B-169927(2), MAR 16, 1971

B-169927(2): Mar 16, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

FOR EXTENDING THE DELIVERY DATE IN THE EVENT OF A DELAYED AWARD AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE NEED FOR DATA BE CAREFULLY EVALUATED AND THAT REQUESTS FOR DATA BE INCLUDED IN INVITATIONS ONLY WHERE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NECESSARY FOR A PROPER EVALUATION. WE ARE ENCLOSING A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY DENYING THE PROTEST. OFFERED TO MEET THE DELIVERY OFFERED BY COPELAND SYSTEMS WAS WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE. ALTHOUGH THE DELIVERY OFFERED BY COPELAND SYSTEMS WAS WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME LIMIT IF THE DISTRICT HAD ADHERED TO ITS ORIGINAL SCHEDULE. A FURTHER BASIS FOR THE PROTEST WAS THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER FURNISHED INADEQUATE INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE MATERIAL AND TECHNICAL DATA.

B-169927(2), MAR 16, 1971

BID PROTEST - DELIVERY DATES - DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION CONCERNING BID PROTEST BY BARTLETT-SNOW DIVISION OF BANGOR PUNTA OPERATIONS, INC., AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO COPELAND SYSTEMS, INC. THE COMP. GEN. ADVISES THAT IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS, IFB'S WHICH SPECIFY DELIVERY BY A CERTAIN CALENDAR DATE ALSO MAKE PROVISION SUCH AS SET FORTH IN RFP 1-1.316-4(B), FOR EXTENDING THE DELIVERY DATE IN THE EVENT OF A DELAYED AWARD AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE NEED FOR DATA BE CAREFULLY EVALUATED AND THAT REQUESTS FOR DATA BE INCLUDED IN INVITATIONS ONLY WHERE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NECESSARY FOR A PROPER EVALUATION.

TO MR. WASHINGTON:

WE REFER TO A LETTER OF JULY 22, 1970, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM MR. R. G. WESSELLS, PROCUREMENT OFFICER FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, REGARDING THE PROTEST OF BARTLETT-SNOW DIVISION OF BANGOR PUNTA OPERATIONS, INC., UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 45-604-0-0492 DM.

WE ARE ENCLOSING A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY DENYING THE PROTEST. SET FORTH IN THE DECISION, ONE BASIS FOR THE PROTEST INVOLVED A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER COPELAND SYSTEMS, THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER, OFFERED TO MEET THE DELIVERY OFFERED BY COPELAND SYSTEMS WAS WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE. THE INVITATION CALLED FOR DELIVERY BY NOVEMBER 30, 1970, WHILE THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER OFFERED DELIVERY IN 225 DAYS. ALTHOUGH THE DELIVERY OFFERED BY COPELAND SYSTEMS WAS WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME LIMIT IF THE DISTRICT HAD ADHERED TO ITS ORIGINAL SCHEDULE, A DELAY IN BID OPENING AND A DELAY UNTIL MAY 25 IN MAKING AWARD RESULTED IN THE 225 DAY DELIVERY SCHEDULE RUNNING WELL PAST THE DATE OF NOVEMBER 30. IN ORDER TO AVOID THIS PROBLEM IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS, WE RECOMMEND THAT INVITATIONS FOR BIDS WHICH SPECIFY DELIVERY BY A CERTAIN CALENDAR DATE ALSO MAKE PROVISION, SUCH AS SET FORTH IN FPR 1-1.316-4(B), FOR EXTENDING THE DELIVERY DATE IN THE EVENT OF A DELAYED AWARD.

A FURTHER BASIS FOR THE PROTEST WAS THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER FURNISHED INADEQUATE INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE MATERIAL AND TECHNICAL DATA. SINCE THE DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY COPELAND WAS GENERAL IN NATURE AND VERY LIMITED IN SCOPE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT SUCH MATERIAL WAS ESSENTIAL TO EVALUATION OF THE BIDS. WE THEREFORE QUESTION THE NECESSITY FOR INCLUDING SUCH A DATA REQUEST IN THIS INSTANCE. IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE NEED FOR DATA BE CAREFULLY EVALUATED AND THAT REQUESTS FOR DATA BE INCLUDED IN INVITATIONS ONLY WHERE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NECESSARY FOR A PROPER EVALUATION, AND THE EXTENT OF THE DESCRIPTIVE DETAIL REQUIRED IS CLEARLY SET OUT IN THE IFB. SEE 49 COMP. GEN. 398 (1969), WHICH IS CITED IN THE ENCLOSED DECISION.

THE ENCLOSURES TO THE REFERENCED LETTER ARE RETURNED.