B-167291(2), DEC. 1, 1969

B-167291(2): Dec 1, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

JUSTIFICATION INADEQUACY WHERE PROTESTANT'S PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED UPON NAVY DETERMINATION PROTESTANT'S DRAWING. ALONG WITH AMPEX OUTLINE DRAWING (WHICH FORMED SPECIFICATION FOR MOTOR REQUIRED) WAS INADEQUATE FOR TECHNICAL EVALUATION. ALTHOUGH PROTEST WAS DENIED AND PROTESTANT'S FAILURE TO FURNISH ADEQUATE DRAWING AND EXECUTE REQUIRED CLAUSE MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO REJECTION. IT APPEARS AMPEX DRAWING FAILS TO SET FORTH ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROCURED ITEM AND IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PERMIT TECHNICAL COMPARISON WITH ALTERNATE PRODUCT. NAVY SECRETARY IS ADVISED FURTHER USE OF SAID DRAWING IN LIKE MANNER IS BELIEVED IMPROPER. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO DEVELOP DATA PACKAGE OR SPECIFICATION THAT IS ADEQUATE FOR FULL COMPETITION BY FORMAL ADVERTISING RESPECTING FUTURE PROCUREMENT OF SAME ITEM.

B-167291(2), DEC. 1, 1969

NEGOTIATION--SPECIFICATIONS UNAVAILABLE--JUSTIFICATION INADEQUACY WHERE PROTESTANT'S PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED UPON NAVY DETERMINATION PROTESTANT'S DRAWING, ALONG WITH AMPEX OUTLINE DRAWING (WHICH FORMED SPECIFICATION FOR MOTOR REQUIRED) WAS INADEQUATE FOR TECHNICAL EVALUATION, ALTHOUGH PROTEST WAS DENIED AND PROTESTANT'S FAILURE TO FURNISH ADEQUATE DRAWING AND EXECUTE REQUIRED CLAUSE MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO REJECTION, IT APPEARS AMPEX DRAWING FAILS TO SET FORTH ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROCURED ITEM AND IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PERMIT TECHNICAL COMPARISON WITH ALTERNATE PRODUCT. ACCORDINGLY, NAVY SECRETARY IS ADVISED FURTHER USE OF SAID DRAWING IN LIKE MANNER IS BELIEVED IMPROPER, AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO DEVELOP DATA PACKAGE OR SPECIFICATION THAT IS ADEQUATE FOR FULL COMPETITION BY FORMAL ADVERTISING RESPECTING FUTURE PROCUREMENT OF SAME ITEM.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

WE ARE ENCLOSING A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY, DENYING THE PROTEST OF IMC MAGNETICS CORPORATION (IMC) AGAINST AWARD TO ANOTHER FIRM UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. DSA 700-69-R-4718, ISSUED BY THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, DEFENSE CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CENTER, COLUMBUS, OHIO. THE RFP WAS ISSUED TO FULFILL A REQUIREMENT FOR A QUANTITY OF ELECTRIC MOTORS, FSN 2N 6105-348-6787, CONTAINED IN MILITARY INTERDEPARTMENTAL PURCHASE REQUEST (MIPR) NO. N00126-9-56063, DATED OCTOBER 9, 1968, FROM THE NAVY ELECTRONICS SUPPLY OFFICE (ESO), GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS. THE MOTORS WERE TO CONFORM TO AMPEX CORPORATION PART NUMBER OUTLINE DRAWING D8127-REV D. PROCUREMENT BY NEGOTIATION WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER 10 U.S.C. 2304 (A) (10) AND ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) 3-210.2 (XIII), PURSUANT TO FINDINGS THAT DATA WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE SUPPLIES REQUIRED. IMC, THE LOWER OF THE TWO OFFERORS, OFFERED ITS PART NUMBER FBC2920H-2 WHICH WAS DESCRIBED IN AN OUTLINE DRAWING ATTACHED TO THE PROPOSAL. DSA SENT IMC'S OUTLINE DRAWING TO ESO FOR A TECHNICAL EVALUATION. BY LETTER OF FEBRUARY 12, 1969, ESO REPLIED: ,IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVALUATE AS TO THE ACCEPTABILITY OF I.M.C. MAGNETICS CORPORATION. THEIR PT/DWG NO. FBC 2920H-2 IS CONSIDERED TO BE INADEQUATE ALONG WITH THE AMPEX PT/DWG NO. D8127 REV D AS CITED ON SUBJECT MIPR.' THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THEN REJECTED IMC'S PROPOSAL AND MADE AWARD TO THE OTHER OFFEROR AT A SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER PRICE. IMC PROTESTED AGAINST THE AWARD UPON THE BASIS THAT IT HAD PREVIOUSLY SUPPLIED THE SAME PRODUCT TO ESO UNDER CONTRACT NO. N00126-69-C-0055, DATED JULY 31, 1968.

WE NOTE THAT IMC'S PROPOSAL WAS NOT REJECTED SOLELY BECAUSE ITS DRAWING WAS INADEQUATE. IT WAS REJECTED BECAUSE ITS DRAWING "ALONG WITH THE AMPEX PT/DWG NO. D8127 REV D" WAS INADEQUATE FOR TECHNICAL EVALUATION. THUS IT APPEARS THAT THE AMPEX OUTLINE DRAWING, WHICH FORMS THE SPECIFICATION FOR THIS ITEM, DOES NOT SET FORTH THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MOTOR REQUIRED, AND IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PERMIT A TECHNICAL COMPARISON WITH AN ALTERNATE PRODUCT. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT BY COMMUNICATION OF JULY 16, 1969, DSA SUGGESTED THAT ESO CONSIDER APPROVING THE IMC PART ON THE BASIS OF ESO'S PRIOR PROCUREMENT OF THAT SAME ITEM WITH NO APPARENT MATERIAL DISCREPANCY REPORTS, AND THAT IN A RESPONSE THERETO OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1969, ESO STATED THAT IMC WILL BE CONSIDERED A SOURCE OF SUPPLY ONLY WHEN IT BIDS TO THE AMPEX DRAWING.

IN THIS INTERDEPARTMENTAL PROCUREMENT, IT WAS DSA'S FUNCTION TO ISSUE THE RFP AND TO ADMINISTER ANY RESULTING CONTRACT. (ASPR 5 1102.) HOWEVER, DSA WAS TO RELY UPON THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FOR THE NECESSARY SPECIFICATIONS, DRAWINGS AND OTHER DATA REQUIRED FOR THE PROCUREMENT, ASPR 5-1106.5. ASPR 3-501 (B) (VII) REQUIRES THAT RFP'S INCLUDE "A DESCRIPTION (COMPLYING WITH SECTION I, PART 12) OF THE SUPPLIES OR SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED.' ASPR SECTION I, PART 12 IS PREFACED WITH THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT THAT "PLANS, DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS OR PURCHASE DESCRIPTIONS FOR PROCUREMENTS SHALL * * * DESCRIBE THE SUPPLIES AND SERVICES IN A MANNER WHICH WILL ENCOURAGE MAXIMUM COMPETITION AND ELIMINATE, INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE, ANY RESTRICTIVE FEATURES WHICH MIGHT LIMIT ACCEPTABLE OFFERS TO ONE SUPPLIER'S PRODUCT, OR THE PRODUCTS OF A RELATIVELY FEW SUPPLIERS.'

WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THAT IMC'S FAILURE TO EXECUTE CLAUSE 2.102 AND FURNISHING AN INADEQUATE DRAWING MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE REJECTION OF ITS PROPOSAL, IT ALSO APPEARS THAT EVEN IF IMC HAD SUBMITTED A FULL, DETAILED COMPLEMENT OF DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS WITH ITS PROPOSAL, THE AMPEX PART NUMBER DRAWING D8127 REV D WAS INADEQUATE TO PERMIT COMPARISON AND EVALUATION AS TO INTERCHANGEABILITY. WE BELIEVE THAT THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES CLEARLY DICTATE THAT FURTHER USE OF THE AMPEX DRAWING IN SUCH MANNER WOULD NOT BE PROPER, AND THAT IN THE EVENT ADDITIONAL PROCUREMENTS OF THE MOTOR ARE CONTEMPLATED PROMPT EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO DEVELOP A DATA PACKAGE OR SPECIFICATION THAT IS ADEQUATE FOR FULL COMPETITION AND PROCUREMENT BY FORMAL ADVERTISING.