B-156039, MAY 14, 1965

B-156039: May 14, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE PROCUREMENT SOLICITED UNDER THE PROPOSAL WAS AN URGENT ONE WHICH WAS DEVELOPED TO MEET CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR RADIO SET AN/ARC-73) ( A LIGHTWEIGHT VHF SET PROVIDING AM VOICE RECEPTION AND TRANSMISSION FROM AIR -TO-AIR AND AIR-TO-GROUND. IT WAS PROPOSED TO LIMIT THIS PROCUREMENT CALLING FOR 623 SETS AND ANCILLARY ITEMS. TO A COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION WITH COLLINS RADIO COMPANY (PRODUCTION LEAD TIME 6 MONTHS) AND TELEDYNE SYSTEMS CORPORATION (A CURRENT HOTLINE PRODUCER) BECAUSE THE CONTRACT IS INTENDED TO FILL AN IMMEDIATE NEED AND HAS A VERY STRINGENT DELIVERY SCHEDULE. REQUESTED AND RECEIVED COPIES OF THE RFP WHICH WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 20. TELEDYNE WAS NEXT LOW AT $1. LA POINTE WAS HIGH AT $1.

B-156039, MAY 14, 1965

TO TELEVISO ELECTRONICS:

BY TELEGRAM AND CONFIRMING LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1965, YOU PROTESTED AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO TELEDYNE SYSTEMS CORPORATION BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY ELECTRONICS COMMAND, UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. AMC/E) 28-043-65-00266, FOR PROCUREMENT OF 623 AN/ARC-73) ( RADIO SETS.

THE PROCUREMENT SOLICITED UNDER THE PROPOSAL WAS AN URGENT ONE WHICH WAS DEVELOPED TO MEET CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR RADIO SET AN/ARC-73) ( A LIGHTWEIGHT VHF SET PROVIDING AM VOICE RECEPTION AND TRANSMISSION FROM AIR -TO-AIR AND AIR-TO-GROUND. IT WAS PROPOSED TO LIMIT THIS PROCUREMENT CALLING FOR 623 SETS AND ANCILLARY ITEMS, TO A COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION WITH COLLINS RADIO COMPANY (PRODUCTION LEAD TIME 6 MONTHS) AND TELEDYNE SYSTEMS CORPORATION (A CURRENT HOTLINE PRODUCER) BECAUSE THE CONTRACT IS INTENDED TO FILL AN IMMEDIATE NEED AND HAS A VERY STRINGENT DELIVERY SCHEDULE, SPECIFICALLY, PREPRODUCTION MODEL DELIVERY IN 90 DAYS AND FIRST PRODUCTION QUANTITIES IN 6 MONTHS. ALSO THE AVAILABLE DRAWINGS DID NOT FULLY DESCRIBE ALL NECESSARY MANUFACTURING DETAILS.

THE CONTRACTOR SELECTION BOARD CONCURRED IN THE PLAN TO LIMIT PROCUREMENT TO COLLINS AND TELEDYNE. DESPITE THIS STATEMENT IN THE SYNOPSIS NOTICE THAT THE PROCUREMENT WOULD BE LIMITED TO COLLINS AND TELEDYNE, 15 ADDITIONAL FIRMS, INCLUDING YOURS, REQUESTED AND RECEIVED COPIES OF THE RFP WHICH WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 20, 1964. COLLINS DID NOT SUBMIT A PROPOSAL. TELEDYNE DID SO, AS DID YOUR FIRM AND LA POINTE INDUSTRIES, INC. YOUR FIRM SUBMITTED THE LOWEST PROPOSAL AT $1,748,958.21. TELEDYNE WAS NEXT LOW AT $1,844,273.72. LA POINTE WAS HIGH AT $1,872,911.50. ALL THREE PROPOSALS WERE JUDGED FAIRLY AND EQUALLY AND A COMPLETE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF EACH PROPOSAL WAS OBTAINED. THIS EVALUATION INCLUDED A FIELD ENGINEERING VISIT TO THE PLANTS OF ALL THREE OFFERORS WHICH EVALUATION STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT NEITHER YOUR FIRM NOR LA POINTE COULD PRODUCE A COMPLEX EQUIPMENT SUCH AS THE AN/ARC-73) ( SET WITHIN THE PREPRODUCTION AND PRODUCTION LEAD TIME FRAME OF THE RFP. AS A RESULT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED THAT PRICING NEGOTIATIONS WOULD BE LIMITED TO TELEDYNE. THE CHIEF, INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING DIVISION, CONFIRMED ON DECEMBER 30, 1964, THAT ONLY COLLINS AND TELEDYNE COULD PRODUCE AND DELIVER ACCEPTABLE MODELS OF THE AN/ARC-73) ( WITHIN 6 MONTHS AND THAT THE PRODUCTION LEAD TIME FOR OTHER MANUFACTURERS WITHOUT EXPERIENCE IN THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS 22 MONTHS. ON JANUARY 5, 1965, THE CONTRACTOR SELECTION BOARD DETERMINED THAT AWARD SHOULD BE MADE TO TELEDYNE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIRED DETERMINATION AND NOTIFICATION TO THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION WITH RESPECT TO LA POINTE AS CALLED FOR IN ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) 1-705.4 (B) (I). AFTER OBTAINING ALL THE NECESSARY APPROVALS THE AWARD WAS MADE TO TELEDYNE ON JANUARY 22, 1965. IN YOUR PROTEST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DATED JANUARY 21, 1965, YOU MADE THE ALLEGATION THAT TELEDYNE DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE TOOLING WITH WHICH TO PERFORM THE WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT.

THE SOLE BASIS FOR YOUR PROTEST IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT TELEDYNE DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE TOOLING. AT NO TIME HAS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD REASON TO DOUBT TELEDYNE'S STATEMENT THAT THEY DO OWN ADEQUATE TOOLING. THE CONTRACT UNDER PROTEST IS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A RADIO SET WHICH, EXCEPT FOR MINOR CHANGES, IS A CONTINUATION OF THE CURRENT DESIGN BEING PROCURED FROM TELEDYNE UNDER AN EXISTING CONTRACT. THE GOVERNMENT ENGINEER WHO VISITED TELEDYNE'S PLANT PRIOR TO AWARD ASCERTAINED THAT IT IS FULLY TOOLED TO PERFORM THIS CONTRACT. IT WAS ALSO DETERMINED THAT TELEDYNE NOW USES ITS OWN TOOLING FOR METAL ASSEMBLIES. WHILE THE FIRM ORIGINALLY USED WEBCOR TOOLING, THIS IS NO LONGER NECESSARY, AS YOU CONTEND. THE GOVERNMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE REPRESENTATIVE IN CHARGE AT TELEDYNE HAS STATED THAT ALL OF THE TOOLING TELEDYNE HAS ON HAND NOW AND WHICH IS BEING USED ON THE PREDECESSOR CONTRACT, IS AVAILABLE FOR USE ON THE NEW CONTRACT. YOUR CONTENTION THAT TELEDYNE COULD NOT MEET THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE SINCE IT WOULD HAVE TO RETOOL IS COMPLETELY AT VARIANCE WITH THE FACTS AS DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE NECESSARY FINDINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY UNDER ASPR 1-902; 1-903 AND 1-904 HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY TO LIMIT PRICING NEGOTIATIONS TO TELEDYNE IS NOT SUBJECT TO LEGAL OBJECTION.