B-168000, NOV. 26, 1969

B-168000: Nov 26, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WHERE SOLE OFFEROR CONTENDED ADDITIONAL QUANTITY AND TEST REQUIREMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED AND CANCELLATION SHOULD BE ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF UNREALISTIC DELIVERY SCHEDULES OR HIGH PRICES. WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED. SINCE COST FOR PROPOSED EFFORT WAS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE AND DECISION BY CONTRACTING AGENCY TO CANCEL UNDER PROVISION OF SOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS . WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED IN ABSENCE OF CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION. TO RADCLIFF EQUIPMENT COMPANY: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 1. THE ABOVE REFERRED TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL IS A RESOLICITATION OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL N00126-69-R-9N1054 ISSUED ON MARCH 14. WHICH WAS CANCELLED. THE PROCUREMENT IS FOR SLEWING SIGHTS.

B-168000, NOV. 26, 1969

NEGOTIATION--REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS--CANCELLATION CANCELLATION OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SLEWING SIGHTS, WHERE SOLE OFFEROR CONTENDED ADDITIONAL QUANTITY AND TEST REQUIREMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED AND CANCELLATION SHOULD BE ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF UNREALISTIC DELIVERY SCHEDULES OR HIGH PRICES, WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED, SINCE COST FOR PROPOSED EFFORT WAS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE AND DECISION BY CONTRACTING AGENCY TO CANCEL UNDER PROVISION OF SOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS -- ALLOWING BROAD ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO REJECT ALL OFFERS -- WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED IN ABSENCE OF CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

TO RADCLIFF EQUIPMENT COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 1, 1969, PROTESTING IN CONNECTION WITH REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. N00126-70-R 9N1054 ISSUED SEPTEMBER 12, 1969, BY THE NAVY ELECTRONICS SUPPLY OFFICE, GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS.

THE ABOVE REFERRED TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL IS A RESOLICITATION OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL N00126-69-R-9N1054 ISSUED ON MARCH 14, 1969, WHICH WAS CANCELLED. THE PROCUREMENT IS FOR SLEWING SIGHTS, GE REF. NO. 1430799, PER BUORD REF. NO. 1312087. THE RESOLICITATION INCREASED THE QUANTITY FROM 50 UNITS TO 60 UNITS (ALSO PROVIDED FOR ALTERNATE QUANTITIES OF 75 AND 100 UNITS) AND ADDED TEST PROCEDURE AND FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL TEST REQUIREMENTS.

YOU PROTEST THE CANCELLATION OF THE FIRST SOLICITATION ON THE BASIS THAT THE ADDITIONAL QUANTITY AND TEST REQUIREMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED. IT IS URGED THAT A NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT SHOULD BE CANCELLED ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF UNREASONABLE DELIVERY OR HIGH PRICE.

THE REPORT FURNISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY SHOWS THAT ALTHOUGH THE FIRST SOLICITATION WAS SENT TO SEVERAL SUPPLIERS AND WAS SYNOPSIZED IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY, YOUR PROPOSAL WAS THE ONLY ONE RECEIVED. YOUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $240,000 OR $4,800 PER UNIT AND WAS SUPPORTED BY PRICING DATA ON FORM DD-633. PURSUANT TO LETTER DATED JUNE 13, 1969, IMPOSING ADDITIONAL TESTING REQUIREMENTS, YOU SUBMITTED A REVISED PROPOSAL INCREASING YOUR PRICE BY A TOTAL OF $49,960 OR $999.20 PER UNIT. THIS INCREASE WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY PRICING DATA ON FORM DD-633.

THE CONTRACTING AGENCY REQUESTED THE DEFENSE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES DISTRICT, CINCINNATI, OHIO, TO REVIEW YOUR DATA TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF YOUR PROPOSED PRICE. THAT AGENCY REPORTED THAT ON THE REVIEW AND EVALUATIONS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SUPPORTING DATA SUBMITTED BY YOU, INCLUDING DISCUSSIONS WITH MEMBERS OF YOUR FIRM, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO RECOMMEND A FAIR AND REASONABLE COST FOR THE TOTAL PROPOSED EFFORTS OTHER THAN MATERIALS. THE CONTRACTING AGENCY DECIDED THAT THEY COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT YOUR PROPOSED PRICE WAS FAIR AND REASONABLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND THEY HAD NO ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF PERTINENT INFORMATION. ALSO, THE CONTRACTING AGENCY WAS ADVISED THAT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS WERE BEING PROCESSED BY STOCK CONTROL. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS DECIDED TO CANCELL RFP NO. N00126-69-R- 9N1054 AND TO RESOLICIT UNDER RFP NO. N00126-70-R 9N1054.

PARAGRAPH 10 (B) OF THE "SOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS AND CONDITIONS" OF THE CANCELLED SOLICITATION PROVIDES THAT THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY OR ALL OFFERS. WE HAVE HELD THAT THE AUTHORITY TO REJECT ALL OFFERS IS EXTREMELY BROAD, INVOLVING PRIMARILY A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT, AND WE WILL NOT UNDERTAKE TO QUESTION ITS EXERCISE IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR SHOWING OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION. SEE B-167364, SEPTEMBER 29, 1969.

PURSUANT TO OUR REVIEW OF THE RECORD, AS SET FORTH ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE CONTRACTING AGENCY ABUSED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION IN DECIDING THAT SOLICITATION NO. N00126-69-R-9N1054 SHOULD BE CANCELLED. THEREFORE, YOUR PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.