EAST COAST.

B-150950, APR. 23, 1963

TO EMCO PORCELAIN ENAMEL CO., INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF FEBRUARY 28 AND MARCH 22, 1963, PROTESTING THE ELIMINATION OF COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION AS A FACTOR IN EVALUATING BIDS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. AMC/A/ 11 -173-63-44.

THE CITED INVITATION SOLICITED BIDS--- TO BE OPENED MARCH 25, 1963-- FOR FURNISHING 528,400 AMMUNITION BOXES, F.O.B. ORIGIN. BIDS WERE SOLICITED ON TWO BASES, NAMELY, SHIPMENT BY RAIL AND SHIPMENT BY MOTOR TRANSPORTATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO SELECT AND CHANGE THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION. IT WAS PROVIDED THAT GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION COSTS WOULD NOT BE A FACTOR IN EVALUATING BIDS.

YOUR PROTEST IS DIRECTED TO THE MANNER IN WHICH BIDS WILL BE EVALUATED. YOU POINT OUT THAT A PRIOR INVITATION, NO. AMC/A/-11-173-63 9 ISSUED OCTOBER 12, 1962, SIMILAR TO THE INSTANT INVITATION CALLED FOR FURNISHING 636,100 AMMUNITION BOXES. YOU STATE THAT YOUR UNIT BID PRICE IN THAT CASE WAS $1.229 FOR RAIL SHIPMENT AND $1.209 FOR MOTOR SHIPMENT AND THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER'S UNIT PRICE (STANDARD CONTAINER CORPORATION) WAS $1.19 FOR RAIL SHIPMENT AND $1.09 FOR MOTOR SHIPMENT. ALSO, YOU STATE THAT YOU WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT SHIPMENTS OUT OF THE CONTRACTOR'S POINT OF ORIGIN, HOMERVILLE, GEORGIA, HAVE BEEN ALL BY RAIL, THUS GIVING THE CONTRACTOR AN ADDITIONAL 10 CENTS ON EACH UNIT. ALSO, YOU STATE THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRANSPORTATION COSTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE EVALUATION OF BIDS.

PARAGRAPH 1-1305.5 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE EXACT DESTINATIONS OF SUPPLIES BEING PURCHASED ARE NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME BIDS ARE SOLICITED BUT THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE DESTINATIONS SUCH AS EAST COAST, MIDDLE WEST OR WEST COAST, IS KNOWN A DEFINITE PLACE OR PLACES SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS THE POINT TO WHICH TRANSPORTATION COSTS WILL BE COMPUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATING BIDS. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS THAT IN THIS CASE THE POINT OR POINTS TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE SHIPMENT OF THE BOXES COULD NOT BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE INVITATION. UPON NOTIFICATION OF YOUR LETTER OF PROTEST, A SECOND REVIEW WAS MADE OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND IT IS REPORTED THAT NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS TO DESTINATIONS CAN BE DEVELOPED TO PERMIT EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS.

WITH REGARD TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE CONTRACTOR FURNISHING AMMUNITION BOXES UNDER THE PRIOR INVITATION PROFITED TO THE EXTENT OF 10 CENTS PER UNIT BY REASON OF THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTING SHIPMENT BY RAIL INSTEAD OF MOTOR, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS THAT YOUR STATEMENT IS IN ERROR SINCE THE CONTRACTOR'S UNIT PRICE FOR RAIL DELIVERY, NOT CONSIDERING DISCOUNT, WAS $1.119 AND FOR MOTOR DELIVERY IT WAS $1.109, OR A DIFFERENCE OF ONLY ONE CENT INSTEAD OF 10 CENTS AS INDICATED BY YOU. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT YOUR BID UNDER THE PRIOR INVITATION WAS $1.229 PER BOX FOR RAIL DELIVERY AND $1.209 PER BOX FOR MOTOR DELIVERY, OR A DIFFERENCE OF TWO CENTS. PRESUMABLY THE DIFFERENCE IN UNIT PRICE BETWEEN THE TWO METHODS OF DELIVERY IS DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE IN HANDLING COSTS. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR PRESUMING THAT THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTS SHIPMENT BY RAIL IN ORDER TO GIVE THE CONTRACTOR ADDITIONAL PROFIT. IN ANY EVENT, AS TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT ALL SHIPMENTS BY THE CONTRACTOR UNDER THE PRIOR CONTRACT WERE BY RAIL, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS THAT AS OF APRIL 5, 1963, ONLY FOUR SHIPMENTS WERE MADE BY RAIL. IT IS NOT DISCLOSED AS TO WHAT FACTORS ENTERED INTO THE DETERMINATION THAT SHIPMENTS SHOULD BE MADE BY RAIL BUT THE HANDLING CHARGES AT DESTINATION NO DOUBT ENTERED INTO THIS DETERMINATION.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, OUR OFFICE FINDS THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED WHICH WOULD WARRANT ANY CONCLUSION THAT THE EVALUATION OF BIDS UNDER THE INVITATION ISSUED OCTOBER 12, 1962, WAS IMPROPER OR THAT THE PROPOSED EVALUATION OF BIDS UNDER THE INSTANT INVITATION IS IMPROPER.