B-154466, AUG. 28, 1964

B-154466, AUG. 28, 1964

TO ROYALMETAL CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 12, 1964, PROTESTING THE POSSIBLE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANOTHER BIDDER UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO FPNFO-F-54993-A-5-25-64 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA) ON APRIL 13, 1964.

THE INVITATION SOLICITED BIDS FOR FURNISHING CERTAIN STEEL OFFICE PARTITIONS AS MIGHT BE NEEDED TO MEET THE NORMAL SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS OF THE GSA STORES DEPOTS DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1, 1964, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1965.

IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AS BROAD A COMPETITIVE BASE AS POSSIBLE, ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR CONSTRUCTING THE PARTITIONS WERE PROVIDED BY THE SPECIFICATION. ARTICLE 27 OF THE INVITATION PROVIDED FOR CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO FEDERAL SPECIFICATION AA-P-615A APPLICABLE HERE. PARAGRAPH 3.1.7.1 OF THE SPECIFICATION (APPEARING IN ARTICLE 27) PROVIDED THAT THE INTERIOR BRACING OF THE PANELS WOULD BE BY A SYSTEM OF "Z" BRACES. FURTHERMORE, PARAGRAPH 3.1.7.3 PERMITTED AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF BRACING BY MEANS OF A HONEYCOMB CORE.

IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED THAT EITHER SYSTEM FOR BRACING IS SATISFACTORY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF STRENGTH BUT THAT THE HONEYCOMB CORE, WHICH CONTAINS NUMEROUS PAPER CELLS COVERING THE ENTIRE SPACE BETWEEN THE PANEL WALLS, AUTOMATICALLY PROVIDES ADEQUATE SOUND DEADENING QUALITIES. THE "Z" BRACE METHOD, ON THE OTHER HAND, DOES NOT DEADEN SOUND SUFFICIENTLY WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF INSULATION MATERIAL. PARAGRAPH 3.1.7.5 OF THE SPECIFICATION WAS THEREFORE INCLUDED TO COVER SOUND DEADENING CHARACTERISTICS WHEN "Z" BRACE CONSTRUCTION IS EMPLOYED.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU POINT OUT THAT PARAGRAPH 3.1.7.5 OF THE SPECIFICATION DOES NOT DESCRIBE IN GREAT DETAIL THE SOUND DEADENING REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET WHEN THE "Z" BRACE METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION IS EMPLOYED WHEREAS CONSIDERABLE DETAIL IS GIVEN ON HONEYCOMB CORE CONSTRUCTION. ALSO, YOU POINT OUT THAT THE LACK OF DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INSULATION TO BE USED WITH THE "Z" BRACE CONSTRUCTION COULD VERY WELL PLACE THE BIDDER ON THIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AT AN ADVANTAGE OVER A BIDDER PROPOSING TO USE THE HONEYCOMB CORE CONSTRUCTION SINCE THE LATTER CONSTRUCTION MIGHT VERY WELL INVOLVE A MORE COSTLY CONSTRUCTION. YOU CONTEND THAT THE FAILURE TO STATE WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE "THOROUGHLY INSULATED" AS USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE "Z" BRACE METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION WAS "SO INDEFINITE AS TO PRECLUDE FAIR BIDDING UNDER THE INVITATION.'

THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE STRESSES THE FACT THAT THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE HONEYCOMB CORE CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPECIFYING SOUND DEADENING QUALITIES BUT RATHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSURING ADEQUATE STRENGTH AND THAT IN THIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION THE SOUND DEADENING QUALITIES ARE INCIDENTAL. IT IS REPORTED THAT PARAGRAPH 3.1.7.5 OF THE SPECIFICATION STATES THE MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE MERE FACT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION DETAIL ON THE HONEYCOMB CORE, WHICH WAS NECESSARY TO INSURE ADEQUATE STRENGTH, MIGHT INCIDENTALLY PROVIDE SUPERIOR SOUND DEADENING QUALITY AND MIGHT BE MORE COSTLY IS NOT CONSIDERED A PROPER BASIS FOR PROTESTING AN AWARD WHICH MIGHT BE MADE TO A LOW BIDDER OFFERING THE "Z" BRACE METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION.

IN THE DRAFTING OF SPECIFICATIONS IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE AMOUNT OF DETAIL THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ORDER TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT. OF COURSE THE MORE DETAILS THAT ARE PUT INTO THE SPECIFICATIONS THE LESS LIKELY WILL BE THE POSSIBILITY THAT ITEMS OFFERED THEREUNDER WILL FAIL TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GREATER THE DEGREE OF DETAIL, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT THE SPECIFICATION WILL BE RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITION OR WILL INHIBIT THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMPONENTS OR TECHNIQUES OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS THAT THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT THAT PANELS BE "THOROUGHLY INSULATED" HAS BEEN USED SINCE 1958 "WITHOUT INCIDENT.' FEDERAL SPECIFICATION AA-P-615A, HERE INVOLVED, WHICH WAS ISSUED IN SEPTEMBER 1960, WAS FULLY COORDINATED WITH INDUSTRY, INCLUDING YOUR FIRM, AND IT IS REPORTED THAT NO OBJECTIONS ON THIS POINT WERE MADE.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE SPECIFICATION SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBES THE NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE FACT THAT ONE PARTICULAR TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION MAY BE MORE COSTLY THAN ANOTHER TYPE WHICH MIGHT ALSO MEET THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS DOES NOT MAKE THE USE OF SUCH A SPECIFICATION UNFAIR OR PREJUDICIAL TO BIDDERS. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.