B-157489, NOV. 2, 1965

B-157489: Nov 2, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO SERVODYNAMIC DIVISION: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF AUGUST 16. PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING THREE FIRMS: CHART ELECTRO INTERNATIONAL. 400 BY VOLUNTARY REDUCTION) THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PROPOSALS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE REQUIRING ACTIVITY FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS REPORTED THAT A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSALS RESULTED IN A DETERMINATION THAT NONE OF THE PROPOSALS MET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSAL OF YOUR FIRM DID NOT MEET SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN AT LEAST TWO AREAS CONSIDERED OF MAJOR CONSEQUENCE. THE SPECIFIED MINIMUM PULSE WIDTH IS O.1 MICROSECONDS. "B. THE REQUIRED ANTENNA INSTALLATION IS SUCH THAT AN ANTENNA ELEVATION OF APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET IS REQUIRED.

B-157489, NOV. 2, 1965

TO SERVODYNAMIC DIVISION:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF AUGUST 16, 1965, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ELECTRO INTERNATIONAL, INC., BY THE UNITED STATES NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER, MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 228-73607-65.

THE CITED REQUEST CALLED FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION, DELIVERY, INSTALLATION AND CHECKOUT OF A BROADBAND FIELD INTENSITY RADIATION SYSTEM. PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING THREE FIRMS:

CHART

ELECTRO INTERNATIONAL, INC. SYSTEM 1 $75,608.81

SYSTEM 2 72,986.08

SERVO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 83,100.00*

MCDONNELL AIRCRAFT 111,014.00

ALTERNATE 85,560.00

*/LATER REDUCED TO $77,400 BY VOLUNTARY REDUCTION)

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PROPOSALS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE REQUIRING ACTIVITY FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS REPORTED THAT A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSALS RESULTED IN A DETERMINATION THAT NONE OF THE PROPOSALS MET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY. BOTH THE PROPOSALS OF YOUR FIRM AND THAT OF ELECTRO INTERNATIONAL, INC., REQUIRED ORAL CLARIFICATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSAL OF YOUR FIRM DID NOT MEET SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN AT LEAST TWO AREAS CONSIDERED OF MAJOR CONSEQUENCE, AS THE REQUIRED CHANGES WOULD ENTAIL SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL AND EXPENSE. IN REGARD TO THE AREAS IN WHICH YOU FAILED TO MEET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:

"A. THE SPECIFIED MINIMUM PULSE WIDTH IS O.1 MICROSECONDS. THE SERVO CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROPOSAL SPECIFIED PULSE RISE AND FALL TIMES OF 0.15 MICROSECONDS. THESE RISE AND FALL TIMES WOULD PRECLUDE OBTAINING A PULSE WIDTH OF 0.1 MICROSECONDS.

"B. THE REQUIRED ANTENNA INSTALLATION IS SUCH THAT AN ANTENNA ELEVATION OF APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET IS REQUIRED. THE SERVO CORPORATION OF AMERICA LETTER ACCOMPANYING THEIR PROPOSAL (SCA P-3043, JULY 13, 1965) STATES THAT THEIR "PROPOSAL ASSUMES AN ANTENNA ELEVATION OF NOT MORE THAN 10 FEET LOCATED AT A MAXIMUM OF 25 FEET FROM THE INSTRUMENT CONSOLE.' THIS PROPOSED ANTENNA INSTALLATION CONDITION IS NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE AT THE EXISTING INSTALLATION SITE. THE INSTALLATION SITE WAS VISITED BY A SERVO CORPORATION OF AMERICA REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF THEIR PROPOSAL, AT WHICH TIME CONSOLE AND ANTENNA LOCATIONS WERE DISCUSSED.'

AS A RESULT OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSAL OF ELECTRO INTERNATIONAL, INC., MET ALL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ANTENNA BEAM WIDTH WHICH WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A MINOR DISCREPANCY. AWARD WAS RECOMMENDED TO ELECTRO INTERNATIONAL, INC., FOR SYSTEM NO. 1 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

"A. REPLACEMENT OF THE EIGHT (8) PROPOSED HORN ANTENNAS WITH EIGHT (8) MODIFIED HORNS THAT HAVE THREE (3) DECIBEL BEAM WIDTHS OF APPROXIMATELY 40 DEGREES.

"B. REPLACEMENT OF THE HEWLETT-PACKARD 691A, 692A, 693A AND 694A UNITS WITH 691B, 692B, 693B AND 694B UNITS.'

IT IS REPORTED THAT THE ALTERATION TO REPLACE THE EIGHT HORN ANTENNAS WAS REQUIRED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND THAT THE ALTERATION TO REPLACE THE HEWLETT PACKARD UNITS MODEL A'S WITH MODEL B'S WAS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE SYSTEM OFFERED. BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 2, 1965, ELECTRO INTERNATIONAL, INC., QUOTED INCREASES IN PRICES OF $1,243 AND $1.740, RESPECTIVELY, FOR THE TWO CHANGES, MAKING A REVISED TOTAL QUOTATION OF $78,592.01 FOR SYSTEM NO. 1. ON THE BASIS OF THE REVISED PROPOSAL, A CONTRACT IN THAT AMOUNT WAS AWARDED TO ELECTRO INTERNATIONAL, INC., ON AUGUST 12, 1965. IT IS REPORTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT COVERING THE CHANGE IN THE HEWLETT-PACKARD EQUIPMENT WAS IN AN AREA IN WHICH THE PROPOSAL ALREADY MET SPECIFICATIONS AND THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED UNDER THE CHANGES CLAUSE AFTER CONTRACT AWARD, BUT THAT IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE AWARD FOR PROCEDURAL SIMPLICITY.

YOU REQUEST ADVICE AS TO WHY YOUR FIRM WAS NOT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT YOUR PRICE WAS $1,000 LOWER THAN THE PRICE QUOTED BY THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER AND THE ADDITIONAL FACT THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WAS JUDGED TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE.

AS POINTED OUT ABOVE YOUR PROPOSAL WAS DETERMINED TO BE TECHNICALLY UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT MEET SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN AT LEAST TWO AREAS OF MAJOR CONSEQUENCE. WHILE THE RECORD DOES INDICATE THAT ELECTRO INTERNATIONAL, INC., WAS PERMITTED TO CHANGE ITS PROPOSAL SO AS TO MEET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT AS TO THE ANTENNA BEAM WIDTH, SUCH CHANGE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO BE OF A MINOR NATURE. IN REGARD TO YOUR PROPOSAL, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE STATES THAT NEGOTIATIONS WERE NOT CONDUCTED WITH YOUR FIRM BECAUSE OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION THAT TIME DID NOT PERMIT IT AND, ALSO, FOR THE REASON THAT YOUR FIRM'S PROPOSAL CONTAINED SUCH MAJOR DEVIATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS THAT NECESSARY REVISION WOULD HAVE CAUSED PRICE INCREASES FAR BEYOND THE RANGE OF YOUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. IN REGARD TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOUR PRICE WAS $1,000 LOWER THAN THE PRICE OF THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER, YOU MAY BE ADVISED THAT WHILE THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT AWARD, $78,592.01, WAS APPROXIMATELY $1,000 HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT OF YOUR PROPOSAL, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT $1,740 OF THE CONTRACT PRICE WAS TO COVER THE CHANGE IN THE HEWLETT-PACKARD EQUIPMENT WHICH, IT IS REPORTED, IS IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS AND WHICH, ORDINARILY, WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED BY A CHANGE ORDER.

WHILE UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SHOULD HAVE NEGOTIATED FURTHER WITH YOU, INASMUCH AS IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROCUREMENT WAS URGENT AND THAT YOUR PROPOSAL NECESSARILY WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERABLY HIGHER IF YOU COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WAS IMPROPER. YOUR PROTEST, THEREFORE, IS DENIED.