B-165633, JAN. 24, 1969

B-165633: Jan 24, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

MILLER COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF NOVEMBER 14. YOU MAINTAIN THAT THE IFB SHOULD BE CANCELLED SINCE THE BRAND NAME DESCRIPTION WAS BASED UPON A MANUFACTURER'S MODEL NUMBER WHICH IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE. THE IFB WILL THEREFORE BE CANCELLED IN ACCORD WITH ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) 2- 404.1 (B) (I). WHICH AUTHORIZES SUCH ACTION WHEN INVITATION SPECIFICATIONS ARE FOUND TO BE INADEQUATE. THE DETERMINATION THAT THE OPTION PRICE WOULD BE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS THAN ANY PRICES OBTAINABLE UPON READVERTISEMENT WAS MADE PURSUANT TO ASPR 1-1505 (D) (3). QUOTED AS FOLLOWS: "/3) THE TIME BETWEEN THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT CONTAINING THE OPTION AND THE EXERCISE OF THE OPTION IS SO SHORT THAT IT INDICATES THE OPTION PRICE IS THE LOWEST PRICE OBTAINABLE.

B-165633, JAN. 24, 1969

TO JAMES E. MILLER COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF NOVEMBER 14, AND LETTER OF NOVEMBER 27, 1968, IN WHICH YOU PROTESTED AGAINST ANY AWARD UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. DSA-703-69-B-0012, ISSUED BY THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY (DSA), COLUMBUS, OHIO. THE IFB CALLED FOR 45 EACH WARM AIR FURNACES, MONTAG FURNACE COMPANY, INC., LO-BOY MS-6 OR EQUAL, WITH CERTAIN SALIENT FEATURES. YOU MAINTAIN THAT THE IFB SHOULD BE CANCELLED SINCE THE BRAND NAME DESCRIPTION WAS BASED UPON A MANUFACTURER'S MODEL NUMBER WHICH IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE.

IN A REPORT DATED JANUARY 6, 1969, DSA HAS INFORMED US THAT IT AGREES WITH YOUR CONTENTION; MOREOVER, IT HAS ADVISED US THAT FURTHER TECHNICAL REVIEW HAS DISCLOSED THE EXISTENCE OF A MILITARY SPECIFICATION, MIL-F- 17104C, DATED JUNE 13, 1963, AND AMENDMENT 1 DATED MARCH 1, 1966, WHICH ADEQUATELY DESCRIBES THE PRODUCT REQUIRED. THE IFB WILL THEREFORE BE CANCELLED IN ACCORD WITH ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) 2- 404.1 (B) (I), WHICH AUTHORIZES SUCH ACTION WHEN INVITATION SPECIFICATIONS ARE FOUND TO BE INADEQUATE.

DSA HAS FURTHER ADVISED US THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS EXERCISED AN OPTION UNDER CONTRACT NO. DSA-703-69-C-0128 FOR PROCUREMENT OF THE SUBJECT REQUIREMENT, SINCE HE DETERMINED THAT AN AWARD UNDER THE EXISTING CONTRACT WOULD BE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT, PRICE AND OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED, THAN READVERTISING FOR THE ITEMS. THE DETERMINATION THAT THE OPTION PRICE WOULD BE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS THAN ANY PRICES OBTAINABLE UPON READVERTISEMENT WAS MADE PURSUANT TO ASPR 1-1505 (D) (3), QUOTED AS FOLLOWS:

"/3) THE TIME BETWEEN THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT CONTAINING THE OPTION AND THE EXERCISE OF THE OPTION IS SO SHORT THAT IT INDICATES THE OPTION PRICE IS THE LOWEST PRICE OBTAINABLE, CONSIDERING SUCH FACTORS AS MARKET STABILITY AND A COMPARISON OF THE TIME SINCE AWARD WITH THE USUAL DURATION OF CONTRACTS FOR SUCH SUPPLIES AND SERVICES.'

THE CONTRACT REFERRED TO WAS AWARDED TO YORK-SHIPLEY, INC., ON DECEMBER 24, 1968, UNDER A FORMALLY ADVERTISED INVITATION FOR BIDS CITING THE ABOVE -MENTIONED MILITARY SPECIFICATION.

BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DETAILED ABOVE, NO FURTHER ACTION IS CONTEMPLATED BY OUR OFFICE AND WE ARE THEREFORE CLOSING OUR FILES IN THE MATTER.