B-151146, JUN. 3, 1963

B-151146: Jun 3, 1963

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO YORK CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER BIDDER UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 600-764-63. AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD NOW BEFORE THIS OFFICE INDICATES THAT THE ABOVE INVITATION WAS ISSUED BY THE NAVAL PURCHASING OFFICE ON FEBRUARY 7. THE SUPPLIES WERE COVERED BY THE NAVY'S QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST. FOUR BIDS WERE SOLICITED AND THREE BIDS WERE RECEIVED. THE BIDS WERE OPENED AND TABULATED ON FEBRUARY 28. THE TOTALS OF THE THREE BIDS WERE AS FOLLOWS: TABLE WORTHINGTON CORPORATION $45. THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WERE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF DELIVERY OF SUPPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING DESTINATIONS: (ITEM 1) AIR CONDITIONING PLANTS 1 EACH - MECHANICSBURG.

B-151146, JUN. 3, 1963

TO YORK CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER BIDDER UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 600-764-63, ISSUED BY THE NAVAL PURCHASING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF AIR- CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD NOW BEFORE THIS OFFICE INDICATES THAT THE ABOVE INVITATION WAS ISSUED BY THE NAVAL PURCHASING OFFICE ON FEBRUARY 7, 1963, BASED UPON A REQUIREMENT OF THE BUREAU OF SHIPS FOR TWO AIR- CONDITIONING PLANTS, TWO SETS OF ONBOARD REPAIR PARTS, THREE CONDENSERS AND FOUR CONDENSING UNITS. THE INVITATION ALSO INCLUDED REQUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DRAWINGS, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL TECHNICAL MANUALS, AND PROVISIONING TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION. THE SUPPLIES WERE COVERED BY THE NAVY'S QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST. FOUR BIDS WERE SOLICITED AND THREE BIDS WERE RECEIVED. THE BIDS WERE OPENED AND TABULATED ON FEBRUARY 28, 1963, AND THE TOTALS OF THE THREE BIDS WERE AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE

WORTHINGTON CORPORATION $45,202.00

ESTIMATED TRANSPORTATION COST 1,036.51

$46,238.51

YORK CORPORATION $46,087.00

ESTIMATED TRANSPORTATION COST 1,271.68

$47,358.68

CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY $51,926.00

ESTIMATED TRANSPORTATION COST 1,205.55

$53,131.55

FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATING THE BIDS--- AND FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE-- THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WERE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF DELIVERY OF SUPPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING DESTINATIONS:

(ITEM 1) AIR CONDITIONING PLANTS

1 EACH - MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

1 EACH - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

(ITEM 8) CONDENSER

3 EACH - MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

(ITEM 10) CONDENSING UNIT

3 EACH - LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

1 EACH - MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

THE REMAINDER OF THE ITEMS WERE TO BE DELIVERED BY COMMERCIAL MAIL.

IT APPEARS THAT IN SUBSTANCE YOUR PROTEST IS BASED UPON YOUR BELIEF THAT THE LOW BID SUBMITTED BY THE WORTHINGTON CORPORATION WAS NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION DUE TO THE FACT THAT (1) THE BIDDER DID NOT QUOTE A PRICE ON DRAWINGS, TECHNICAL MANUALS AND PROVISIONING TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION--- ITEMS 7, 9, AND 12 THROUGH 16--- AND (2) THAT THESE ITEMS ARE DUPLICATE ITEMS, PREVIOUSLY FURNISHED BY YOUR CORPORATION.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR FIRST CONTENTION, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE INVITATION SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED ON PAGE 5 THAT AWARD WOULD BE MADE BY LOT. FURTHERMORE, IT IS NOTED THAT OPPOSITE ITEMS 3 THROUGH 7 THE BIDDER STATED THAT THE PRICES THEREFOR WERE INCLUDED IN ITEM 1; THAT THE PRICE OF ITEM 9 WAS INCLUDED IN ITEM 8, AND THAT THE PRICES FOR ITEMS 12 THROUGH 16 WERE INCLUDED IN ITEM 10. THEREFOR, SINCE THE PRICES SO SUBMITTED BY THE WORTHINGTON CORPORATION COVERED ALL ITEMS FOR WHICH PRICES WERE REQUESTED FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE RELATIVE STANDING OF THE BID SUBMITTED BY THAT CORPORATION ON A LOT BASIS WAS SUSCEPTIBLE OF EXACT DETERMINATION. IN VIEW THEREOF, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID WOULD OBLIGATE THE BIDDER TO FURNISH THE ITEMS MENTIONED. ACCORDINGLY, WE PERCEIVE NO BASIS FOR YOUR PROTEST WITH RESPECT TO THIS PHASE OF THE MATTER.

CONCERNING YOUR SECOND CONTENTION THAT SINCE THE ITEMS COVERED BY THIS INVITATION ARE DUPLICATES OF THAT PREVIOUSLY FURNISHED BY YOUR CORPORATION, THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SPEND MONEY FOR DRAWINGS AND MANUALS WHICH IT ALREADY HAS IN STOCK, WE QUOTE THE FOLLOWING FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:

"BUREAU OF SHIPS HAS INFORMED THIS OFFICE BY ENCLOSURE 10 THAT PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS, FINAL DRAWINGS, PRELIMINARY MANUALS AND FINAL MANUALS WILL BE REQUIRED WHETHER THE AWARD IS MADE TO WORTHINGTON CORPORATION, YORK CORPORATION OR CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY.

"YORK CORPORATION HAS IMPLIED THAT THEY INTEND TO SUPPLY SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL EQUIPMENT TO THAT PREVIOUSLY FURNISHED UNDER A PRIOR CONTRACT AND THAT PRELIMINARY PLAN REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MET BY THEIR PREVIOUS SUBMISSION FOR THESE ITEMS. BUT ALL THESE ITEMS ARE NOT IDENTICAL, FOR EXAMPLE THE "CLASS A" MOTOR. FURTHERMORE, AS THE PROPOSED PROCUREMENT IS BASED ON A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE INVITATION FOR BIDS WHICH PREVENTS YORK CORPORATION FROM MAKING OTHER CHANGES IN ITEMS PREVIOUSLY SUPPLIED. NEW DRAWINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR ANY CHANGED ITEMS.'

IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENTS BY THE NAVY DEPARTMENT THAT THE DRAWINGS AND MANUALS PREVIOUSLY FURNISHED BY YOU WOULD NOT NECESSARILY COVER THE EQUIPMENT WHICH YOU MIGHT FURNISH UNDER THE PRESENT INVITATION, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR QUESTIONING ITS ACTION IN REQUIRING NEW DRAWINGS AND MANUALS. ON THIS BASIS, YOU WERE NOT THE LOW BIDDER. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.