B-156109, JUN. 15, 1965

B-156109: Jun 15, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO KOLLSMAN MOTOR CORPORATION: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 8. IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE PARTICULAR NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE NEGOTIATION AND AWARD OF THE CONTRACT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF YOUR PROTEST. THE NATURE OF THESE TWO PROCUREMENTS IS FIRST DISCUSSED SO THAT THE RESPONSE TO THE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF YOUR PROTEST MAY BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD. WAS NEGOTIATED AS A PART OF PURCHASES MADE BY ARMY AVIATION MATERIEL COMMAND IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF A PRODUCTION CONTRACT AWARDED TO THE BELL HELICOPTER COMPANY FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF UH-1 HELICOPTERS. WAS AND IS DIRECTLY TIED TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UH-1 PRODUCTION CONTRACT RECENTLY AWARDED TO BELL HELICOPTER COMPANY AND THE ACTUAL QUANTITY OF UH- 1 HELICOPTERS PLACED ON CONTRACT WITH BELL.

B-156109, JUN. 15, 1965

TO KOLLSMAN MOTOR CORPORATION:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 8, 1965, PROTESTING AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION MATERIEL COMMAND, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, IN AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE BENDIX CORPORATION, MONTROSE DIVISION, FOR FURNISHING A QUANTITY OF DUAL TACHOMETER INDICATORS.

FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT FURNISHED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MATTER, IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE PARTICULAR NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE NEGOTIATION AND AWARD OF THE CONTRACT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF YOUR PROTEST, NO. DA 23-204-AMC-03217/Y), DATED JANUARY 22, 1965, FOR A TOTAL QUANTITY OF 470 INDICATORS, AND AN EARLIER CONTRACT NO. DA 23-204 AMC- 03140/Y), DATED DECEMBER 17, 1964, AWARDED TO THE BENDIX CORPORATION FOR A TOTAL OF 924 OF THE SAME INDICATORS, CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR COMPANY'S QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE PROCUREMENTS. THEREFORE, THE NATURE OF THESE TWO PROCUREMENTS IS FIRST DISCUSSED SO THAT THE RESPONSE TO THE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF YOUR PROTEST MAY BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE EARLIER CONTRACT, DA 23-204-AMC-03140/Y), WAS NEGOTIATED AS A PART OF PURCHASES MADE BY ARMY AVIATION MATERIEL COMMAND IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF A PRODUCTION CONTRACT AWARDED TO THE BELL HELICOPTER COMPANY FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF UH-1 HELICOPTERS. IN ORDER TO PRECLUDE THE INCURRENCE OF EXPENSES RESULTING FROM THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCOMPLISH TIMELY INPUT OF GOVERNMENT FURNISHED AERONAUTICAL EQUIPMENT (GFAE), THIS CONTRACT, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE GFAE CONTRACT, WAS AND IS DIRECTLY TIED TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UH-1 PRODUCTION CONTRACT RECENTLY AWARDED TO BELL HELICOPTER COMPANY AND THE ACTUAL QUANTITY OF UH- 1 HELICOPTERS PLACED ON CONTRACT WITH BELL. BY WAY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE GFAE CONTRACT, REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AMC/T) 23-204-183- 65, WAS ISSUED AUGUST 31, 1964, WITH THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT AS SEPTEMBER 21, 1964. SEVEN RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED INCLUDING ONE SUBMITTED BY THE BENDIX CORPORATION BASED UPON BELL HELICOPTER PART NUMBER 204-070-155-1.

INASMUCH AS BELL HAS A DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE UH-1 HELICOPTER, YOUR COMPANY'S PART NUMBER C3033704008 AND GENERAL ELECTRIC'S PART NUMBER 8DJ67FDC-1, WERE FURTHER IDENTIFIED BY THE BELL HELICOPTER COMPANY WITH BELL PART NUMBER 204-070-155-1. ALTHOUGH BELL DOES NOT IN FACT MANUFACTURE A DUAL TACHOMETER INDICATOR, BELL, ACTING UNDER ITS RESPONSIBILITY AS THE MANUFACTURER OF THE UH-1 HELICOPTER, CONFIRMED THAT THE BENDIX ITEM WAS ONE WHICH HAD BEEN DETERMINED SATISFACTORY FOR THE BELL PART NUMBER. AFTER RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS, THE CFAE CONTRACT FOR 934 UNITS WAS AWARDED ON DECEMBER 17, 1964, TO THE BENDIX CORPORATION.

THE CONTRACT AGAINST WHICH YOUR PROTEST HAS BEEN DIRECTED WAS THE RESULT OF A COMPLETELY SEPARATE REQUIREMENT FOR INDICATORS TO BE PLACED IN STOCK FOR ISSUE TO USERS OF THE UH-1 HELICOPTERS. THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENT OF 381 UNITS UNDER THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WHICH CULMINATED IN THIS CONTRACT FOR STOCK WAS ASSIGNED PRIORITY CODE "10" SIGNIFYING THAT DEPOT STOCK WAS BELOW SAFETY LEVEL STOCK BALANCE AND EXPEDITIOUS EFFORTS WERE NECESSARY TO INSURE THAT USER DEMANDS WOULD BE MET.

TELEPHONE SOLICITATIONS WERE MADE SEPTEMBER 25, 1964, TO THESE FIRMS ESTABLISHED BY COMMAND RECORDS AS ACTUAL SOURCES FOR THE REQUIREMENT. THAT TIME, BENDIX CORPORATION HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE COMMAND'S MASTER DATA RECORD AS A SOURCE OF SUPPLY FOR THE REQUIREMENT. TELEGRAPHED PRICES WERE RECEIVED IN THE AMOUNTS OF $230.68, $215 AND $186.50 EACH, RESPECTIVELY FROM BELL HELICOPTER COMPANY, GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION, AND YOUR COMPANY. YOU WERE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM WHETHER YOUR PRICE OF $186.50 WAS YOUR BEST PRICE AND BY TELEGRAM DATED OCTOBER 29, 1964, YOU CONFIRMED THAT YOU HAD REVIEWED ALL THE ELEMENTS OF YOUR PROPOSAL AND COULD FIND NO WAY TO REDUCE THE PRICE.

ON NOVEMBER 10, 1964, AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF 89 INDICATORS WAS RECEIVED. IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE BOTH FEASIBLE AND DESIRABLE TO COMBINE THE REQUIREMENT FOR 381 UNITS WITH THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR 89 UNITS. REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE PROCUREMENT INDICATED THAT TIMELY ACQUISITION OF THE INDICATORS WOULD NOT BE IMPEDED AND THE QUANTITY INCREASE WAS SUCH THAT A REDUCTION IN THE UNIT PRICE MIGHT BE POSSIBLE. THE THREE KNOWN SOURCES CITED WERE CONTACTED BUT REMAINED FIRM IN THEIR PRICES.

A PROPOSED CONTRACT WAS MAILED TO YOUR COMPANY ON DECEMBER 18, 1964, AND AN AWARDS BOARD WAS CONVENED TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED CONTRACT AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR WARD. AT THE AWARDS BOARD MEETING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COAST ANALYSIS DIVISION OF THE DIRECTORATE OF PROCUREMENT AND PRODUCTION, ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND, REPORTED THAT AN ADDITIONAL SOURCE EXISTED AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD PURCHASED THE ITEM AT A UNIT PRICE LOWER THAN YOURS, SPECIFICALLY, AT $147.06. THIS WAS VERIFIED, A QUOTATION OBTAINED FROM BENDIX CORPORATION AND ON JANUARY 22, 1965, AWARD WAS MADE TO THAT CORPORATION OF CONTRACT NO. DA 23-204-AMC- 03217/Y) AS SUBSTANTIAL EFFORTS HAD ESTABLISHED THAT NO ALTERATION IN PRICE FROM OTHER SOURCES COULD BE OBTAINED. THE NECESSITY TO OBTAIN EARLY CONTRACTUAL COVERAGE FOR THE REQUIREMENT WAS PROPERLY BALANCED AGAINST THE SAVINGS QUICKLY CONFIRMED WITH THE BENDIX CORPORATION. AT ALL TIMES, PRICES, DISCUSSED IN CONFIDENCE WITH EACH SOURCE, WERE BOTH DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY MAINTAINED IN CONFIDENCE. BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE SITUATION WHICH HAD DEVELOPED IN THIS PROCUREMENT IT WAS FELT THAT ANY OTHER COURSE OF ACTION, IN ADDITION TO BEING A TIME-CONSUMING AND USELESS EVENT, MIGHT DEVELOP INTO AN UNNECESSARY AND UNDESIRABLE AUCTION SITUATION.

IT IS REPORTED THAT SEVERAL FACTORS PREVENTED SOLICITATION OF THE BENDIX CORPORATION ON THE STOCK CONTRACT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 22, 1964. FIRST, THE GENERATION OF AN ADDITIONAL SOURCE BEARING THE PART NUMBER OF THE PRIME MANUFACTURER THROUGH OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN "BREAKOUT" PROGRAM IS NOT USUAL. SECOND, ALL THE ESSENTIAL PROCUREMENT INFORMATION CONCERNING ITEMS OF SUPPLY (OTHER THAN MAJOR END ITEMS SUCH AS AIRCRAFT) IS ENTERED ON THE "MASTER DATA RECORD" IN THE COMMAND'S AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING MACHINE. THE INFORMATION RECORDED IN THE "PRINTOUTS" OBTAINED FROM THE COMPUTER PRESENTS A REPORT OF THE EXACT STATUS OF ITEMS BEING PROCESSED TO CONTRACT AND DELIVERY PURSUANT TO AN AWARDED CONTRACT TOGETHER WITH A LIST OF ACTUAL AS OPPOSED TO POTENTIAL SOURCES. THIS INFORMATION ENABLES CONTRACTING PERSONNEL TO INSURE THAT, WHERE POSSIBLE, REQUIREMENTS ARE COMBINED.

FINALLY, INASMUCH AS THE DATE SET FOR THE RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS BASED ON THE GFAE REQUEST WAS SEPTEMBER 21, 1964, AND NEGOTIATIONS ON THE STOCK REQUIREMENT DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL SEPTEMBER 25, 1964, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ATTEMPT TO COMBINE THE TWO PROCUREMENTS. IN ANY EVENT, THE COMPLETELY SEPARATE NATURE OF THE TWO REQUIREMENTS WOULD HAVE RENDERED ANY POSSIBILITY OF EFFECTING A COMBINATION IMPRACTICABLE. ALTHOUGH AN UPDATED "PRINTOUT" WAS, AS A MATTER OF STANDARDS PRACTICE, UTILIZED BY CONTRACTING PERSONNEL AT THE TIME THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF 89 UNITS WAS ADDED TO THE STOCK PURCHASE,"IN-PUT" INTO THE MASTER DATA RECORD OF INFORMATION CONCERNING A NEW SOURCE NECESSARILY AWAITED AN ACTUAL AWARD ON THE BASIS OF AN ADDITIONAL ITEM UNTIL THE ENTRY OF A NEW PART COULD BE RECORDED. THIS PROCESS CONSUMES APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS, OR ABOUT A WEEK AND ONE- HALF AFTER THE AWARDS BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 22, 1964. THUS, THE RECORDS OF COST ANALYSIS PERSONNEL PROVIDED THE ESSENTIAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE GFAE AWARD MADE FIVE DAYS EARLIER, ENABLING THE GOVERNMENT TO SAVE $18,536.80.

RESPECTING THE BASIS OF YOUR PROTEST, YOU FIRST STATE:

"THE CONTRACT WAS NEGOTIATED. AS SUCH, UNDER ASPR 3-805.1/B), ALL OFFERORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED AN EQUITABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT REVISIONS OF PROPOSALS, WITH THE SAME DEADLINE DATES APPLICABLE TO ALL.'

IT IS REPORTED THAT THE STOCK CONTRACT WAS NEGOTIATED PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. 2304/A) (10). ORAL SOLICITATIONS WERE UTILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION 3-501/B) AND, HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL SOURCE, AN AWARD WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED APPROXIMATELY THREE WEEKS FASTER THAN, BY WAY OF COMPARISON, THE TIME REQUIRED TO MAKE AN AWARD ON THE GFAE CONTRACT. THIS, OF COURSE, INCLUDES THE ADDITIONAL TIME WHICH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE QUANTITY OF 89 UNITS EXTENDED THE TIME NECESSARY TO SOLICIT THE KNOWN SOURCES. NEGOTIATIONS, INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE, FOLLOWED THE PROVISIONS OF ASPR 3-805, INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE IDENTITY AND PRICES OF THOSE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING NOT BE MADE KNOWN TO ANY POTENTIAL CONTRACTOR SINCE THE DISCLOSURE OF ONE OFFEROR'S PRICE TO ANOTHER CONSTITUTES AN AUCTION TECHNIQUE WHICH MUST BE AVOIDED. FURTHER, PARAGRAPH 3-805.1/A) (V) OF ASPR PROVIDES, IN ESSENCE, THAT AFTER RECEIPT OF INITIAL PROPOSALS, DISCUSSIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED WITH ALL RESPONSIBLE OFFERORS WHO SUBMITTED PROPOSALS WITHIN A COMPETITIVE RANGE, EXCEPT FOR THOSE PROCUREMENTS WHERE ACCEPTANCE OF THE "MOST FAVORABLE INITIAL PROPOSAL" WOULD RESULT IN A FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE WITHOUT SUCH DISCUSSION.

THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT ON TWO OCCASIONS YOUR FIRM WAS REQUESTED TO ADJUST ITS PRICE ON THE PROCUREMENT IN QUESTION. HAD YOU DESIRED TO PRESENT A REDUCTION IN YOUR PRICE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO WAS THUS MADE AVAILABLE. NO DEADLINES WERE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ORAL SOLICITATION BUT ALL POTENTIAL CONTRACTORS RESPONDED WITHOUT DELAY TO INQUIRIES MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT AND ALL POTENTIAL CONTRACTORS WERE GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ANY PRICE ADJUSTMENT.

YOU CONTEND, IN EFFECT, THAT EFFORTS BY THE GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL COMPETITION AFTER TENDER OF A PROPOSED CONTRACT TO YOU WAS IMPROPER AND ALLEGE THAT YOU COULD HAVE LOWERED YOUR BID PRICE IF THE SOLICITATION HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN A DIFFERENT MANNER. UPON DISCOVERY OF THE ADDITIONAL SOURCE FOR THE PROCUREMENT WHICH WAS DISCLOSED BY COST ANALYSIS PERSONNEL, WE THINK IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO EXPLORE THIS SOURCE BY SOLICITATION OF A PROPOSAL. NO COMPELLING REASON IS SEEN WHY RENEWAL OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH ALL OFFERORS WAS NECESSITATED BY THE DETERMINATION TO SEEK SUCH PROPOSAL AND NO AUTHORITY REQUIRING SUCH RENEWAL HAS BEEN FOUND. SUBSTANTIAL EFFORTS HAD ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT NO ALTERATION IN PRICE FROM THE OTHER SOURCES COULD BE OBTAINED. FORMAL CANCELLATION OF THE INFORMAL ORAL SOLICITATION IN THE FACE OF INFORMATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN RECEIPT OF UNREASONABLE PRICES, WOULD NOT APPEAR TO HAVE SERVED ANY USEFUL PURPOSE. WE BELIEVE THE ACTION TAKEN IN THE PROCUREMENT WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE PROPOSED CONTRACT RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 21, 1964, WAS CHECKED AS HAVING BEEN "NEGOTIATED," THE TERM "NEGOTIATED" ON THE FACE OF EXPERIMENTAL FORM DD1491 IS IN REFERENCE TO THE NEGOTIATION AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH THE REQUIREMENT WAS TAKEN. ADDITION, THE INSTRUMENT FULLY EVIDENCES THAT IT IS BILATERAL. CONTAINS A SPACE FOR SIGNATURE BY BOTH THE POTENTIAL CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND IT HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. MOREOVER, THE COVER LETTER WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE PROPOSED CONTRACT INCLUDED STATEMENTS WHICH CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE INSTRUMENT WAS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN AWARD. FOR EXAMPLE, IT CARRIES THE CAUTIONING STATEMENT THAT THE RETURN OF SIGNED COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THE PROPOSED CONTRACTOR DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LEGAL AGREEMENT.

ANOTHER GROUND STATED FOR YOUR PROTEST MAKES THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE STOCK CONTRACT WAS YOUR PART NUMBER C5033704008 "OR EQUAL" AND YOU CONTEND THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE THAT YOU WOULD OR COULD HAVE DEVELOPED AN INDICATOR EQUAL TO THE C5033704008, BUT APPARENTLY LOWER IN PRICE. THIS POSSIBILITY IS PURELY SPECULATIVE. HOWEVER, AS SET FORTH ABOVE THE SOLICITATION WAS NOT ON AN "OR EQUAL" BASIS BUT WAS STRICTLY LIMITED TO THOSE SPECIFIC ITEMS ESTABLISHED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE PERTINENT HELICOPTER AS SUITABLE FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE.

YOUR ALLEGATION THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT A PRICE ON THE ENTIRE QUANTITY OF 1484 (ACTUALLY 1394) INDICATORS PURCHASED ON THE TWO CONTRACTS HAS BEEN ANSWERED ABOVE BY THE INFORMATION THAT THE TWO REQUIREMENTS WERE OF SEPARATE NATURE REQUIRING SEPARATE PROCESSING. FURTHER, THE GFAE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED DECEMBER 17, 1964, AND THE INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS ADDITIONAL COURSE WAS PRESENTED FIVE DAYS LATER AT THE AWARDS BOARD MEETING. THUS, AT NO SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE STOCK CONTRACT WAS THERE AVAILABLE FOR NEGOTIATION WITH OTHER OFFERORS MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF ITEMS (470) ULTIMATELY CONTAINED IN THAT CONTRACT. THE SOLICITATION OF THE CONTRACTOR BEST QUALIFIED FOR AWARD IN A NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT IS TO BE MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CONCERNED IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SOUND JUDGEMENT AS TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. 37 COMP. GEN. 855. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE INDICATE THAT ADEQUATE COMPETITION WAS GENERATED AND THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE AWARD TO THE FIRM WHICH SUBMITTED THE LOWEST OFFER WITHOUT DISCUSSION WITH ANY OF THE OTHER OFFERORS. YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED THREE COURSES OF ACTION REGARDING THE DISPOSAL OF YOUR PROTEST; TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT FORWARDED YOU ON DECEMBER 18, 1964; AWARD OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT TO YOU; OR, THAT ALL OFFERORS BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL ON THE ENTIRE QUANTITY OF BOTH CONTRACTS.

FROM WHAT HAS BEEN STATED ABOVE IT WILL BE SEEN THAT NONE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PERTINENT TO THE MATTER AT HAND. RESPECTING THE FIRST, NO CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF DUAL TACHOMETER INDICATORS FROM YOUR COMPANY EXISTS, IN FACT OR IN THEORY. THEREFORE, THE SUGGESTED TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE ACTION CANNOT BE UNDERTAKEN. 17 AM.JUR. 2D, CONTRACTS, SEC. 43; 21 COMP. GEN. 605. A VALID AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO THE BENDIX CORPORATION HAS BEEN MADE, AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE GENERATION OF A NEW REQUIREMENT, NEGOTIATED PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY AND AWARDED TO YOUR COMPANY AS THE LOW RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE OFFEROR, THE SECOND REQUEST CANNOT BE LEGALLY ACCOMPLISHED. FINALLY, THE VALIDITY OF THE GFAE CONTRACT IS NOT QUESTIONED BY YOU; THEREFORE, ANY REFERENCE TO OTHER DISPOSITION OF THIS PROCUREMENT IS NOT RELEVANT TO YOUR PROTEST. WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF YOUR UNFORTUNATE POSITION IN THIS CASE BUT FEEL THAT THE LAW AND THE FACTS INVOLVED ARE SUCH THAT WE CANNOT OBJECT TO THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS IN EFFECTING THIS PROCUREMENT.

ACCORDINGLY, THERE BEING NO LEGAL BASIS FOR ANY OBJECTION TO THE AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. DA 23-204-AMC-03217/Y), YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.