B-171843, JUL 8, 1971

B-171843: Jul 8, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

BID PROTEST - RESTRICTIVE SPECIFICATIONS DECISION ALLOWING PROTEST THAT SIDING SPECIFICATIONS ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTOMATION WING BUILDINGS FOR AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTERS WERE UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTIVE. NO FURTHER ACTION BY GAO IS REQUIRED. FAA HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED THE PROBLEM IS TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION. TO PLASTEEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 1. WERE UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTIVE AND PROPRIETARY IN THAT ONLY ONE COMPANY COULD COMPLY WITH THEM AND THEY PRECLUDED THE USE OF MATERIAL THAT YOUR FIRM COULD FURNISH AS A SUBCONTRACTOR. THE FAA HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE RESTRICTIVE AND HAS TAKEN STEPS TO AMEND THE SPECIFICATIONS ON THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH BID INVITATIONS WERE OUTSTANDING.

B-171843, JUL 8, 1971

BID PROTEST - RESTRICTIVE SPECIFICATIONS DECISION ALLOWING PROTEST THAT SIDING SPECIFICATIONS ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTOMATION WING BUILDINGS FOR AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTERS WERE UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTIVE. HOWEVER, NO FURTHER ACTION BY GAO IS REQUIRED, FAA HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED THE PROBLEM IS TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION.

TO PLASTEEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 1, 1971, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA), A COPY OF WHICH YOU FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE, PROTESTING THAT THE SIDING SPECIFICATIONS ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FAA AUTOMATION WING BUILDINGS FOR AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTERS AT HILLIARD, FLORIDA; MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE; FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA; AND ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, WERE UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTIVE AND PROPRIETARY IN THAT ONLY ONE COMPANY COULD COMPLY WITH THEM AND THEY PRECLUDED THE USE OF MATERIAL THAT YOUR FIRM COULD FURNISH AS A SUBCONTRACTOR.

AS INDICATED IN THE ADMINSTRATIVE REPORT, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO YOU, THE FAA HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE RESTRICTIVE AND HAS TAKEN STEPS TO AMEND THE SPECIFICATIONS ON THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH BID INVITATIONS WERE OUTSTANDING. THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT INDICATES THAT THE SPECIFICATION REVISIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE TO YOUR COMPANY.

YOU HAVE ALSO CONTENDED THAT YOUR COMPANY SUFFERED CANCELLATION COSTS ON TWO SUBCONTRACTS BECAUSE OF THE PRIOR AGENCY PREFERENCE FOR THE RESTRICTIVE PRODUCT. OUR OFFICE EXPRESSES NO OPINION ON THAT ASPECT SINCE THAT IS A MATTER BETWEEN YOUR COMPANY AND THE PRIME CONTRACTOR. FURTHER, AS BETWEEN THE PRIME CONTRACTOR AND THE GOVERNMENT, IT IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES IN THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.

NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED BY OUR OFFICE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.