B-154667, B-154894, FEB. 18, 1965

B-154667,B-154894: Feb 18, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

YOU CITE A TOTAL OF 8 RECENT NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS AT THE ROBINS INSTALLATION WHERE LOW BIDS FROM YOUR FIRM WERE REJECTED ON THE BASIS THAT YOU DID NOT POSSESS A FULL SET OF DRAWINGS AND DATA FOR THE REQUIRED ITEMS. YOU QUESTION WHETHER THE REJECTIONS WERE PROPERLY HANDLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY PROCEDURE. 3253 AND 3265) WERE SPECIFIED MANUFACTURER'S PART NUMBERS. THAT PRE-AWARD SURVEYS WERE CONDUCTED BY AIR FORCE AT YOUR PLANT IN JUNE 1964. THAT A FURTHER SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN JULY 1964. MANY DEFICIENCIES WERE REPORTED BY THE SURVEY TEAM. YOUR BIDS WERE RECOMMENDED FOR REJECTION. THE MINUTES OF THE PRE-AWARD BOARD STATE THAT: "SINCE ALL WORK REQUIRED IS CONTINGENT UPON UNKNOWN VENDOR DELIVERIES.

B-154667, B-154894, FEB. 18, 1965

TO ACTECH CORPORATION:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 6, 1964, AND TELEGRAM OF AUGUST 4, 1964, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE UNDER SEVERAL PROCUREMENTS ISSUED AT THE WARNER-ROBINS AIR MATERIEL AREA, ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA.

YOU CITE A TOTAL OF 8 RECENT NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS AT THE ROBINS INSTALLATION WHERE LOW BIDS FROM YOUR FIRM WERE REJECTED ON THE BASIS THAT YOU DID NOT POSSESS A FULL SET OF DRAWINGS AND DATA FOR THE REQUIRED ITEMS. YOU DISPUTE THE ACCURACY OF THESE DETERMINATIONS. FURTHER, YOU QUESTION WHETHER THE REJECTIONS WERE PROPERLY HANDLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY PROCEDURE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ITEMS REQUIRED UNDER EACH OF THE PROCUREMENTS (RFP NOS. 09-603-64-3078, 64-3107, 3194, 3219, 3237, 3240, 3253 AND 3265) WERE SPECIFIED MANUFACTURER'S PART NUMBERS; THAT PRE-AWARD SURVEYS WERE CONDUCTED BY AIR FORCE AT YOUR PLANT IN JUNE 1964, TO CONSIDER YOUR BIDS UNDER RFP 64-3078 AND 3107, AND THAT A FURTHER SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN JULY 1964, RELATIVE TO YOUR BIDS UNDER THE OTHER CITED PROCUREMENTS. MANY DEFICIENCIES WERE REPORTED BY THE SURVEY TEAM, AND YOUR BIDS WERE RECOMMENDED FOR REJECTION. THE SURVEY TEAM REPORTED THAT YOU FAILED TO SHOW THAT YOU HAD THE DRAWINGS AND TEST SPECIFICATIONS NEEDED TO SUCCESSFULLY MAKE ANY OF THE REQUIRED ITEMS. WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR BID ON RFP 64-3107 (THE POWER SUPPLY, RCA P/N 8987131-1, APPLICABLE TO AN/ALR-19), THE MINUTES OF THE PRE-AWARD BOARD STATE THAT:

"SINCE ALL WORK REQUIRED IS CONTINGENT UPON UNKNOWN VENDOR DELIVERIES, INADEQUATE FACILITIES, INSUFFICIENT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, QUESTIONABLE TALENTED AND/OR PRODUCTIVE PERSONNEL, LACK OF SPECIAL TEST EQUIPMENT, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RECOMMEND AN AWARD AT THIS TIME.'

IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR BIDS UNDER RFP'S 3194, 3219, 3237, 3240, 3253 AND 3265, THE "FINDINGS AND TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS" REPORT STATED AS FOLLOWS:

"IA. SUMMARY OF DATA EVALUATION:

"CONSIDERING THAT ACTECH HAS NEVER MANUFACTURED ANY OF THE ITEMS REFLECTED ON THE RFPS, POSSESSION OF COMPLETE AND DETAILED DATA INCLUDING TEST SPECIFICATIONS, BOTH ELECTRICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL, WOULD BE REQUIRED OF THIS CORPORATION TO MANUFACTURE QUALITY ASSURED ITEMS. THIS CORPORATION DID NOT PRESENT AN ADEQUATE AND UP-TO-DATE PACKAGE FOR ANY ITEM ON THE RFPS.

"II. ANALYSIS OF TEST EQUIPMENT IN POSSESSION OF ACTECH:

"TEST EQUIPMENT OBSERVED AT THE ACTECH FACILITY WAS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF WRAMA ENGINEERING, OF A GENERAL QUALITY TO POSSESS THE ACCURACY NECESSARY TO ASSURE THE QUALITY OF THE SUBJECT EQUIPMENTS. THERE SEEMED ALSO TO BE NO FIXED PLAN FOR TEST EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION, A NECESSITY IN THE PROPER OPERATION OF ANY TESTING PROGRAM. QUANTITY OF TEST EQUIPMENT, AS WELL AS QUALITY, HAS CAUSED THE INVESTIGATING TEAM SOME CONCERN. SOME OF THE HIGHER PRODUCTION, SHORTER INTERVAL JOBS BID, THERE IS SOME DOUBT AS TO WHETHER ACTECH CORPORATION WOULD BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY PERFORM NECESSARY TESTS DUE TO THE TIME/TEST EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR.

"IIA. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF WRAMA PARTICIPANTS IN SURVEY OF ACTECH:

"FINDINGS OF THE UNDERSIGNED REVEAL THAT ACTECH DOES NOT POSSESS THE NECESSARY DRAWINGS AND TEST EQUIPMENT TO PERFORM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBJECT RFPS, THEREFORE, FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT, NEGATIVE FCRS ON ALL RFPS INVOLVED ARE RECOMMENDED.'

ON RFP 3078, AWARD WAS MADE TO ADMIRAL CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,912.90, WITHOUT PRIOR REFERRAL OF YOUR BID TO SBA UNDER THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY PROCEDURE. (THIS PROCEDURE IS NOT MANDATORY FOR AWARDS NOT EXCEEDING $10,000. ASPR 1-705.1 (B) (11).) REFERRALS WERE MADE TO SBA ON RFP'S 3107, 3194, 3219, 3237, 3240, 3253 AND 3265. BY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 1964, SBA REGIONAL OFFICE, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, REPORTED THAT YOU ELECTED NOT TO FILE APPLICATIONS FOR COC'S ON RFP'S 3219 AND 3265, AND THAT IT WAS CLOSING ITS FILES ON THESE CASES. AWARDS WERE THEREAFTER MADE ON THESE TWO PROCUREMENTS. (SEE B-154865, SEPTEMBER 14, 1964, CONCERNING A PROTEST BY YOUR FIRM.) FOR THE REMAINING RFP-S, SBA HAD REQUESTED THAT IT BE FURNISHED THE APPLICABLE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS; HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTING AUTHORITY ADVISED SBA THAT IT DID NOT HAVE ALL THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE SBA THEN ADVISED THE CONTRACTING AUTHORITY THAT IT WAS UNABLE TO PROCESS THE COC APPLICATIONS.

THEREAFTER, RFP'S 3194 AND 3237 WERE CANCELLED WHEN IT WAS DETERMINED THAT EXISTING STOCKS OF THE SPECIFIED ITEMS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE AIR FORCE NEEDS. RFP'S 3253 AND 3107 WERE AWARDED ON OCTOBER 21 AND DECEMBER 1, 1964, RESPECTIVELY, AS EMERGENCY REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASPR 2-407.9/B) (2). IT IS REPORTED, HOWEVER, THAT RFP 3240 WAS AWARDED TO YOUR FIRM, ON JANUARY 29, 1965, IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,885, AFTER FURTHER SURVEYS OF YOUR FIRM AND DISCUSSIONS WITH YOUR OFFICIALS CONVINCED THE AIR FORCE THAT YOUR FIRM WAS PRESENTLY QUALIFIED TO MANUFACTURE THE REQUIRED COMPONENTS. IN THIS CONNECTION, AIR FORCE ADVISES US THAT THE DELIVERY TIME WAS EXTENDED ON THIS PROCUREMENT TO PERMIT AWARD TO YOUR FIRM.

IT APPEARS THAT AIR FORCE WAS UNWILLING TO MAKE AN AWARD TO YOUR FIRM ON THESE PROCUREMENTS WHILE IT FELT THAT YOU LACKED THE NECESSARY TESTING EQUIPMENT TO ASSURE DELIVERY OF THE REQUIRED ITEMS WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME. THE SITUATION WAS UNUSUAL IN THAT NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT NOR YOUR FIRM WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE THE SBA WITH THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHICH SBA NEEDED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRED AND WHETHER YOUR FIRM OFFERED ITEMS WHICH WERE RESPONSIVE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS. THE MATTER WAS RESOLVED IN YOUR FAVOR WITH REGARD TO RFP 3240. OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER, JUSTIFIED PROMPT AWARDS TO OTHER FIRMS OR CANCELLATIONS ON THE OTHER PENDING PROCUREMENTS.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE FIND NO BASIS TO QUESTION THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE ON THESE SEVERAL PROCUREMENTS.