Skip to main content

B-166327, MAR. 20, 1969

B-166327 Mar 20, 1969
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF A DOCUMENTATION AND DRAWING REVIEW CONTROL SYSTEM AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REPORTING SYSTEM THAT WILL DISPLAY THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT STATUS OF APPROXIMATELY 33 NIGHT VISION SYSTEM HARDWARE PROGRAMS. SECTION H-5 OF THE RFQ STATED: "IT IS CONTEMPLATED THAT THE RESULTANT CONTRACT WILL BE A COST PLUS FIXED FEE AND YOUR QUOTATION IS SOLICITED ON THAT BASIS. ALTERNATE QUOTATION ON ANOTHER BASIS WILL BE CONSIDERED AS RESPONSIVE.'. NINETEEN PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED. 800 WAS THE ONLY FIXED-PRICE PROPOSAL RECEIVED. THE OTHER 18 WERE COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE PROPOSALS RANGING FROM A LOW OF $12. 650 WAS AWARDED ON DECEMBER 13. YOU PROTEST THE AWARD ESSENTIALLY ON THE BASIS THAT YOUR COMPANY'S TECHNICAL PROPOSAL WAS ACCEPTABLE AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED A CONTRACT TO SYSTEMS GENERAL AT A HIGHER PRICE ON A COST-REIMBURSABLE BASIS WHEN AN AWARD COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO YOUR COMPANY AT A FIXED PRICE WHICH WAS LOWER.

View Decision

B-166327, MAR. 20, 1969

TO MR. C. O. NELSON:

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND ON FEBRUARY 27, 1969, FORWARDED YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 9, 1969, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO SYSTEMS GENERAL CORPORATION UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS (RFQ) DAAK02-69-Q-0010, ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY MOBILITY EQUIPMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA.

THE RFQ SOLICITED PROPOSALS FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF A DOCUMENTATION AND DRAWING REVIEW CONTROL SYSTEM AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REPORTING SYSTEM THAT WILL DISPLAY THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT STATUS OF APPROXIMATELY 33 NIGHT VISION SYSTEM HARDWARE PROGRAMS. SECTION H-5 OF THE RFQ STATED:

"IT IS CONTEMPLATED THAT THE RESULTANT CONTRACT WILL BE A COST PLUS FIXED FEE AND YOUR QUOTATION IS SOLICITED ON THAT BASIS. HOWEVER, ALTERNATE QUOTATION ON ANOTHER BASIS WILL BE CONSIDERED AS RESPONSIVE.'

NINETEEN PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED. THE PROPOSAL FROM YOUR COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,800 WAS THE ONLY FIXED-PRICE PROPOSAL RECEIVED. THE OTHER 18 WERE COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE PROPOSALS RANGING FROM A LOW OF $12,799.60 TO A HIGH OF $79,653, THE LATTER SUBMITTED BY SYSTEMS GENERAL CORPORATION. A COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE CONTRACT IN THE TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $72,650 WAS AWARDED ON DECEMBER 13, 1968, TO SYSTEMS GENERAL AFTER NEGOTIATION WITH IT.

YOU PROTEST THE AWARD ESSENTIALLY ON THE BASIS THAT YOUR COMPANY'S TECHNICAL PROPOSAL WAS ACCEPTABLE AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED A CONTRACT TO SYSTEMS GENERAL AT A HIGHER PRICE ON A COST-REIMBURSABLE BASIS WHEN AN AWARD COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO YOUR COMPANY AT A FIXED PRICE WHICH WAS LOWER.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE HAS REPORTED THAT ALL THE TECHNICAL PROPOSALS, EXCEPT THAT SUBMITTED BY SYSTEMS GENERAL, WERE UNACCEPTABLE TECHNICALLY FOR VARIOUS REASONS. YOUR COMPANY'S TECHNICAL PROPOSAL WAS DETERMINED TO BE UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED DISPLAY WAS LIMITED TO TWO DISPLAY BOARDS AT ANY ONE TIME AND THE PROPOSAL WAS LARGELY A RESTATEMENT OF THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DATA ANALYSIS AND ASSEMBLY IN THE RFQ AND GAVE NO METHOD OF APPROACH OR TECHNICAL ACCOMPLISHMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW ADEQUATE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED METHODS OR ABILITY TO PERFORM THEM. THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FROM SYSTEMS GENERAL, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS CONSIDERED TO HAVE FURNISHED ADEQUATE INFORMATION FROM WHICH IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT IT OFFERED THE BEST TECHNICAL APPROACH. A DECISION WAS MADE, THEREFORE, TO NEGOTIATE ONLY WITH SYSTEMS GENERAL AND AN AWARD WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MADE TO IT. IN VIEW OF THE DETERMINED SUPERIORITY OF THE SYSTEMS GENERAL PROPOSAL, THE AWARD TO IT WITHOUT NEGOTIATING WITH OTHER OFFERORS IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE. B-165561, DECEMBER 27, 1968.

ALTHOUGH YOU QUESTION THE AWARD ON A COST-REIMBURSABLE BASIS IN THE FACE OF THE FIXED-PRICE OFFER FROM YOUR COMPANY, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING WAS MADE UNDER 10 U.S.C. 2306 (C) FOR A COST PLUS-A -FIXED-FEE CONTRACT ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS LIKELY TO BE LESS COSTLY THAN OTHER METHODS OF CONTRACTING AND THAT IT IS IMPRACTICAL TO SECURE THE WORK AND SERVICES OF THE TECHNICAL QUALITY REQUIRED WITHOUT SUCH A CONTRACT. SECTION 2310 (B) OF TITLE 10 OF THE U.S.C. PROVIDES THAT FINDINGS MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 2306 (C) ARE "FINAL.'

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs