B-152632, JAN. 3, 1964

B-152632: Jan 3, 1964

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 17. IN THE REPORT FROM THE FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE IT IS INDICATED THAT AWARD HAS NOT BEEN MADE. IT IS STATED THAT A DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS DISCLOSED THAT THEY EMBODIED MANY . THE SPECIFICATIONS CONTAIN FREQUENT REFERENCES TO SUCH PROPRIETARY TERMS AS "PRE VAC" AND "VACAMATIC" AND THIS INDICATES THE DIFFICULTY OTHER BIDDERS WOULD HAVE IN SUBMITTING A FULLY RESPONSIVE BID. IN THE REPORT IT IS STATED FURTHER THAT. IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT THE SPECIFICATION WAS RESTRICTIVE. THE FORT WORTH OFFICE SHOULD HAVE PROCURED TO A SPECIFICATION SUCH AS THE INTERIM FEDERAL SPECIFICATION. SINCE YOU HAVE REQUESTED A FULL REPORT IN THE MATTER.

B-152632, JAN. 3, 1964

TO ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 17, 1963, FROM THE COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE, FURNISHING A REPORT ON THE PROTEST OF WILMOT CASTLE COMPANY AGAINST THE USE OF PROPRIETARY SPECIFICATIONS IN THE ISSUANCE OF INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DA12/BO 06381 BY THE FORT WORTH, TEXAS, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE.

THE INVITATION SOLICITED BIDS FOR FURNISHING A STERILIZER, INCLUDING INSTALLATION, FOR USE AT THE SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS. WILMOT CASTLE COMPANY PROTESTED THE USE OF PROPRIETARY SPECIFICATIONS AND THE FACT THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS DID NOT PROVIDE FOR BIDDERS TO FURNISH AN "OR EQUAL" PRODUCT.

IN THE REPORT FROM THE FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE IT IS INDICATED THAT AWARD HAS NOT BEEN MADE. IT IS STATED THAT A DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS DISCLOSED THAT THEY EMBODIED MANY ,AMERICAN STERILIZER" CHARACTERISTICS TO THE EXCLUSION OF EQUIPMENT COMPARABLE IN USE BUT BUILT ALONG SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT TIMES. THE SPECIFICATIONS CONTAIN FREQUENT REFERENCES TO SUCH PROPRIETARY TERMS AS "PRE VAC" AND "VACAMATIC" AND THIS INDICATES THE DIFFICULTY OTHER BIDDERS WOULD HAVE IN SUBMITTING A FULLY RESPONSIVE BID. IN THE REPORT IT IS STATED FURTHER THAT---

"IN VIEW OF OUR REVIEW OF THE MATTER, IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT THE SPECIFICATION WAS RESTRICTIVE, AND THAT IF IT WISHED TO USE FORMAL ADVERTISING, THE FORT WORTH OFFICE SHOULD HAVE PROCURED TO A SPECIFICATION SUCH AS THE INTERIM FEDERAL SPECIFICATION, OR, IF FELT MORE DESIRABLE, ON A BRAND NAME BASIS, USING THE APPROPRIATE AMERICAN STERILIZER MODEL NUMBER AND PERMITTING BIDS ON AN "OR EQUAL" BASIS. UNDER THE PROCEDURES ACTUALLY USED, WE INTEND TO REJECT ALL BIDS. NEVERTHELESS, SINCE YOU HAVE REQUESTED A FULL REPORT IN THE MATTER, WE PLAN TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION PENDING ADVICE FROM YOU AS TO WHETHER YOU WOULD HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO SUCH REJECTION AND READVERTISEMENT, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PRICES OF THE AMERICAN STERILIZER COMPANY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.'

IN VIEW OF THE RESTRICTIVE NATURE OF THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION WE AGREE THAT THE BIDS RECEIVED SHOULD BE REJECTED AND THAT THE PROCUREMENT SHOULD BE READVERTISED AS YOU SUGGEST.