B-154634, AUG. 25, 1964

B-154634, AUG. 25, 1964

TO VICTORY ELECTRONICS, INCORPORATED:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE PROPOSED REJECTION OF YOUR BID SUBMITTED UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 600-893 64, ISSUED BY THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR FURNISHING 154 AN/GSA-33 AUDIO AMPLIFIERS.

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION THE EQUIPMENT WAS TO BE FURNISHED F.O.B. ORIGIN, AND FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES THE FINAL DESTINATIONS OF THE EQUIPMENT WERE TO BE CONSIDERED AS 50 PERCENT TO EACH NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AND OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA. IN ORDER THAT THE BIDS COULD BE PROPERLY EVALUATED, BIDDERS WERE REQUIRED TO GUARANTEE MAXIMUM SHIPPING WEIGHT AND TO GIVE CERTAIN DATA FROM WHICH TRANSPORTATION COSTS COULD BE COMPUTED. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE "GUARANTEED MAXIMUM SHIPPING WEIGHTS, DIMENSIONS AND RELATED DATA" PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 9 OF THE INVITATION PROVIDES, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"/B) THE ATTACHED "EVALUATION TRANSPORTATION DATA SHEET" (PRNC-NPO 238) ( 6/63 ( WILL BE COMPLETED FOR ITEMS CHECKED IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS.'

THE REFERRED-TO TRANSPORTATION DATA SHEET WAS, OR WAS SUPPOSED TO BE, ATTACHED TO THE BID INVITATIONS NOT AS PAGE 13, BUT MERELY AS AN ATTACHMENT FOLLOWING PAGE 12. IT IS REPORTED THAT THE TRANSPORTATION DATA SHEET WAS ATTACHED TO YOUR BID WHEN SUBMITTED, BUT IT WAS BLANK.

YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 29, 1964, STATES, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"DURING MY VISIT TO YOUR OFFICE YOU SHOWED ME A BLANK COPY OF PAGE 13. ASSUME THIS WAS THE BLANK PAGE TAKEN FROM THE VICTORY BID SET; CONSEQUENTLY, I CERTAINLY AGREED WITH YOU THAT FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM AUTOMATICALLY CAUSED VICTORY TO BE NON-RESPONSIVE. YOU ALSO CALLED MY ATTENTION TO THE NOTATION THAT "FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL MAKE BIDDER NON-RESPONSIVE" .

"HOWEVER, AFTER LEAVING YOUR OFFICE I WENT DIRECTLY TO SYOSSET, NEW YORK, TO VISIT THE PLANT ON ROUTINE BUSINESS. MR. JOSEPH LAZAR, PRESIDENT, INQUIRED ABOUT IFB 600-893-64 AND WHEN I RELATED MY CONVERSATION WITH YOU HE CALLED IN HIS CONTRACTS GROUP AND THEY ADVISED ME THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED PAGE 13 WITH THE BID SET AND, FURTHER, THAT THE COVER PAGE OF THE BID SET STATED PAGES 1 THROUGH 12 WERE INCLUDED WITH NO MENTION OF ANY PAGE 13. BELIEVE THIS WAS COVERED UNDER 4.2.9. I EXAMINED THE BID SET AT THE PLANT AND PAGE 12 IS DEFINITELY THE LAST PAGE OF THE BID SET.'

IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE TRANSPORTATION DATA SHEET WAS NOT ATTACHED TO YOUR RETAINED COPY OF THE INVITATION. HOWEVER, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IT BECAME SEPARATED FROM THE INVITATION IN YOUR PLANT, PARTICULARLY SINCE IT IS REPORTED THAT YOUR BID, AS SUBMITTED, CONTAINED SAID SHEET. IN ANY EVENT, THE INVITATION ITSELF (PAGE 9), WHICH YOU DID HAVE, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT BIDDERS WERE TO GIVE CERTAIN DATA, INCLUDING A GUARANTEED SHIPPING WEIGHT FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES. THEREFORE, AND SINCE THE EQUIPMENT WAS TO BE FURNISHED F.O.B. ORIGIN, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPARENT TO YOU THAT CERTAIN DATA WOULD HAVE TO BE GIVEN IN ORDER THAT TRANSPORTATION COSTS COULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE EVALUATION OF THE BIDS.

IN 38 COMP. GEN. 819 IT WAS HELD THAT THE FAILURE TO STATE GUARANTEED SHIPPING WEIGHT IS NOT A MINOR DEFICIENCY IN A BID WHICH MAY BE WAIVED AS AN INFORMALITY AND THAT SUCH INFORMATION MAY NOT BE SUPPLIED AFTER THE OPENING OF THE BIDS. SINCE YOUR BID, AS SUBMITTED, DID NOT CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION FROM WHICH GUARANTEED SHIPPING COSTS COULD BE COMPUTED, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR US TO QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT YOUR BID IS NONRESPONSIVE AND, THEREFORE, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AWARD.