B-166086, AUG. 13, 1969

B-166086, AUG. 13, 1969

BID PROTEST - SPECIFICATIONS RESTRICTIVE DECISION TO FIRE ALERT CO. DENYING PROTESTS UNDER CONTRACTS ISSUED BY ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES AT VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE ON BASIS THAT PROTESTANT'S EQUIPMENT WAS UNEQUAL TO SPECIFIED MODEL. DEPARTMENTAL DETERMINATION REGARDING INACCEPTABILITY OF EQUIPMENT WAS NO ERRONEOUS IN VIEW OF DATA SUPPORTING JUDGMENT. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PROTESTANT DOES NOT OVERCOME ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS. THEREFORE SPECIFICATIONS ARE NOT REGARDED AS IMPROPER.

TO FIRE ALERT COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM, DATED FEBRUARY 4, 1969, AND SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE IN REGARD TO YOUR PROTESTS UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. DACA09-69-B-0037, CONTRACT NO. DACA09-68-C-0121, AND CONTRACT NO. DACA09-69-C-0006, WHICH WERE ISSUED BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON BEHALF OF THE AIR FORCE DEPARTMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUPPORT FACILITIES AND A DATA COMPUTATION CENTER AT VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA. YOUR CONCERN IS A POTENTIAL SUPPLIER TO THE PRIME CONTRACTORS OF THE FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS REQUIRED UNDER EACH OF THE ABOVE CITED SOLICITATIONS. YOUR PROTESTS ARE CONCERNED WITH THE DETERMINATION OF AIR FORCE ENGINEERING PERSONNEL THAT A FIRE DETECTION DEVICE, MODEL FT- 100, PRODUCED BY YOUR CONCERN DOES NOT ATTAIN THE PERFORMANCE LEVEL OF ANOTHER ALARM DETECTOR, PYR-A-LARM MODEL DIS-3/5A, MANUFACTURED BY PYROTRONICS, INC. YOU FURTHER PROTEST THE DEPARTMENT'S ANNOUNCED INTENTION TO SPECIFY THE PYR-A-LARM MODEL ON A RESTRICTIVE BASIS.

THE AIR FORCE SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS ORGANIZATION (SAMSO) HAS ADVISED US THAT THE REQUIRED FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS WILL PROTECT VALUABLE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT IN SUPPORT OF ESSENTIAL AIR FORCE MISSIONS INVOLVING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AS WELL AS LIVES, AND THEREFORE MUST AFFORD THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF RELIABILITY IN ACCURATELY RESPONDING TO INCIPIENT FIRES. FALSE ALARMS COULD CAUSE EXCESSIVE COSTS AND DISRUPTION OF THESE MISSIONS. AFTER EVALUATING ALL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS DETECTORS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE IN THE OPEN MARKET, COGNIZANT PERSONNEL DETERMINED THAT CERTAIN FEATURES ADMITTEDLY FOUND ONLY IN THE PYR-A LARM MODEL WOULD BE NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THIS GOAL, AS FOLLOWS:

(1) TWO IONIZATION CHAMBERS, AS FOUND IN THE PYR-A-LARM MODEL, ONE OF WHICH IS USED AS THE DETECTOR CHAMBER, THE OTHER AS A REFERENCE CHAMBER, WHICH PERMITS PERFORMANCE UNAFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS SUCH AS HUMIDITY AND BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, THEREBY AFFORDING THE DEVICE SUPERIOR RELIABILITY OVER DETECTORS UTILIZING A SINGLE IONIZATION CHAMBER.

(2) A COLD CATHODE TUBE, UTILIZED IN THE PYR-A-LARM MODEL, PERMITS INDEFINITE TROUBLE-FREE OPERATION OF THE UNIT, UNLIKE THE LIMITED LIFE AFFORDED BY A HOT CATHODE TUBE.

(3) THE PLUG-IN UNIT FEATURE OF THE PYR-A-LARM DEVICE PERMITS PRECISE TESTING AND SETTING OF THE SENSITIVITY LEVEL OF EACH UNIT BY MEANS OF AN INDEPENDENT SENSITIVITY CHECKER THEREBY ENABLING MORE ACCURATE AND RELIABLE RESPONSES.

(4) THE PYR-A-LARM MODEL CONTAINS NO MOVING PARTS, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED DESIRABLE IN VIEW OF ACTUAL FIELD EXPERIENCE INDICATING THAT MOVING PARTS IN SMOKE DETECTION DEVICES INTRODUCED AN ELEMENT OF PROBABLE FAILURE. BECAUSE THESE FEATURES WERE CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL TO THE DEPARTMENT'S NEEDS FOR THE ALARM SYSTEMS, THEY WERE INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS REFERRED TO, TOGETHER WITH A DRAWING INDICATING PYR-A LARM OR EQUAL.

THE AIR FORCE ALSO CONCLUDED THAT ANY FIRE DETECTION DEVICE INSTALLED IN THESE FACILITIES SHOULD HAVE A FIVE YEAR SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE RECORD, THAT IS, BE FREE FROM COMPLAINTS OF SPURIOUS ALARMING DURING THIS PERIOD, IN VIEW OF THE CRITICAL NATURE OF THE EQUIPMENT AND MISSIONS TO BE PROTECTED BY THE ALARMS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS REQUIREMENT WAS SPECIFIED UNDER IFB NO. DACA09-69-B-0037 AND CONTRACT DACA09-68-C-0121.

YOUR PRODUCT WAS DETERMINED TO BE UNEQUAL TO THE PYR-A-LARM MODEL, AND NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS, BECAUSE IT DID NOT POSSESS THE FEATURES DESCRIBED ABOVE. THE SAMSO REPORT CITES, IN JUSTIFICATION OF ITS DETERMINATION, REPORTS INDICATING THAT YOUR DEVICE PROVIDED UNSATISFACTORY SERVICE AFTER INSTALLATION AT THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, ROCKY FLATS DIVISION, AND THE CONVAIR PLANT IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, WHILE SYSTEMS USING THE PYR-A-LARM UNITS HAD FURNISHED TROUBLE-FREE EXPERIENCE FOR SEVERAL YEARS. THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO FORWARDED A MEMORANDUM CONCERNING THE PERFORMANCE HISTORY OF YOUR SYSTEM INSTALLED AT LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, AS FOLLOWS:

"ON 26 SEPTEMBER 1968, CARL HORNE PREPARED -BRIEF SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION OF FIRE ALERT FT 100 DETECTOR IN BUILDING 1268 (APPROX 200 INSTALLED/- (ATCH 14) AT LANGLEY AFB WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

-/1) ALL EQUIPMENT AND DETECTORS INSTALLED IN EARLY NOVEMBER, 1967.

-/2) -ZONE FIRE TESTS' WERE PERFORMED ON NOVEMBER 13, 1967, BY BURNING A SHEET OF NEWSPRINT IN A METAL CONTAINER FOR EACH -TEST.- RESPONSE WAS POSITIVE.

-/3) NUMEROUS FALSE ALARMS OCCURRED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 13, 1967 AND JANUARY 23, 1968 (DATE CONTRACTOR RETURNED TO JOB SITE). THE CONTRACTOR CLEANED THE DETECTORS AND -CHANGE- SENSITIVITY LEVELS ON SOME OF THE DETECTORS. HE ALSO CORRECTED MALFUNCTIONS IN BATTERY CHARGER AND CONTROL PANEL.

-/4) FALSE ALARMS CONTINUED TO OCCUR AND CONTRACTOR RETURNED TO JOB SITE ON MARCH 15, 1968 TO MAKE -REPAIRS' AND -CORRECTIONS' TO SYSTEM. THIS WORK INCLUDED ADDING FILTER CAPACITORS TO 24 VOLT POWER LINES TO DETECTORS, LOWERING SENSITIVITY OF SOME DETECTORS, CLEANING DETECTORS, AND REPLACING CERTAIN DETECTORS WHICH CONTRACTOR SAID WERE DEFECTIVE.

-/5) AFTER CONTRACTOR LEFT THE JOB SITE ON MARCH 17, 1968, FALSE ALARMS CONTINUED UNTIL THE SENSITIVITY LEVEL OF EACH DETECTOR WAS LOWERED TO A DIAL SETTING OF TWO (2) AS SHOWN ON THE CALIBRATED SCALE ON THE BACK OF EACH DETECTOR. AFTER ALL DETECTORS WERE ADJUSTED TO A DIAL SETTING OF TWO, -ZONE FIRE TESTS' WERE PERFORMED ON APRIL 24, 1968 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. THE RESPONSE TO THESE TESTS WAS VERY POOR. SOME CASES, THE DETECTORS WOULD NOT ALARM WHEN THE TEST FIRE WAS PLACED WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE BOTTOM OF THE DETECTOR.

-/6) FALSE ALARMS CONTINUED AFTER THE -ZONE FIRE TESTS' WERE PERFORMED ON APRIL 24, 1968 SO THE CONTRACTOR RETURNED TO THE JOB SITE ON MAY 22, 1968, TO REPLACE ALL DETECTORS WITH NEW DETECTORS. THE NEW DETECTORS WERE TO HAVE BEEN ESPECIALLY CALIBRATED AT THE FACTORY TO GIVE A UNIFORM SENSITIVITY LEVEL FOR A GIVEN DIAL SETTING. -ZONE FIRE TESTS' WERE PERFORMED ON JUNE 17, 1968, WITH SATISFACTORY RESULTS IN MOST AREAS. THE AREAS WHERE NO RESPONSE WAS OBTAINED WITH THE TESTS OF JUNE 17, 1968, ADDITIONAL TESTS WERE PERFORMED ON JUNE 27, 1968 AFTER THE CONTRACTOR HAD INCREASED THE SENSITIVITY LEVEL ON THE DETECTORS IN QUESTION. THE TESTS PERFORMED ON JUNE 27, 1968 WERE SATISFACTORY.

-/7) SIXTY-SEVEN (67) FALSE ALARMS OCCURRED BETWEEN JUNE 27, 1968, THROUGH JULY 30, 1968. ON JULY 30, 1968, THE CONTRACTOR AND MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE ARRIVED AT JOB SITE TO LOWER THE -FACTORY PRESET SENSITIVITY ADJUSTMENT- ON CERTAIN DETECTORS. THE CONTRACTOR WAS INFORMED THAT THIS WAS HIS LAST CHANCE TO CORRECT THE DIFFICULTIES THAT HAD OCCURRED WITH THE SYSTEM. AFTER THE -FACTORY PRESET SENSITIVITY ADJUSTMENTS' WERE LOWERED ON THE DETECTORS, -ZONE FIRE TESTS' WERE PERFORMED IN EACH AREA WHERE A DETECTOR'S -SENSITIVITY- WAS ADJUSTED. THESE TESTS WERE SATISFACTORY.

-/8) FALSE ALARMS CONTINUED AND THE CONTRACTOR RETURNED TO THE JOB SITE ON AUGUST 16, 1968. HE SAID THAT HE WANTED ONE MORE CHANCE TO CORRECT THE DIFFICULTIES AND AGREED THAT AFTER ALL ADJUSTMENTS WERE COMPLETE THAT HE WOULD REPLACE THE SYSTEM WITH A NEW SYSTEM IF THE SYSTEM DID NOT MEET ALL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AGREED TO LET HIM MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SYSTEM THAT HE DEEMED NECESSARY AND THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE GIVEN TWO WEEKS TO MAKE ALL ADJUSTMENTS AND PERFORM ALL TESTS REQUIRED BY CONTRACT. THE CONTRACTOR LOWERED -FACTORY PRESET SENSITIVITY- ON ALL DETECTORS. -ZONE FIRE TESTS' WERE PERFORMED ON AUGUST 30, 1968. THESE TESTS GAVE NO RESPONSE FOR 19 OF THE 42 TEST FIRES.

-/9) ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1968, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DIRECTED THE CONTRACTOR TO REPLACE THE FIRE DETECTION SYSTEM WITH ONE THAT MEETS THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.-

"WE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT THAT THE PYROTRONICS SYSTEM LOCATED IN A NEW ADDITION TO THE BUILDING WHERE THE FIRE ALERT SYSTEM HAS BEEN INSTALLED MET THE SAME PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND HAS NOT HAD THE FALSE ALARMS THAT THE FIRE ALERT SYSTEM HAS EXPERIENCED.'

YOU HAVE FURNISHED US CONSIDERABLE DATA IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE THE EQUALITY OF YOUR DETECTOR TO THE PYR-A-LARM SYSTEM AND THAT THE AIR FORCE DETERMINATION TO THE CONTRARY WAS SO GROSSLY IMPROPER AS TO REQUIRE REVERSAL BY THIS OFFICE. YOU MAINTAIN THAT THE AIR FORCE DETERMINATION MAY BE SHOWN TO BE ARBITRARY BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

(1) AN UNDERWRITERS' LABORATORY, INC., REPORT INDICATES THAT YOUR PRODUCT IS EQUAL IN DETECTOR SENSITIVITY TO THE PYR-A-LARM DEVICE; MOREOVER, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NEGLECTED TO CONSIDER REPORTS OF SATISFACTORY SERVICE FROM YOUR SYSTEM AT OTHER GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS INCLUDING THOSE OPERATED BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION.

(2) THE AIR FORCE HAS RECEIVED BIASED INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO YOUR PRODUCT.

(3) EVEN THOUGH YOUR PRODUCT CONTAINS A MOVING REED RELAY, DATA FROM ITS MANUFACTURER INDICATES THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO FAILURE WITHIN THE EXPECTED LIFETIME OF THE ALARM SYSTEM.

(4) VARIOUS PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS FURNISHED YOU WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF YOUR DETECTOR, AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT "G" OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO OUR OFFICE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR PROTEST.

(5) THE FIVE YEAR SATISFACTORY EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENT DISREGARDS MUCH DATA ON RECENT TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING IONIZATION FIRE DETECTORS AND LIMITS SELECTION TO THE PYR-A-LARM DEVICE.

WITH REFERENCE TO THE COPY OF THE UNDERWRITERS' LABORATORY REPORT YOU FORWARDED TO US, THE AIR FORCE HAS POINTED OUT THAT ON PAGE 39 OF THAT REPORT IT IS NOTED THAT AN OCCASIONAL FALSE ALARM WAS ENCOUNTERED WITH THE MAXIMUM SETTING OF YOUR DETECTOR. SINCE THIS SETTING IS INTENDED FOR PROTECTION OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT IN SO-CALLED "CLEAN ENVIRONMENTS" , OF THE TYPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE SUBJECT SOLICITATIONS, WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE REPORT DISCREDITS THE DATA SET FORTH ABOVE CONCERNING THE OPERATING EFFICIENCY OF YOUR ALARM SYSTEM AT THE NAMED INSTALLATION, NOR DOES IT APPEAR TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIM THAT OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVE HAD SATISFACTORY EXPERIENCES WITH YOUR PRODUCT IN PROTECTING SIMILAR EQUIPMENT.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR ALLEGATION THAT THE USING ACTIVITY HAS UTILIZED BIASED TESTIMONY IN EVALUATING YOUR DETECTOR, THE AIR FORCE HAS ADVISED US THAT IT PARTIALLY RELIED ON OTHER SUPPLIERS' EVALUATIONS OF YOUR PRODUCT AND THAT IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT SUCH TESTIMONY MAY BE SELF SERVING. THE DEPARTMENT REPORTS THAT IT ALSO RELIED ON THE TESTIMONY OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS, INCLUDING MR. HUGH T. SMITH OF SAN DIEGO ENGINEERING, INC. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION CONCERNING MR. SMITH AND HIS EVALUATION OF YOUR PRODUCT:

"BY LETTER DATED 19 FEBRUARY 1969 (ATCH 15) HUGH T. SMITH, SALES ENGINEER, SAN DIEGO ENGINEERING, INC. FURNISHED SAMSO AN ANALYSIS OF FIRE ALERT'S TECHNICAL DATA WHICH INCLUDES A COMPARISON SHEET CONCERNING FIRE ALERT WITH BRAND -P- (PYR-A-LARM) AND BRAND -S' STATITROL OF HONEYWELL. MR. SMITH IS BY FAR THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE FIRE ALARM INSTALLER IN THE FIELD. HE IS A MIT GRADUATE AND HIS SPECIALTY IS AUTOMATIC FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS. AMONG THE ADVANTAGES OF THE PYR-A-LARM SYSTEM OVER THE FIRE ALERT SYSTEM ENUMERATED ARE THAT PYR-A LARM DETECTORS CONTAIN 5 COMPONENTS, FIRE ALERT 25 ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS; PYR-A-LARM HAS NO MOVING PARTS; FIRE ALERT HAS A CONTINUOUSLY MOVING PART WHICH CYCLES EVERY 20 TO 30 SECONDS, THEREBY LIMITING ITS LIFETIME; THAT THERE IS AN INHERENT TIME DELAY IN THE FIRE ALERT DETECTOR DUE TO THE CYCLING OF THIS MOVING PART; PYR-A-LARM IS LISTED BY U.L. FOR A VERY WIDE RANGE OF SENSITIVITY SETTINGS; FIRE ALERT IS LISTED BY U.L. ONLY FOR MINIMUM SENSITIVITY; AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF PYR-A-LARM DETECTORS CAN BE INSTALLED ON ONE CIRCUIT, WHICH IS NOT TRUE OF FIRE ALERT; PYR-A-LARM HAS A METHOD OF POSITIVELY CHECKING LEVEL SENSITIVITY SETTINGS OF DETECTORS IN THE FIELD, BUT THERE IS NO WAY TO DETERMINE EXACT SENSITIVITY SETTINGS OF THE FIRE ALERT DETECTORS; PYR-A-LARM HAS A FASTER RESPONSE TIME THAN FIRE ALERT; PYR-A-LARM DETECTORS ARE LESS SENSITIVE TO CHANGES IN HUMIDITY AND TEMPERATURE THAN IS FIRE ALERT; PYR-A-LARM USES AMERICIUM 241 AS THE ALPHA RADIATION SOURCE; FIRE ALERT USES RADIUM 226 AS THE ALPHA RADIATION SOURCE; AMERICIUM 241 PRODUCES NO BETA RADIATION AND GAMMA RAYS OF VERY LOW ENERGY AND NO VOLATILE RADIOACTIVE GASES; RADIUM EMITS THREE TYPES OF RADIATION - ALPHA, BETA AND GAMMA; BETA RAYS HAVE A RANGE AS MUCH AS 32 FEET IN AIR AND UP TO A FEW INCHES IN LIVE ORGANISMS; GAMMA RAYS FROM RADIUM HAVE A VERY HIGH ENERGY LEVEL, ARE VERY PENETRATIVE, AND HAVE A LONG RANGE; IN ADDITION, RADIUM DECOMPOSES INTO RADON, A RADIOACTIVE GAS, THAT IS RELEASED TO THE ATMOSPHERE; THE PYR-A-LARM SYSTEM HAS PROVEN ITS CAPABILITIES THROUGH 25 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD WORLD-WIDE; THE FIRE ALERT SYSTEM IS NEW AND YET TO BE PROVEN IN THE FIELD. THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF MR. SMITH'S LETTER READS -REMEMBER THE FIRE ALERT SENSITIVITY IS SET BY GUESS AND BY GOD, WHILE THE PYR-A-LARM HAS A DEFINITE EXACT REPEATABLE METHOD.- ON 10 APRIL 1969 A PHONE CONVERSATION WAS HELD WITH MR. SMITH WITH RESPECT TO BOTH FIRE ALERT AND PYR-A-LARM. THIS PHONECON WAS WITNESSED BY MR. REEVES OF THE DISTRICT ENGINEER OFFICE, LOS ANGELES. MR. SMITH ADVISED THAT HE HAS INSTALLED BOTH FIRE ALERT AND PYR-A-LARM SYSTEMS AND INFORMED US THAT WE MAY REFER HIS NAME AS A SOURCE OF FURTHER INQUIRY IF NEEDED WITH RESPECT TO THE MERITS OF PYR-A-LARM OVER FIRE ALERT.' YOU HAVE SUBMITTED TESTIMONY FROM THE MANUFACTURER OF THE MOVING REED RELAY, INCORPORATED IN YOUR DETECTOR, TO SHOW THAT YOUR SYSTEM IS AS RELIABLE AS A DETECTOR OPERATING WITHOUT MOVING PARTS. SAMSO HAS ADVISED US THAT ITS SOURCES OF ENGINEERING COUNSEL MAINTAIN THAT THE RELAY MAY HAVE AN OPERATING LIFE AS SHORT AS SIX YEARS AND THAT ONLY AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF FIELD PERFORMANCE WILL ESTABLISH THE ACTUAL OPERATING LIFE TIME OF THE RELAY AS INCORPORATED IN YOUR DEVICE. EVEN IF IT WERE CONSIDERED THAT THE ACTUAL OPERATING LIFE OF THE RELAY MIGHT BE CLOSER TO THE ESTIMATE OF ITS MANUFACTURER, WE CANNOT REGARD THE AIR FORCE DETERMINATION REGARDING THE INACCEPTABILITY OF YOUR DETECTOR AS ERRONEOUS IN VIEW OF THE OTHER DATA SUPPORTING THIS JUDGMENT.

IN RESPECT TO YOUR ALLEGATIONS THAT VARIOUS PROCUREMENT OFFICERS HAVE MISLED YOU CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF YOUR DEVICE SAMSO STATES AS FOLLOWS:

"THE INTER-OFFICE LETTERS AND MEMORANDA SUBMITTED AS EXHIBIT G BY FIRE ALERT ARE REPLETE WITH INACCURACIES AND HALF-TRUTHS. WITHOUT DWELLING AT LENGTH TO CONSIDER EACH AND EVERY STATEMENT INCLUDED, WE RENDER ASSURANCE THAT MR. JACOBSON HAS BEEN GROSSLY MISQUOTED AND THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE WITH RESPECT TO HIS OPINIONS AND JUDGMENT ARE INACCURATE. OUR TECHNICAL OPINIONS REGARDING THE RELIABILITY AND PERFORMANCE OF FIRE ALERT AND PYR-A -LARM HAVE AT ALL TIMES BEEN CONSISTENT AND ARE AS STATED IN OTHER PORTIONS OF THIS REPORT. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE OF THE -TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN- LETTER OF EDWARD L. SIMS, DATED 9 JANUARY 1969. A PARTICULAR INACCURACY IS CITED IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRE ALERT LETTER OF FEBRUARY 13, 1969, WHEREIN IT IS STATED -MR. LAGUE LATER INFORMED ME THAT HE ... WAS ASSURED BY MR. JACOBSON THAT EVERYTHING WAS ALL RIGHT AND THE FIRE ALERT DETECTOR WOULD BE APPROVED. ...- THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE. MR. LAGUE WAS ASSURED THAT THE FIRE ALERT DETECTOR WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF ITS PERFORMANCE HISTORY. ANOTHER INACCURACY IS THE STATEMENT IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER COMPANY LETTER, DATED JANUARY 13, 1969, IN WHICH SIMPLEX DENIES THAT THE FIRE ALERT UNIT WAS INSTALLED IN THE ROCKY FLATS PLANT AND IN THE CONVAIR PLANT IN SAN DIEGO. LETTER DATED 13 DECEMBER 1967 (ATCH 11) FROM W.R. CORNELISON TO MR. R.H. MILLER, SUBJECT: -SMOKE DETECTORS' QUOTED IN PARAGRAPH 3B INFRA, AND THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY TRANSMITTAL FORM, DATED 25 MARCH 1968 (ATCH 12), ADDRESSED TO R.H. MILLER, QUOTED IN PARAGRAPH 3C, INFRA, SHOW THAT FIRE ALERT WAS INSTALLED IN ROCKY FLATS AND GAVE SPURIOUS ALARMS. MOREOVER, ON 10 APRIL 1969, AS INDICATED IN PARAGRAPH 3F, INFRA, MR. SMITH STATED TO MESSRS. REEVES AND JACOBSON, BY TELEPHONE, THAT HE HAD INSTALLED THE FIRE ALERT SYSTEM IN BUILDING 76 OF THE CONVAIR PLANT AT SAN DIEGO AND THAT SAID FIRE ALERT SYSTEM HAD SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN ORDERED REMOVED BY CONVAIR BECAUSE OF MANY MALFUNCTIONS EXPERIENCED.'

WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE STATEMENT OF A BIDDER AND THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, IT IS A LONG ESTABLISHED RULE OF THIS OFFICE TO ACCEPT THE LATTER, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENTLY CONVINCING TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS THEREOF. 37 COMP. GEN. 568, 570. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY YOU OVERCOMES THE TESTIMONY OF THE OFFICIALS SET FORTH ABOVE OR THAT IT WOULD SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT THE SAMSO DETERMINATIONS ARE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT.

YOU HAVE ALSO QUESTIONED THE PROPRIETY OF THE AIR FORCE REQUIREMENT THAT ANY PRODUCT SHOULD OFFER A FIVE YEAR SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE RECORD TO BE CONSIDERED EQUAL TO THE PYROTRONICS' DEVICE. OUR OFFICE HAS HELD THAT AN EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENT MAY PROPERLY BE IMPOSED ON ALL BIDDERS UNDER AN IFB, IF SUCH PROVISION IS IN FACT ADDRESSED TO THE PERFORMANCE HISTORY OF THE PRODUCT. B-165292, NOVEMBER 6, 1968. SINCE THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT WAS CLEARLY ADDRESSED TO THE OPERATING HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT ITEM AND NOT THE EXPERIENCE OF THE MANUFACTURER, AND IN VIEW OF THE NEED FOR MAXIMUM PROTECTION OF THE EQUIPMENT, LIVES AND MISSIONS THAT WILL BE PROTECTED BY THE ALARM SYSTEM, WE CANNOT CONSIDER SUCH REQUIREMENT AS IMPROPER.

IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE FORMULATION AND DRAFTING OF SPECIFICATIONS WHICH REFLECT THE NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A GIVEN PRODUCT CONFORMS TO THE SPECIFICATION ARE PRIMARILY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCY. 38 COMP. GEN. 190. WE HAVE ALSO MAINTAINED THAT THE MERE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR BIDDER IS UNABLE TO MEET THE GOVERNMENT'S SPECIFICATIONS IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE QUESTION WHETHER A PARTICULAR SPECIFICATION IS RESTRICTIVE. 36 COMP. GEN. 251.

IT IS OUR OPINION AFTER CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE AIR FORCE AND YOUR CONCERN THAT THE SPECIFICATION OF THE FEATURES OF THE PYR-A-LARM PRODUCT CANNOT BE REGARDED BY OUR OFFICE AS AN IMPROPER OR UNJUSTIFIED EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE AIR FORCE TO DETERMINE ITS MINIMUM NEEDS FOR PROTECTING HIGH DENSITY ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT. WE ALSO ARE OF OPINION THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE DETERMINATION THAT YOUR PRODUCT IS NOT THE EQUAL OF THE REFERENCED DEVICE.