B-155325, DEC. 8, 1964

B-155325: Dec 8, 1964

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WHICH WAS ISSUED BY ROAMA ON AUGUST 28. BID OPENING WAS SCHEDULE FOR 2:00 P.M. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS DIRECTLY REFERRED TO IN THIS SOLICITATION ARE NOT ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER RECEIVED A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 23 FROM YOUR ADVISING THAT YOU WERE MISSING CERTAIN DETAILED DRAWINGS WHICH YOU REQUESTED BE RUSHED TO YOU. THAT THE BID PACKAGE CONTAINED ALL THE DRAWINGS DEEMED APPLICABLE AND THAT NO FURTHER DRAWINGS WERE BEING FURNISHED TO ANY BIDDER. BIDS WERE OPENED AS SCHEDULED. THE BIDS WERE CONSIDERED TO BE WITHIN A REASONABLE COMPETITIVE PRICE RANGE. NO BID WAS SUBMITTED BY YOU. YOU ALLEGE THAT THE STATEMENT IN ITEM 40 OF THE IFB TO THE EFFECT THAT THE IFB WAS ACCOMPANIED BY DRAWING RCA647502 WITH ALL DETAILS WAS IMPROPER.

B-155325, DEC. 8, 1964

TO MILO COMPONENTS, INC.:

YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 2, 1964, ADDRESSED TO THE ROME AIR MATERIEL AREA (ROAMA), COPY OF WHICH YOU FURNISHED OUR OFFICE, PROTESTS THE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 30-635-65-35.

THE IFB, WHICH WAS ISSUED BY ROAMA ON AUGUST 28, 1964, SOLICITED BIDS, ON A TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE BASIS, TO FURNISH A SPECIFIED QUANTITY OF AN RCA PART NUMBER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS. BID OPENING WAS SCHEDULE FOR 2:00 P.M., EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME, OCTOBER 1, 1964. ITEM 40 READS AS FOLLOWS:

"40. SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS:

(A) THE FOLLOWING DRAWINGS ACCOMPANY THIS INVITATION FOR BID:

RCA 647502 WITH ALL DETAILS

(B) ALL OTHER DRAWINGS, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS DIRECTLY REFERRED TO IN THIS SOLICITATION ARE NOT ENCLOSED HEREWITH. COPIES OF SAID DRAWINGS, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS MAY BE OBTAINED UPON APPLICATION TO COMMANDER, ROME AIR MATERIEL AREA, ATTN: ---------, GRIFFISS AFB, NEW YORK. SPECIFICATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE REFERENCED DIRECTLY HEREIN MAY BE OBTAINED UPON APPLICATION TO COMMANDING OFFICER, U.S. NAVAL SUPPLY DEPOT, (CODE DC- 1), 5801 TABOR AVENUE, PHILADELPHIA 20, PENNSYLVANIA.'

ON SEPTEMBER 30, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER RECEIVED A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 23 FROM YOUR ADVISING THAT YOU WERE MISSING CERTAIN DETAILED DRAWINGS WHICH YOU REQUESTED BE RUSHED TO YOU. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED YOU BY LETTER OF THE SAME DATE, SEPTEMBER 30, THAT THE BID PACKAGE CONTAINED ALL THE DRAWINGS DEEMED APPLICABLE AND THAT NO FURTHER DRAWINGS WERE BEING FURNISHED TO ANY BIDDER.

ON OCTOBER 1, BIDS WERE OPENED AS SCHEDULED. FIFTEEN BIDS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED WITHOUT REQUEST BY ANY OF THE BIDDERS FOR ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS. WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF TWO OR THREE, THE BIDS WERE CONSIDERED TO BE WITHIN A REASONABLE COMPETITIVE PRICE RANGE. NO BID WAS SUBMITTED BY YOU.

IN YOUR PROTEST OF OCTOBER 2, YOU ALLEGE THAT THE STATEMENT IN ITEM 40 OF THE IFB TO THE EFFECT THAT THE IFB WAS ACCOMPANIED BY DRAWING RCA647502 WITH ALL DETAILS WAS IMPROPER. THEREFORE, YOU CONTEND, YOU WERE NOT GIVEN AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO BID ON THE ITEM.

IN A REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 19, FROM HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, IT IS STATED THAT IN THE OPINION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND THE COGNIZANT AIR FORCE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL THE DRAWINGS FURNISHED WITH THE IFB CONTAIN COMPLETE LISTING OF THE PARTS REQUIRED, ASSEMBLY LAYOUTS, SCHEMATIC AND PRACTICAL WIRING DIAGRAMS AND A SPECIFICATION FOR PERFORMANCE AND TESTING, WHICH DATA THEY CONSIDER ADEQUATE FOR BIDDING PURPOSES. IT IS ADMITTED THAT SUCH DRAWINGS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE SET OF MANUFACTURING DRAWINGS, BUT NECESSARY ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS ON PRINTED CIRCUIT PROCESSING, TRANSFORMER SPECIFICATIONS, MOUNTING DIMENSIONS, ETC., WILL BE FURNISHED AFTER AWARD TO ENABLE THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER TO MANUFACTURE THE ITEM.

ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION 1-1201 PROVIDES THAT PLANS, DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS OR PURCHASE DESCRIPTIONS FOR PROCUREMENTS SHALL STATE ONLY THE ACTUAL MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND DESCRIBE THE ITEMS IN A MANNER WHICH WILL ENCOURAGE MAXIMUM COMPETITION AND ELIMINATE RESTRICTIVE FEATURES WHICH MIGHT LIMIT ACCEPTABLE OFFERS TO ONE SUPPLIER'S PRODUCT. ASPR 1-1203 READS AS FOLLOWS:

"1-1203 AVAILABILITY OF SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, AND DRAWINGS. INVITATIONS FOR BIDS AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WILL:

(I) SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, BE ACCOMPANIED WITH ALL APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, AND DRAWINGS, AND SHALL SO STATE THAT FACT;

(II) STATE THE EXACT LOCATIONS WHERE ALL APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, AND DRAWINGS MAY BE OBTAINED BY PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS AND THAT SUCH SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, AND DRAWINGS WERE NOT FURNISHED WITH THE INVITATION FOR BIDS OR REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL; OR

(III) IF DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, OR DRAWINGS IS IMPRACTICABLE, STATE A REASONABLE NUMBER OF LOCATIONS AT WHICH THEY MAY BE EXAMINED.'

THE FACT THAT FIFTEEN BIDS, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE CONSIDERED BY THE PROCURING AGENCY TO BE WITHIN A REASONABLE COMPETITIVE PRICE RANGE, WERE BASED ON THE DRAWINGS CONTAINED IN THE BID PACKAGE, TOGETHER WITH THE FACT THAT NO ONE OTHER THAN YOU CONSIDERED SUCH DRAWINGS INADEQUATE FOR THE PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF A BID, INDICATES THAT THE DRAWINGS WERE SUFFICIENT TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE COMPETITIVE BIDDING. THEREFORE, THE IFB MUST BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE ASPR PROVISIONS.

AS TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE NOT GIVEN AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO BID ON THE PROCUREMENT, THE FACT THAT YOU RECEIVED THE SAME DRAWINGS AND OPPORTUNITY TO BID AS WERE AFFORDED OTHERS NEGATIVES SUCH CONTENTION. FURTHERMORE, WHILE IT IS REGRETTABLE THAT THE REPLY OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON SEPTEMBER 30 TO YOUR REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY YOU IN TIME TO ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF A BID ON OCTOBER 1, THE DATE SCHEDULED FOR OPENING OF BIDS, THE SUBMISSION BY YOU OF THE REQUEST ONLY 7 DAYS BEFORE BID OPENING, ALTHOUGH THE IFB HAD BEEN ISSUED ON AUGUST 28, OR 26 DAYS EARLIER, WAS TOO CLOSE TO BID OPENING TIME TO EXPECT TIMELY RECEIPT OF THE DRAWINGS FOR BID SUBMISSION PURPOSES.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD AFFORDS NO SUFFICIENT BASIS TO JUSTIFY OBJECTION BY OUR OFFICE TO THE ACTIONS OF THE AIR FORCE IN THE CONDUCT OF THE PROCUREMENT. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.