B-164885(2), MAY 7, 1969

B-164885(2): May 7, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

CINCINNATI WAS THE LOW BIDDER. WE CONCLUDED THAT WHILE THERE WAS DOUBT THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S MACHINE QUALIFIED AS A CURRENT COMMERCIAL MODEL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SPECIFICATION PARAGRAPH 3.2. THAT THE MACHINE WILL MEET OR EXCEED THE INTENT OF THE SPECIFICATION. YOU CONTEND THAT THIS MACHINE WILL NOT PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATION. YOU HAVE ADVANCED VARIOUS TECHNICAL ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION. YOU HAVE BEEN FURNISHED WITH RESPONSES TO YOUR CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE NAVY AND BY THE CONTRACTOR. IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING. THAT CINCINNATI IS NOT CONTEMPLATING SUCH A DESIGN. YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT. WE ARE ADVISED BY THE NAVY THAT THE SPINDLE ON THE CINCINNATI MACHINE IS ROTATED BY A 10 VEE BELT SHEAVE CONNECTED BY 10 VEE BELTS TO AN OIL-TIGHT CONSTANT MESH TRANSMISSION MOUNTED IN THE HEADSTOCK LEG.

B-164885(2), MAY 7, 1969

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

W. E. SHIPLEY MACHINERY COMPANY:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO CINCINNATI MILLING AND GRINDING MACHINES, INCORPORATED (CINCINNATI), UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS N00600 68-B-0408 ISSUED BY THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE FOR A QUANTITY OF NUMERICALLY CONTROLLED ENGINE LATHES. BY LETTER DATED JANUARY 15, 1969, WE HAD ADVISED YOU THAT WE DID NOT INTEND TO REQUIRE CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT.

BRIEFLY, THE INVITATION SPECIFICATION PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 3.2 THAT THE ITEM TO BE FURNISHED SHOULD BE THE MANUFACTURER'S CURRENT COMMERCIAL MODEL. CINCINNATI WAS THE LOW BIDDER, OFFERING TO FURNISH A MODEL WHICH IT PROPOSED TO MODIFY IN SEVERAL RESPECTS IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION. YOU CONTENDED TO THE NAVY THAT THE MODEL OFFERED BY THE LOW BIDDER FAILED TO QUALIFY AS A CURRENT COMMERCIAL MODEL AND, IN ADDITION, WOULD NOT MEET ALL OF THE DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION. BUT THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE PROCEEDED TO MAKE AWARD TO THE LOW BIDDER, SATISFYING ITSELF ON THE BASIS OF A PRE-AWARD SURVEY THAT THE BIDDER WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS IN ITS MODEL TO MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS. YOU THEN PROTESTED THE AWARD TO OUR OFFICE.

WE CONCLUDED THAT WHILE THERE WAS DOUBT THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S MACHINE QUALIFIED AS A CURRENT COMMERCIAL MODEL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SPECIFICATION PARAGRAPH 3.2, WE WOULD NOT DISTURB THE AWARD. B-164885, JANUARY 15, 1969. YOU QUESTION, HOWEVER, WHETHER CINCINNATI INTENDS TO PROVIDE A MACHINE WHICH MEETS THE ESSENTIAL DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION. IN OUR PRIOR LETTER TO YOU, WE NOTED THAT THE NAVY CONSIDERS THAT THE CINCINNATI DESIGN REPRESENTS AN ADVANCE IN THE STATE OF THE ART, AND THAT THE MACHINE WILL MEET OR EXCEED THE INTENT OF THE SPECIFICATION. YOU DISPUTE THESE CONCLUSIONS. IN YOUR OPINION, THE CINCINNATI DESIGN DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION, AND YOU CONTEND THAT THIS MACHINE WILL NOT PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATION.

YOU HAVE ADVANCED VARIOUS TECHNICAL ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION, AND YOU HAVE BEEN FURNISHED WITH RESPONSES TO YOUR CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE NAVY AND BY THE CONTRACTOR. ONE CONTENTION YOU ADVANCE CONCERNS PARAGRAPH 3.4.2 OF THE SPECIFICATION, DEALING WITH THE HEADSTOCK. THAT PARAGRAPH PROVIDES THAT THE HEADSTOCK SHALL BE AN OIL TIGHT UNIT CONTAINING THE SPINDLE AND SPINDLE DRIVE MECHANISM. THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 3.4.2 REFERS TO THE LOAD CARRYING GEARS IN THE SPINDLE DRIVE MECHANISM. YOU THUS CONCLUDE THAT THE GEARS OF THE SPINDLE DRIVE MUST BE CONTAINED IN THE HEADSTOCK. IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING, HOWEVER, THAT CINCINNATI IS NOT CONTEMPLATING SUCH A DESIGN, BUT RATHER INTENDS TO LOCATE THESE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE IN THE HEADSTOCK LEG AND NOT IN THE HEADSTOCK ITSELF.

YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT. WE ARE ADVISED BY THE NAVY THAT THE SPINDLE ON THE CINCINNATI MACHINE IS ROTATED BY A 10 VEE BELT SHEAVE CONNECTED BY 10 VEE BELTS TO AN OIL-TIGHT CONSTANT MESH TRANSMISSION MOUNTED IN THE HEADSTOCK LEG. THE MACHINE WILL BE SUPPLIED ALSO WITH A BACK GEAR MOUNTED ON THE SPINDLE. THE SPINDLE IS MOUNTED ON TAPERED ROLLER BEARINGS IN AN OIL-TIGHT UNIT WITHIN THE HEADSTOCK. IN SHORT, THE HEADSTOCK CONTAINS THE SPINDLE AND ITS SUPPORT BEARINGS, WHILE THE MOTOR AND TRANSMISSION ARE MOUNTED AT THE BOTTOM OR BASE OF THE HEADSTOCK LEG. THE CONTRACTOR CLAIMS THAT THE ELIMINATION OF GEARING FROM THE HEADSTOCK ISOLATES HEAT AND VIBRATION FROM THE SPINDLE, AND THE NAVY AGREES WITH THIS EVALUATION.

ANOTHER CONTENTION ADVANCED BY YOU CONCERNS PARAGRAPH 3.4.3 AND 3.9.3 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. PARAGRAPH 3.4.3, CARRIAGE AND CROSS SLIDE, AS AMENDED BY THE INVITATION, STATES THAT THE CROSS SLIDE SHALL BE EQUIPPED TO ACCEPT A SIX STATION VERTICALLY INDEXING TURRET ASSEMBLY, OR WITH AN INDEXING OF INTERCHANGEABLE HORIZONTAL TOOL TURRETS AS SPECIFIED. PARAGRAPHS 3.9.2 AND 3.9.3 (AS AMENDED BY THE INVITATION) SPECIFY INTERCHANGEABLE FOUR-WAY AND SIX-WAY HORIZONTAL INDEXING TOOL TURRETS.

YOU QUESTION WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE INTERCHANGEABLE SIX WAY INDEXING TURRETS (HORIZONTAL) AS SPECIFIED BY PARAGRAPH 3.9.3. ALSO, YOU QUESTION WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR'S MACHINE WILL PERMIT THE REQUIRED WORK- SIZE ENVELOPE. IN ADDITION, YOU CONSIDER IT "*** HIGHLY UNLIKELY, IF NOT ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE, FOR CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY THE SPECIFIED TOOL HOLDERS FOR BORING AND DRILLING OPERATIONS FOR USE WITH THE VERTICAL TURRET HE PROPOSES TO FURNISH AS WE UNDERSTAND ITS DESIGN."

IT IS TRUE THAT THE CONTRACTOR WILL NOT BE FURNISHING SIX-WAY HORIZONTAL INDEXING TURRETS. THE CONTRACTOR IS PROPOSING TO FURNISH AN 8-STATION VERTICAL TURRET WITH INTERCHANGEABLE TOOLING AND AN ADDITIONAL 4-STATION TURRET FOR EXTENDING THE MACHINE CAPABILITY. AS DESCRIBED IN THE CONTRACTOR'S LITERATURE, THE 8-STATION OR SO-CALLED "CROWN TURRET" IS DESIGNED TO PERFORM ALL THE REQUIRED OUTSIDE DIAMETER (OD) WORK, WHILE THE 4-STATION "ID TURNING TURRET" WILL PERFORM THE INSIDE DIAMETER (ID) WORK. BOTH TURRETS WILL BE SITUATED ON THE SAME CROSS-SLIDE MECHANISM WITH A FIXED-CLEARANCE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO TURRETS. (THESE TWO TURRETS CANNOT OPERATE AT THE SAME TIME.) THE TOOLING ON THE ID TURNING TURRET IS POSITIONED IN A HORIZONTAL DIRECTION TO PERFORM INSIDE DIAMETER OPERATIONS (BORING AND DRILLING). THE CONTRACTOR'S LITERATURE (CATALOGUE L-501 DATED JANUARY 1968, PAGE 15) STATES THAT THE TOOLING ON THE TURRETS CAN BE REMOVED WHEN NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE LARGE WORK PIECES.

FROM OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE VARIOUS PARTIES CONCERNED IN THE PROTEST, WE GATHER THAT THE NAVY DID NOT ANTICIPATE BEING OFFERED A MACHINE WITH THE DESIGN FEATURES OF THE CINCINNATI MODEL WHEN THIS INVITATION WAS ISSUED IN JANUARY 1968. AT THAT TIME, THE CINCINNATI MACHINE HAD JUST BEEN MARKETED. (WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE MACHINE WAS FIRST INTRODUCED TO THE PUBLIC IN NOVEMBER 1967.) THE NAVY INSISTS, HOWEVER, THAT THE CINCINNATI TURRET ASSEMBLY MEETS AND EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A 6- STATION VERTICAL TURRET AS SPECIFIED BY THE INVITATION. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE NOTE THAT THE CONTRACTOR IN ITS BID LETTER DATED MAY 24, 1968, STATED THAT THE MACHINE IT WAS OFFERING HAS THE CAPACITY TO SWING 13.250 INCHES OVER THE CROSS SLIDE, 24 INCHES OVER THE BED AND CANOPY WINGS, AND HAS THE CAPACITY TO SWING 72 INCHES IN LENGTH BETWEEN CENTERS. ON THIS BASIS, THE NAVY CONCLUDES THAT "THE MACHINE WILL ACCEPT A WORK PIECE AS LARGE AS EITHER OF ITS COMPETITORS MEETING THE SUBJECT SPECIFICATION." FINALLY, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE REQUIRED BORING AND DRILLING OPERATIONS WILL BE DONE BY THE 4-STATION ID TURNING TURRET.

WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE FEATURE OF THE CONTRACTOR'S MACHINE IS NECESSARY. WE ARE PREPARED TO AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE MACHINE CONTAINS CERTAIN DESIGN FEATURES WHICH WERE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE INVITATION SPECIFICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN TO OUR SATISFACTION THAT THIS MACHINE WILL FAIL TO PERFORM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION. WE BELIEVE, THEREFORE, THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S BEST INTEREST WILL BE SERVED BY PERMITTING THE CONTRACT TO PROCEED UNDISTURBED. ACCORDINGLY, WE REAFFIRM THE PRIOR DENIAL OF YOUR PROTEST.