B-165134, SEPT. 17, 1968

B-165134: Sep 17, 1968

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO GENERAL RESEARCH CORPORATION: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 23. BIDS WERE REQUESTED FOR FURNISHING A TELEPHONE REPORTING BURGLAR ALARM SYSTEM. NINE BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO THE BALLISTICS CONTROL CORPORATION. IN YOUR LETTER YOU STATE THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS WAS CONFUSING AND THAT YOU WERE THE ONLY BIDDER WHO RECEIVED CLARIFICATION ON THIS POINT. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE STATES THAT IT BELIEVES THE SPECIFICATION WAS CLEAR AND THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ALLEGATION THAT IT WAS CONFUSING. THIS BELIEF IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING: (1) POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATION POD-A-359 (RE). IS INCORPORATED AS A PART OF SOLICITATION 1043 BY REFERENCE ON PAGE 5 OF THE SOLICITATION. (2) CLAUSE 2.1 ON PAGE 1 OF SPECIFICATION POD-A-359 (RE) STATES "THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS.

B-165134, SEPT. 17, 1968

TO GENERAL RESEARCH CORPORATION:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 23, 1968, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT UNDER SOLICITATION NO. 1043 ISSUED BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.

BIDS WERE REQUESTED FOR FURNISHING A TELEPHONE REPORTING BURGLAR ALARM SYSTEM. NINE BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO THE BALLISTICS CONTROL CORPORATION, THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU STATE THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS WAS CONFUSING AND THAT YOU WERE THE ONLY BIDDER WHO RECEIVED CLARIFICATION ON THIS POINT. THEREFORE, YOU ALLEGE THAT THE OTHER BIDDERS BASED THEIR BIDS ON FURNISHING COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE STATES THAT IT BELIEVES THE SPECIFICATION WAS CLEAR AND THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ALLEGATION THAT IT WAS CONFUSING. THIS BELIEF IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING:

(1) POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATION POD-A-359 (RE), MAY 15, 1968, IS INCORPORATED AS A PART OF SOLICITATION 1043 BY REFERENCE ON PAGE 5 OF THE SOLICITATION.

(2) CLAUSE 2.1 ON PAGE 1 OF SPECIFICATION POD-A-359 (RE) STATES "THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, OF THE ISSUE IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS, FORM A PART OF THIS SPECIFICATION.' CLAUSE 2.1.1 LISTS THREE MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS - MIL-I-45208, MIL-I-16910 AND MIL P-55110A. CLAUSE 2.1.2 ALSO LISTS THREE MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS - MIL STD-130C, MIL- STD-275B AND MIL-STD-202B.

AS YOU STATE, NO OTHER BIDDER INQUIRED CONCERNING THE MEANING OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. IN OUR OPINION THIS DOES NOT INDICATE AS ALLEGED BY YOU THAT THEY DID NOT BID ON EQUIPMENT MEETING THE SPECIFICATIONS. RATHER, HAVING REGARD FOR THE ABOVE REFERRED-TO SPECIFICATIONS, IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT ALL BIDDERS WERE AWARE THAT A MODIFIED SYSTEM INCORPORATING THE MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS WAS TO BE FURNISHED AND THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR ASKING FOR A CLARIFICATION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. IN THAT REGARD THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER HAS CONFIRMED THAT IT FULLY UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME ITS BID WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EQUIPMENT MUST COMPLY WITH THE MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS AND THAT A REGULAR COMMERCIAL "OFF THE SHELF" SYSTEM WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE.