B-163947, JUL. 17, 1968

B-163947, JUL. 17, 1968

TO LING ELECTRONICS:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 1, 1968, WITH ENCLOSURES, YOUR REFERENCE 468-MEW-694, PROTESTING AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER BIDDER UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. N00156-68-B-0372, ISSUED ON JANUARY 3, 1968, BY THE NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER (NAEC), PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.

THE INVITATION COVERS THE PROCUREMENT OF ONE SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION TESTING SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL SUPPORT OFFICE (NWISO) SPECIFICATIONS AND DATA THEREFOR. THE INVITATION AS ORIGINALLY ISSUED DID NOT REQUIRE THE FURNISHING OF ANY DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE. HOWEVER, AS A RESULT OF REVISED REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WERE CONSIDERED TO PRESS THE LIMITS OF THE STATE OF THE ART, DESCRIPTIVE DATA WAS CALLED FOR IN AMENDMENT NO. 0003 AS FOLLOWS:

"REQUIREMENT FOR DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE

1. DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE TO THE EXTENT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 MUST BE FURNISHED AS PART OF THE BID AND MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE THE TIME SET FOR OPENING OF BIDS. DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE MEANS INFORMATION, SUCH AS CUTS, ILLUSTRATIONS, DRAWINGS, SKETCHES OR OTHER DESCRIPTIVE MATTER, WHICH DESCRIBE OR SHOW THE DETAILS OF THE PRODUCT OFFERED BY THE BIDDER. THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE FURNISHED MUST BE IDENTIFIED TO SHOW THE ITEM IN THE BID TO WHICH IT PERTAINS. A MERE RESTATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S SPECIFICATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED HEREIN. THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE REQUIRED IS TO ESTABLISH, FOR PURPOSES OF BID EVALUATION AND AWARD, THE DETAILS OF THE PRODUCT THE BIDDER PROPOSES TO FURNISH AS TO:

"A. CAPABILITY OF COVERING THE FREQUENCY RANGE OF 5 TO 3000 HZ AT ALL G LEVELS WITH PAY LOADS UP TO AND INCLUDING 110 LBS.

"B. ABILITY OF THE SHAKER TO CARRY A 110 LBS. PAY LOAD WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL SUPPORTS AND MEET THE 1 INCH P-P DISPLACEMENT RATING REQUIRED BY FIGURE 514-5, MIL-STD-810B.

"2. WHEN THE BIDDER PROPOSES TO MODIFY HIS PRODUCT TO MEET SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, DETAILS AS TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION MUST ALSO BE FURNISHED.

"3. REJECTION OF THE BID WILL RESULT IF:

A. THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE PRODUCT OFFERED CONFORMS TO THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FEATURES CITED IN PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 ABOVE.'

THREE BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND OPENED AS SCHEDULED. THE LOW BID AT $15,318.75 WAS REJECTED AS TECHNICALLY NONRESPONSIVE AND IS NOT CONSIDERED FURTHER HEREIN. YOUR BID AT $17,505 WAS SECOND LOW FOLLOWED BY UNHOLTZ- DICKIE CORPORATION AT $19,645. WITH YOUR BID, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA REQUIREMENT YOU SUBMITTED WHAT APPEARS TO BE FOUR CATALOG SHEETS, TWO ON YOUR MODEL RP-3/5 POWER AMPLIFIER AND TWO ON YOUR MODEL B290 SHAKER. THE SECOND PAGE ON THE RP-3/5 WAS MODIFIED TO CHANGE THE LOWER END OF THE OUTPUT FREQUENCY RANGE FROM 27 TO 17 HZ. THE SECOND PAGE ON THE B290 WAS MODIFIED TO SHOW THAT FLEXURES WITH STIFFNESS OF 1,210 LBS/INCH LISTED AS ,OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES" WERE INCLUDED.

ALL BIDS AND ACCOMPANYING DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE WERE FORWARDED TO NWISO FOR TECHNICAL EVALUATION TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE OF THE PRODUCT OFFERED WITH THE STATED SPECIFICATIONS. BY A MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 1, 1968, FROM NWISO, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS ADVISED THAT BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE FURNISHED, YOUR LOW BID DID NOT OFFER A PRODUCT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND WAS THEREFORE NONRESPONSIVE, BUT THAT THE UNHOLTZ-DICKIE BID WAS TECHNICALLY RESPONSIVE AND AWARD TO THEM WAS RECOMMENDED. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MADE THE AWARD TO UNHOLTZ- DICKIE ON MARCH 14, 1968, AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER.

IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 1, 1968, YOU CONTEND THAT YOUR BID WAS FULLY RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION AND THAT THERE WERE NO PROPER GROUNDS FOR IT TO HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED. YOU NOTE THAT THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA CALLED FOR UNDER SUB-PARAGRAPH A AND B OF THE "REQUIREMENT FOR DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE" CLAUSE INCLUDED IN AMENDMENT NO. 0003RELATE ONLY TO THE SHAKER. YOU FURTHER STATE:

"* * * ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRED BY AMENDMENT 0003 TO PROVE ANY PERFORMANCE LEVEL OF THE AMPLIFIER OR OF THE SYSTEM, AS OPPOSED TO THE SPECIFIC CALL- OUT IN THAT AMENDMENT FOR PROVING PERFORMANCE LEVEL OF THE SHAKER, WE DID SHOW OUR PLANNED MODIFICATION OF THE AMPLIFIER BY USING A LARGER TRANSFORMER. THIS IS OUR STANDARD MODIFICATION IN INCREASING AMPLIFIER OUTPUT, AND NO OTHER CHANGE IN OUR STANDARD PROPRIETARY AMPLIFIER IS REQUIRED.'

YOU STATE THAT THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION BY NAEC OF YOUR DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE WAS NOT IN ACCORD WITH AMENDMENT NO. 0003 BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT YOUR BID WAS NOT RESPONSIVE WAS BASED ON AN EVALUATION OF THE AMPLIFIER CHARACTERISTICS "IN CONTRADICTION TO THE EXPRESS REQUIREMENT THAT THE BIDDER WAS TO QUALIFY THE SHAKER.' YOU FURTHER STATE,"WE CONTEND THAT WHEN DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE IS REQUIRED FOR A STATED PURPOSE AND IS SUBSEQUENTLY USED, AND USED IN ERROR, FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, THEN THAT ACTION ITSELF IS RESTRICTIVE AND NARROWS COMPETITION.'

YOU ALSO BELIEVE THAT IF THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING YOUR ABILITY TO PRODUCE THE EQUIPMENT IN ACCORD WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS, SUCH QUESTIONS COULD HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED AND RESOLVED BY REQUESTING YOUR EXPLANATION PRIOR TO AWARD.

IN RESPONSE TO OUR REQUEST FOR A FULL REPORT ON YOUR PROTEST, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING REVIEW OF THE NAVY'S POSITION BY NWISO TECHNICAL PERSONNEL:

"1. THE NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL SUPPORT OFFICE (NWISO) HAS MADE A COMPREHENSIVE TECHNICAL REVIEW OF ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE PROCUREMENT OF A SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION TESTING SYSTEM, IFB NO. N00156 68-B- 0372.

"2. IN REGARD TO THE LING ELECTRONICS' LETTER OF 1 APRIL 1968, TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, IT MUST FIRST BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE LETTER OMITS REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT IN ADDITION TO THE CITING OF AMENDMENT NO. 0003, PAGE 3, SECTION 3, SUBSECTION 1.B, AS BEING AN AREA IN WHICH THE PROFERRED EQUIPMENT WOULD NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATION, MRS. T. KANE OF NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER ALSO CITED SUBSECTION 1.A, OF AMENDMENT NO. 0003 AS ANOTHER AREA OF TECHNICAL NONCONFORMANCE TO THE SPECIFICATION. THIS INFORMATION IS REFLECTED IN THE NAVAIRENGCEN CONTRACT FILE, AND THEREFORE, THERE ARE TWO BASIC AREAS OF CONTENTION: THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS CITED IN AMENDMENT NO. 0003, SECTION 3, SUBSECTIONS 1.A AND 1.B TO IFB NO. N00156-68-B-0372.

"A. SUBSECTION 1.A INDICATES THAT THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE REQUIRED IS TO ESTABLISH, FOR PURPOSES OF BID EVALUATION AND AWARD, THE DETAILS OF THE PRODUCT THE BIDDER PROPOSES TO FURNISH AS TO CAPABILITY OF COVERING THE FREQUENCY RANGE OF 5 TO 3,000 HZ AT ALL G LEVELS WITH PAY LOADS UP TO AND INCLUDING 110 LBS.-

"B. SUBSECTION 1.B INDICATES THAT THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE REQUIRED IS TO ESTABLISH, FOR PURPOSES OF BID EVALUATION AND AWARD, THE DETAILS OF THE PRODUCT THE BIDDER PROPOSES TO FURNISH AS TO ABILITY OF THE SHAKER TO CARRY A 110 LB. PAY LOAD WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL SUPPORTS AND MEET THE 1 INCH P-P DISPLACEMENT RATING REQUIRED BY FIGURE 514-5, MIL-STD-810B.-

"3. IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF AMENDMENT NO. 0003, SECTION 3, SUBSECTION 1.A, THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE THAT LING ELECTRONICS FURNISHED FOR THEIR MODEL B290 SHAKER COMPONENT, STATED NO MODIFICATIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE EXTENDED THE HIGH FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF THE SHAKER COMPONENT TO 3,000 HZ WHEN CARRYING A 110 LB. PAY LOAD. THE SOLE MODIFICATION REFERENCED ON THE LITERATURE SHEET WAS THE OFFERING OF AN ARMATURE FLEXURE WITH STIFFNESS OF 1,210 LBS/INCH SO THAT A PAY LOAD OF 110 LBS. COULD BE TESTED WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL SUPPORTS AS REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION 1.B. HOWEVER, NO OTHER MODIFICATIONS ARE INDICATED ON THE LITERATURE SHEET, AND THE SHAKER COMPONENT AS OFFERED WILL NOT OPERATE TO 3,000 HZ WITH A 110 LB. PAY LOAD DUE TO THE LOW AXIAL RESONANT FREQUENCY OF 2,800 HZ FOR THE ARMATURE. THE PRINCIPLE HIGH FREQUENCY LIMITATION OF ANY SHAKER COMPONENT IS THAT IMPOSED BY THE AXIAL RESONANCE OF THE ARMATURE. THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE FALLS OFF SHARPLY ABOVE THIS RESONANT POINT. THE AXIAL RESONANT FREQUENCY RATING OF 2,800 HZ, AS SHOWN ON THE LING BROCHURE, IS FOR A BARE SHAKER TABLE. THIS IS THE STANDARD RATING METHOD IN THE INDUSTRY. HOWEVER, ADDING LOADS TO THE SHAKER TABLE CAUSES A LOWERING OF THE AXIAL RESONANT FREQUENCY WITH A CONSEQUENT LOWERING OF THE HIGH FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF THE SHAKER COMPONENT. HENCE, WITH A 110 LB. PAYLOAD THE AXAL RESONANT FREQUENCY WOULD FALL WELL BELOW 2,800 HZ AND, SINCE THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE FALLS OFF SHARPLY ABOVE THE RESONANT POINT, THE RESPONSE OF THE LOADED SHAKER WOULD BE WELL BELOW THE REQUIRED 3,000 HZ.

"THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER, UNHOLTZ-DICKIE CORPORATION, IN THEIR FURNISHED DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE, MODIFIED A STANDARD SHAKER COMPONENT BY CHANGING THE ARMATURE FROM A MAGNESIUM CASTING TO AN ALUMINUM CASTING. ALUMINUM IS A MORE RIGID AND STIFFER MATERIAL THAN MAGNESIUM AND THIS FACT RAISES THE AXIAL RESONANT FREQUENCY OF THE ARMATURE, THUS, ENABLING A SHAKER WITH AN ALUMINUM ARMATURE TO ATTAIN A HIGHER FREQUENCY RESPONSE WITH A HEAVY PAYLOAD, THAN A SHAKER WITH A MAGNESIUM ARMATURE WHICH IS THE MATERIAL USED IN THE MODEL B290 THAT LING ELECTRONICS OFFERED.

"4. IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF AMENDMENT NO. 0003, SECTION 3, SUBSECTION 1.B, LING ELECTRONICS' BROCHURE ON THE MODEL B290 SHAKER COMPONENT GIVES A RATING OF ONE INCH PEAK (P) TO PEAK (P) CONTINUOUS DUTY STROKE. THIS RATING IS THE POTENTIAL CAPABILITY DESIGNED INTO THE SHAKER COMPONENT AND IMPLIES THAT THE SHAKER, WHEN DRIVEN BY AN ADEQUATELY RATED POWER AMPLIFIER, CAN REACH A ONE INCH P-P DISPLACEMENT. TO VIEW THE SHAKER POTENTIAL FOR ONE INCH P-P BY ITSELF AS A COMPONENT IS MEANINGLESS SINCE THIS POTENTIAL CAN ONLY BE REALIZED WITHIN A SYSTEM AND THIS PRECISELY WHAT IS REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION 1.B. THE LAST PART OF THE SENTENCE OF SUBSECTION 1.B READS: -1 INCH P-P DISPLACEMENT RATING REQUIRED BY FIGURE 514-5, MIL-STD 810B.-

"A. FIGURE 514-5, MIL-STD-810B PRESENTS A NUMBER OF VIBRATION TEST CURVES TO BE UTILIZED IN DETERMINING IF EQUIPMENT IS CONSTRUCTED TO WITHSTAND EXPECTED DYNAMIC VIBRATIONAL STRESSES. THIS MEANS THAT THE SHAKER COMPONENT, UPON WHICH THE EQUIPMENT IS MOUNTED, MUST BE DRIVEN TO THE G LEVELS AND THE ONE INCH - DISPLACEMENT RATING SPECIFIED IN FIGURE 514-5. HENCE, THE POWER AMPLIFIER MUST BE CAPABLE OF DRIVING THE SHAKER COMPONENT TO THE PERFORMANCE LEVELS SPECIFIED IN FIGURE 514 5 AND THE ONE INCH P-P RATING IS A SYSTEM RATING, NOT AN ABSTRACT RATING, OF WHAT AN INSOLATED SHAKER COMPONENT CAN ACHIEVE IF COUPLED TO THE CORRECT POWER AMPLIFIER. IT IS A FACT THAT TO MEET THE ONE INCH P-P RATING REQUIRED BY FIGURE 514- 5, THE SHAKER COMPONENT BECOMES PART OF A VIBRATION SYSTEM AND SYSTEM RATINGS PREVAIL.

"5. IT IS APPARENT THAT LING ELECTRONICS WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT A 1 INCH PEAK-TO-PEAK SYSTEM RATING WAS REQUIRED AND DEMONSTRATED THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THEIR MODIFICATION TO THE AMPLIFIER OUTPUT TRANSFORMER ON THEIR PRODUCT BULLETIN COVERING THE MODEL RP-3/5 POWER AMPLIFIER. THIS MODIFICATION MAKES MORE POWER AVAILABLE AT THE LOW FREQUENCY AND IN AN ATTEMPT TO ATTAIN THE REQUIRED 1 INCH PEAK-TO-PEAK SYSTEM RATING. HAD LING PROPOSED THEIR MODEL RP-5/6, A 5 KVA POWER AMPLIFIER, FOR USE WITH THE MODEL B290 SHAKER, A SYSTEM WHICH IS RATED AT ONE INCH P-P IN LING'S SYSTEMS RATING TABLE, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER, ONLY A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF THE OUTPUT TRANSFORMER WILL NOT DOUBLE THE P-P DISPLACEMENT SYSTEM RATING. THE USE OF THE VIBRATION SYSTEM EQUATIONS CONFIRMED THIS FACT.

"6. LING ELECTRONICS NOTES IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 3 OF THEIR LETTER THAT THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO DELIVER EQUIPMENT TO THE SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS. HENCE, THIS OFFICE IS EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF THE OUTPUT TRANSFORMER MODIFICATION, AS DESCRIBED IN THEIR POWER AMPLIFIER BROCHURE, UTILIZED STANDARD EQUATIONS TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF THIS MODIFICATION ON THE P-P DISPLACEMENT SYSTEM RATING. IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THIS OFFICE KNEW THAT THE TRANSFORMER MODIFICATION ALONE, WITHOUT AN INCREASED POWER OUTPUT RATING OF THE POWER AMPLIFIER WOULD NOT YIELD A ONE INCH P-P DISPLACEMENT. THIS WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL LING ELECTRONICS' SYSTEM OFFERED, PRIOR TO AMENDMENT NO. 0003, WHICH DOUBLED THE SYSTEM P-P DISPLACEMENT RATING FROM 0.5 INCH TO ONE INCH, CONSISTED OF A MODEL BI90 SHAKER AND A MODEL RP 3/5 POWER AMPLIFIER, WITH A 3 KVA OUTPUT POWER RATING, AND THIS SYSTEM COMBINATION HAD A P-P DISPLACEMENT RATING OF 0.5 INCH AS SHOWN IN THE LING ELECTRONICS' SYSTEMS RATING TABLE.

"A. THE ORIGINAL CALCULATIONS UTILIZED THE ORIGINAL SYSTEM FORCE RATING OF 1,500 LBS. IN LIEU OF THE REVISED RATING OF AMENDMENT NO. 0001 OF 1,400 LBS. FORCE. HOWEVER, THE SLIGHT ERROR OF 100 LBS. ONLY INCREASES THE INITIAL CALCULATED VALUE OF 0.66 INCH P-P TO 0.72 INCH P P, AN INCREASE OF ONLY 0.06 INCH P-P AND TOO FAR BELOW THE REQUIRED ONE INCH P-P DISPLACEMENT RATING. THE MARGIN OF SAFETY INHERENT IN THE ALTERED OUTPUT TRANSFORMER IS INSUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SYSTEM TO ATTAIN A ONE INCH P-P DISPLACEMENT FROM A DESIGN VALUE OF 0.72 INCH P P. IT IS NOTED THE MARGINAL SAFETY FACTOR WOULD AMONG OTHER THINGS BE CONCUMED BY SHAKER LOSSES AND BY THE REQUIREMENT FOR MORE POWER AT THE LOW FREQUENCY AND TO MEET THE ONE INCH P-P RATING DUE TO THE GREATLY INCREASED FLEXURE STIFFNESS INCLUDED AS A MODIFICATION TO THE SHAKER. THE STIFFER THE FLEXURES THE MORE POWER IS NEEDED TO MEET THE ONE INCH P-P RATING. THE SHAKER WAS ORIGINALLY OFFERED WITH A FLEXURE STIFFNESS OF 530 LBS/INCH. THE MODIFIED FLEXURE HAS A STIFFNESS OF 1,210 LBS/INCH WHICH WOULD REQUIRE MUCH MORE POWER TO ATTAIN THE ONE INCH P-P RATING.

"7. THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE SUBMITTED BY LING ELECTRONICS TO ASSURE CONFORMANCE WITH AMENDMENT NO. 0003, SECTION 3, SUBSECTIONS 1.A AND 1.B OF IFB NO. N00156-68-B-0372, WAS USED BY NWISO FOR THE REQUIRED PURPOSES OF PROVING CONFORMANCE OR NON-CONFORMANCE WITH THE ABOVE SUBSECTIONS. THE ONE INCH P-P DISPLACEMENT RATING SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION 1.B, IS A SYSTEM RATING AND THE STATED PURPOSE OF REQUIRING DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE WAS TO PROVE THIS RATING.

"9. THE TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THIS PROCUREMENT REAFFIRMS THAT UNHOLTZ- DICKIE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTIONS 1.A AND 1.B OF THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE CLAUSE AND THAT THE ORIGINAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION WAS CORRECT AND PROPER. LING ELECTRONICS HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY NEW OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHICH WOULD CHANGE THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THIS PROCUREMENT ACTION. THE APPLICABLE AREAS, WHICH SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE REQUIREMENTS, HAVE BEEN MARKED ON UNHOLTZ-DICKIE'S LITERATURE.'

WE DO NOT AGREE THAT THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA SUBMITTED WITH YOUR BID COULD BE USED ONLY FOR EVALUATION OF THE SHAKER. ON THE CONTRARY, ABSENT LANGUAGE IN THE BID LIMITING THE APPLICATION OF THE DATA, SUCH DATA MUST BE CONSIDERED TO QUALIFY YOUR BID OR OFFER SO THAT UPON ACCEPTANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT YOU COULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO FURNISH SOMETHING INCONSISTENT WITH OR DIFFERENT THAN THE ITEMS DESCRIBED IN THE DATA. SEE 40 COMP. GEN. 432; 36 ID. 535. WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE THAT THE CONTRACTING AGENCY PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE DATA SUBMITTED BY YOU ON THE RP 3/5 POWER AMPLIFIER IN DECIDING THE RESPONSIVENESS OF YOUR BID.

WHETHER THE EQUIPMENT OFFERED BY YOU, AS THAT OFFER IS CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS IS PRIMARILY FOR DETERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTING AGENCY. B-161472, AUGUST 4, 1967. OUR OFFICE HAS NEITHER AN ENGINEERING STAFF NOR A TESTING LABORATORY TO EVALUATE THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF SPECIFICATIONS AND OUR OFFICE WILL NOT QUESTION THE CONTRACTING AGENCY DETERMINATION UNLESS SHOWN TO BE ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS. SEE 43 COMP. GEN. 77, 80; 40 ID. 35. MOREOVER, IN DISPUTES OF FACT BETWEEN A PROTESTANT AND THE PROCUREMENT AGENCY, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR INDICATION TO THE CONTRARY, WE ACCEPT THE ADMINISTRATIVE VERSION AS CORRECT. THE RECORD INDICATES YOUR BID DATA WAS EVALUATED BY COMPETENT TECHNICAL PERSONNEL OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY AND WAS REJECTED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR FINDINGS FOR WHICH THERE IS FACTUAL SUPPORT. SINCE IT IS NOT APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION IS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS OR WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL BASIS, WE ACCEPT IT AS CORRECT. 17 COMP. GEN. 554; 35 ID. 174; 19 ID. 587.

FURTHER, WE THINK THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ACTED CORRECTLY IN NOT ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN AFTER BID OPENING "A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE DESCRIPTIVE MATERIALS SUPPLIED.' SUCH AN ACTION WOULD IN EFFECT HAVE GRANTED YOU AN OPTION AFTER ALL THE BIDS HAD BEEN EXPOSED TO MAKE YOUR BID RESPONSIVE. WE THINK YOU WILL AGREE THAT SUCH AN OPTION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPETITIVE SYSTEM. SEE 38 COMP. GEN. 532, 535; 17 ID. 554, 558.

FOR THE REASONS STATED, WE DO NOT PERCEIVE ANY BASIS ON WHICH WE COULD OBJECT TO THE REJECTION OF YOUR BID, AND YOUR PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.