B-165322, FEB. 5, 1969

B-165322: Feb 5, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

POSTMASTER GENERAL: WE HAVE RECENTLY REVIEWED A PROCUREMENT UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 9 -68 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A "SYSTEMS AND BUILDING SCALE MODEL" OF THE PROPOSED POSTAL FACILITY AT KEARNY. THERE ARE SEVERAL MATTERS WE WISH TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROCUREMENT. TEN PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE SOLICITATION. SEPARATE EVALUATIONS WERE MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS (HO) AND THE PROCESS MACHINERY DIVISION (CEP) AS FOLLOWS: PROPOSED RANKING PROPONENT PRICEHO CEP 1. 400 1 2 IT WAS DETERMINED THAT RESEARCH AFFILIATES. WERE NOT QUALIFIED FOR SELECTION. THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION BY CEP OF THE PROPOSALS WHICH WERE RANKED 3. WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE HERE.

B-165322, FEB. 5, 1969

TO MR. POSTMASTER GENERAL:

WE HAVE RECENTLY REVIEWED A PROCUREMENT UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 9 -68 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A "SYSTEMS AND BUILDING SCALE MODEL" OF THE PROPOSED POSTAL FACILITY AT KEARNY, NEW JERSEY. THERE ARE SEVERAL MATTERS WE WISH TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROCUREMENT.

TEN PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE SOLICITATION. SEPARATE EVALUATIONS WERE MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS (HO) AND THE PROCESS MACHINERY DIVISION (CEP) AS FOLLOWS:

PROPOSED RANKING

PROPONENT PRICEHO CEP

1. RESEARCH AFFILIATES, INC. $29,500 5 8

2. NAVIGATE, INC. 34,022 10 10

3. INDUSTRIAL MODELS, INC. 45,300 3 1

4. ENESS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 47,480 6 6

5. TECHLAB, INC. 47,730 4 3

6. W.A. MOORE ENGINEERING CO. 47,902 8 5

7. H. S. KEEL

8. MODEL MAKERS, INC. 78,753 2 4

9. P. O. IWATSU 88,000 7 7 10. VISUAL INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC. 110,400 1 2 IT WAS DETERMINED THAT RESEARCH AFFILIATES, INC., AND NAVIGATE, INC., WERE NOT QUALIFIED FOR SELECTION. THE REASONS FOR THESE DETERMINATIONS APPEAR IN A MEMORANDUM OF A MEETING OF THE CONTRACT AWARD REVIEW BOARD HELD ON JANUARY 26, 1968. THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION BY CEP OF THE PROPOSALS WHICH WERE RANKED 3, 5, 8 AND 10 WITH RESPECT TO PRICE RESULTED IN THE ALLOCATION OF THE FOLLOWING POINT SCORES:

OFFERORS TOTAL SCORE

-------- ----------- INDUSTRIAL

MODELS, INC. 90 VISUAL INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC.

84 TECHLAB, INC. 61 MODEL

MAKERS, INC. 68

THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION MADE BY HO OF THESE SAME PROPOSALS RESULTED IN THE ALLOCATION OF THE FOLLOWING POINT SCORES:

OFFERORS TOTAL SCORE

-------- ----------- VISUAL

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC. 89.0 MODEL MAKERS, INC.

87.6 INDUSTRIAL MODELS,

INC. 82.2 TECHLAB, INC. 80.6

FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS 1-3.805-1 (A) PROVIDES, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE HERE, THAT AFTER RECEIPT OF INITIAL PROPOSALS, WRITTEN OR ORAL DISCUSSIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED WITH ALL RESPONSIBLE OFFERORS WHO SUBMITTED PROPOSALS WITHIN A COMPETITIVE RANGE, PRICE AND OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED. IT IS OUR VIEW THAT ANY FIRM'S PROPOSAL MUST BE REGARDED AS WITHIN A COMPETITIVE RANGE UNLESS IT IS SO TECHNICALLY INFERIOR OR OUT OF LINE FROM A PRICE STANDPOINT AS TO PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF MEANINGFUL NEGOTIATIONS. SINCE SUCH A DETERMINATION IS SUBJECTIVE WE HAVE RECOGNIZED A REASONABLE DEGREE OF DISCRETION IN ITS FORMULATION. B-163024, AUGUST 27, 1968. WE DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OFFERORS OTHER THAN INDUSTRIAL MODELS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN A COMPETITIVE RANGE. WE THINK THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL MODELS AND VISUAL MIGHT WELL JUSTIFY FINDING THE LATTER OUTSIDE SUCH RANGE. HOWEVER, THE SITUATION IS NOT SO CLEAR WITH RESPECT TO TECHLAB, INC., FOR EXAMPLE. IN ANY CASE, THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE AWARD TO INDUSTRIAL MODELS IS ACADEMIC SINCE THE MODEL HAS BEEN DELIVERED AND ACCEPTED BY POD.

WE BRING THESE MATTERS TO YOUR ATTENTION FOR SUCH ACTION AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE WITH RESPECT TO FUTURE PROCUREMENTS.