B-164235, SEP. 24, 1968

B-164235, SEP. 24, 1968

TO LING ELECTRONICS:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 2, 1968 (568-MEW 824), PROTESTING A PROPOSED NONCOMPETITIVE SOLE SOURCE NEGOTIATION UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. N00156-68-R-0624 ISSUED BY THE NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.

THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENT, SEEKING ONE SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION TESTING SYSTEM, WAS BEING NEGOTIATED ON A SOLE SOURCE BASIS WITH UNHOLTZ-DICKIE CORPORATION BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN FOUND THAT ONLY THAT FIRM'S EQUIPMENT HAD CERTAIN MANDATORY FEATURES CONSIDERED NECESSARY BY THE PROCURING ACTIVITY TO MEET THE ACTIVITY'S DESIRE FOR A SYSTEM HAVING LONG TERM OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY, MINIMUM DOWN TIME, AND THE CAPABILITY OF (A) ACHIEVING AN 8000 POUND SYSTEM FORCE RATING, (B) MEETING THE TEST REQUIREMENTS OF METHOD 514 OF MIL-STD-810B, AND (C) CARRYING AND TESTING PAY LOADS OF AT LEAST 1890 POUNDS. IN ORDER TO MEET THESE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, THE SYSTEM WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE THE FOLLOWING MANDATORY FEATURES:

1. ALL SOLID STATE POWER AMPLIFIER RATED AT 14 KVA OUTPUT

2. SYSTEM FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF DC TO 3000 HZ

3. CONTINUOUS DUTY PEAK-TO-PEAK DISPLACEMENT OF ONE INCH DOWN TO 2 HZ

4. ELECTRICAL RECENTERING OF THE SHAKER TABLE

THE ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS ISSUED ON APRIL 16, 1968, WITH A CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS SET AT MAY 16, 1968. SAID PROCUREMENT WAS SYNOPSIZED IN THE "COMMERCE DAILY" DATED APRIL 16, 1968, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 1-1003.1 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR).

ON APRIL 22, 1968, A TELEGRAM WAS RECEIVED BY THE PROCURING ACTIVITY FROM MB ELECTRONICS REQUESTING A COPY OF THE SOLICITATION, WHICH REQUEST WAS GRANTED AND THE DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS WAS EXTENDED TO MAY 31, 1968. ON MAY 7, 1968, THE AGENCY RECEIVED A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OF MAY 2, 1968, REQUESTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCUREMENT. THEREAFTER, PURSUANT TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMANDER, NAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS COMMAND, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON JULY 18, 1968, INVITED YOUR FIRM AND MB ELECTRONICS TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS AND TO FURNISH INFORMATION CONCERNING YOUR COMPANY'S ABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROCURED SYSTEM. ON JULY 30, 1968, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REPEATED HIS REQUEST SINCE NO RESPONSES HAD BEEN RECEIVED. ON THE SAME DATE MB ELECTRONICS SUBMITTED ITS PROPOSAL AND NECESSARY DATA, WHICH WAS LATER DETERMINED TO BE TECHNICALLY NONRESPONSIVE.

IT IS REPORTED TO THIS OFFICE THAT "AS OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1968, NO TECHNICAL PROPOSAL HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND NO COMMITMENT CAN BE OBTAINED AS TO WHEN A PROPOSAL COULD OR WOULD BE SUBMITTED BY LING ELECTRONICS.' UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1968, MADE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION: "IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER THAT THE PROTEST OF LING ELECTRONICS BE DENIED AND THAT THE AWARD SHALL BE MADE TO UNHOLTZ-DICKIE CORPORATION, THE ORIGINALLY DETERMINED SOLE SOURCE SUPPLIER. AN OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE PROTESTANT, LING ELECTRONICS, TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL AND IT HAS FAILED TO RESPOND. "ONE OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IS THE NEED OF SYSTEM FREQUENCY RESPONSES OF DC TO 3000 HZ. AS SET FORTH IN THE TECHNICAL REPLY OF NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY OFFICE, EXHIBIT L, PARAGRAPH (3) -THE ONLY KNOWN METHOD OF ACHIEVING A FREQUENCY RESPONSE DOWN TO DC IS TO UTILIZE A DIRECT COUPLED DESIGN IN THE AMPLIFIER, WHICH MEANS THE ELIMINATION OF ALL COUPLING CAPACITORS AND THE OUTPUT TRANSFORMERS. IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE ART THE ONLY KNOWN METHOD OF UTILIZING DIRECT COUPLING TECHNIQUES IS BY SOLID STATE DESIGN WHERE ONLY LOW VOLTAGES ARE NEEDED. THE ONLY SUPPLIER OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS UNHOLTZ-DICKIE CORPORATION.-"

THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING PROCUREMENT NEEDS, FOR DRAFTING SPECIFICATIONS WHICH REFLECT THOSE NEEDS, AND FOR DETERMINING WHETHER ARTICLES OFFERED MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS IS THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS. 17 COMP. GEN. 554. OPENING OF THIS PROCUREMENT TO PERMIT PROPOSALS FROM YOUR FIRM AND OTHERS DID NOT REQUIRE RELAXATION OF THE MINIMUM SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AS DETERMINED TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS, AND THE NON RECEIPT OF ANY OFFER OF ACCEPTABLE EQUIPMENT FROM ANOTHER SOURCE WOULD APPEAR TO SUPPORT THE VALIDITY OF THE ORIGINAL DETERMINATION AUTHORIZING SOLE SOURCE NEGOTIATION.

WHILE THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC TIME LIMITATION IMPOSED UPON SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSAL BY YOU, AND WE KNOW OF NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS SPECIFYING THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT SHOULD BE SO ALLOWED, WE BELIEVE THAT THE PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS WHICH HAS ELAPSED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ADEQUATE AND THAT YOUR FAILURE TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL OR TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION OF TIME THEREFOR MAY PROPERLY BE ACCEPTED AS INDICATING THAT YOU DO NOT INTEND TO DO SO.

INASMUCH AS THE ORIGINAL BASIS FOR YOUR PROTEST WAS CURED BY THE INVITATION EXTENDED TO YOU TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL, AND YOU HAVE FAILED TO RESPOND THERETO OR TO REGISTER ANY FURTHER OBJECTION, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR LEGAL OBJECTION TO AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO UNHOLTZ-DICKIE CORPORATION AS RECOMMENDED.