B-154668, AUG. 25, 1964

B-154668: Aug 25, 1964

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

DAVIS COMPANY: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF JULY 3 AND 20. UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION THE DATE FOR OPENING OF BIDS WAS JANUARY 29. YOUR BID ON THE NON-SET-ASIDE PORTION WAS THE LOWEST RECEIVED. WHICH WAS AWARDED UNDER A PRIOR IFB. A PREAWARD SURVEY OF YOUR COMPANY WAS REQUESTED AND PERFORMED. THE REPORT OF THE SURVEY WAS NOT FAVORABLE TO YOUR FIRM SO FAR AS YOUR ABILITY TO PRODUCE THE TOTAL QUANTITY REQUIRED BY BOTH THE NON-SET ASIDE AND THE SET-ASIDE PORTIONS OF THE IFB. IT IS REPORTED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF YOUR FIRM VISITED THE OFFICE OF NAVAL MATERIAL TO REQUEST THAT A SURVEY BE MADE BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE COGNIZANT INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL. AGAIN THE REPORT WAS NOT FAVORABLE TO YOUR FIRM SO FAR AS PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY FOR MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF THE TOTAL PROCUREMENT WAS CONCERNED.

B-154668, AUG. 25, 1964

TO THE HUGH F. DAVIS COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF JULY 3 AND 20, 1964, RELATIVE TO YOUR ENTITLEMENT TO THE SET-ASIDE PORTION UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS 197-448-64 (600-448-64), ISSUED BY NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION THE DATE FOR OPENING OF BIDS WAS JANUARY 29, 1964. THE INVITATION PROVIDED FOR A 50 PERCENT SET-ASIDE FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS. YOUR BID ON THE NON-SET-ASIDE PORTION WAS THE LOWEST RECEIVED, CONSIDERING FREIGHT. HOWEVER, SINCE YOUR FIRM HAS BEEN DELINQUENT FOR IDENTICAL EQUIPMENT UNDER CONTRACT N600/19/60202, WHICH WAS AWARDED UNDER A PRIOR IFB, AND SINCE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE DELINQUENCY TO BE JUSTIFIED, A PREAWARD SURVEY OF YOUR COMPANY WAS REQUESTED AND PERFORMED. THE REPORT OF THE SURVEY WAS NOT FAVORABLE TO YOUR FIRM SO FAR AS YOUR ABILITY TO PRODUCE THE TOTAL QUANTITY REQUIRED BY BOTH THE NON-SET ASIDE AND THE SET-ASIDE PORTIONS OF THE IFB. HOWEVER, IT DID FIND THAT YOUR FIRM HAD THE CAPACITY TO PERFORM ON ONE-HALF OF THE REQUIREMENTS, OR 70 UNITS PER MONTH, AND THE NON-SET- ASIDE PORTION HAS SINCE BEEN AWARDED TO YOU.

IT IS REPORTED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF YOUR FIRM VISITED THE OFFICE OF NAVAL MATERIAL TO REQUEST THAT A SURVEY BE MADE BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE COGNIZANT INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL. THE OFFICE OF NAVAL MATERIAL SENT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE MAIN OFFICE TO YOUR PLANT IN COVINGTON, KENTUCKY, AND AGAIN THE REPORT WAS NOT FAVORABLE TO YOUR FIRM SO FAR AS PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY FOR MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF THE TOTAL PROCUREMENT WAS CONCERNED.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES, THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE REQUESTED A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY REVIEW BY THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR CAPABILITY TO PERFORM THE SET ASIDE PORTION IN ADDITION TO THE NON-SET-ASIDE PORTION. THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SUBSEQUENTLY CERTIFIED FAVORABLY AS TO THE CAPACITY OF YOUR FIRM TO PERFORM ON THE SET-ASIDE PORTION.

IN VIEW OF THE DELINQUENCY OF YOUR FIRM UNDER THE CONTRACT ALREADY IN EXISTENCE UNDER A PRIOR IFB, AND IN VIEW OF TWO INDEPENDENT UNFAVORABLE PREAWARD SURVEYS, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FELT DOUBT MIGHT EXIST AS TO WHETHER THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, IN ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY, WAS IN EFFECT CERTIFYING YOUR FIRM FOR THE FULL QUANTITY OF THE PROCUREMENT, OR ONLY FOR ONE-HALF OF IT. THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE THEREFORE PROTESTED THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ASPR 1 705.6.

AT A CONFERENCE HELD AT THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND BY LETTER DATED JULY 22, 1964, FROM THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, THAT ORGANIZATION MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCE AS ISSUED WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE PROCUREMENT WHICH WAS REFERRED TO THAT ADMINISTRATION--- THAT IS, THE SET-ASIDE PORTION IN ADDITION TO THE NON-SET-ASIDE PORTION. ON THE BASIS OF THIS CLARIFICATION, THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE HAS WITHDRAWN ITS PROTEST TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE. HOWEVER, BEFORE AWARD OF THE SET-ASIDE PORTION, THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE WAS ADVISED BY YOU THAT YOUR PLACE OF MANUFACTURE WILL BE CHANGED FROM COVINGTON, KENTUCKY, TO FALMOUTH, KENTUCKY. SINCE YOU WERE THE LOW BIDDER ON THE BASIS OF FREIGHT, THE CHANGE HAD TO BE CONSIDERED AND THE DELIVERY COSTS REEVALUATED. SINCE IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT NO CHANGE OF FREIGHT RATES WAS INVOLVED, WE ARE ADVISED THAT THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE INTENDS TO MAKE PROMPT AWARD OF THE SET-ASIDE PORTION TO YOU.

IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OUTLINED ABOVE, WE SEE NO OBJECTION TO THE ACTION PROPOSED BY THE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY, AND SINCE SUCH ACTION WOULD APPEAR TO SATISFY YOUR PROTEST, NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION IS CONTEMPLATED BY OUR OFFICE.