B-171899(2), JUN 4, 1971

B-171899(2): Jun 4, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

CONCERN IS EXPRESSED CONCERNING THE PROTESTANT'S ALLEGATIONS THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROCUREMENT WAS STRUCTURED DID NOT REFLECT OR EVEN APPROXIMATE THE ULTIMATE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. SECRETARY: ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY TO ELECTRONIC SPACE SYSTEMS CORPORATION DENYING ITS PROTEST AGAINST THE MAKING OF ANY AWARD UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS F04606-71-B-0080. THE MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF A REPORT FORWARDED BY LETTER DATED MARCH 30. THE FILE WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE LETTER IS RETURNED. WHILE WE HAVE DENIED THE PROTEST. WE ARE CONCERNED BY THE BIDDER'S ALLEGATIONS THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROCUREMENT WAS STRUCTURED AND BIDS WERE SOLICITED WAS NOT CONDUCIVE TO INFORMED BIDDING OR TO THE RECEIPT OF TRULY COMPETITIVE BID PRICES WHICH REFLECT.

B-171899(2), JUN 4, 1971

BID PROTEST - SOLICITATION - DEFICIENT SPECIFICATIONS WHILE THE COMP. GEN. HAS DENIED THE PROTEST BY ELECTRONIC SPACE SYSTEMS CORP. IN CONNECTION WITH A CONTRACT FOR RECONDITIONING RADOMES LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, CONCERN IS EXPRESSED CONCERNING THE PROTESTANT'S ALLEGATIONS THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROCUREMENT WAS STRUCTURED DID NOT REFLECT OR EVEN APPROXIMATE THE ULTIMATE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. SEEMS THAT A GREATER DEGREE OF SPECIFICITY AS TO THE WORK EXPECTED COULD BE MADE KNOWN TO THE BIDDERS IN THE FUTURE.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY TO ELECTRONIC SPACE SYSTEMS CORPORATION DENYING ITS PROTEST AGAINST THE MAKING OF ANY AWARD UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS F04606-71-B-0080, ISSUED BY SACRAMENTO AIR MATERIEL AREA, MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA.

THE MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF A REPORT FORWARDED BY LETTER DATED MARCH 30, 1971, SPPM, FROM THE CHIEF, CONTRACT MANAGEMENT DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF PROCUREMENT POLICY, DCS/S&L, HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE. THE FILE WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE LETTER IS RETURNED.

WHILE WE HAVE DENIED THE PROTEST, WE ARE CONCERNED BY THE BIDDER'S ALLEGATIONS THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROCUREMENT WAS STRUCTURED AND BIDS WERE SOLICITED WAS NOT CONDUCIVE TO INFORMED BIDDING OR TO THE RECEIPT OF TRULY COMPETITIVE BID PRICES WHICH REFLECT, OR EVEN APPROXIMATE, THE ULTIMATE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT.

THE FOLLOWING FIGURES, WHICH WERE FURNISHED INFORMALLY BY YOUR DEPARTMENT, APPEAR TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS ALLEGATION.

CONTRACT PERIOD BID PRICE TOTAL ORDERS

1967-1968 $788,150 $1,268,853

1968-1969 307,150 765,877

1969-1971 794,000* 1,076,185

*BID PRICE OF $433,000 WHICH WAS FURNISHED PRESUMABLY WAS FOR 12 MONTHS. IT HAS BEEN PROJECTED TO 22 MONTHS.

IT SEEMS TO US THAT A GREATER DEGREE OF SPECIFICITY AS TO THE WORK EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED COULD BE MADE KNOWN TO BIDDERS. FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD IT NOT BE FEASIBLE TO FORECAST FOR EACH RADAR SITE WITH A REASONABLE DEGREE OF ACCURACY THE EXTENT OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD?

PLEASE GIVE US YOUR VIEWS AS TO HOW THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS COULD BE MADE MORE SPECIFIC IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS.

Sep 27, 2016

Sep 22, 2016

Sep 21, 2016

Sep 20, 2016

Looking for more? Browse all our products here