B-171945, MAY 10, 1971

B-171945: May 10, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT AN AWARD TO PROTESTANT AT A HIGHER PRICE WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PRIME CONTRACTOR'S AWARD PROCEDURE WAS PREJUDICIAL TO PROTESTANT. THE PROTEST IS DENIED. TO BORG-WARNER CONTROLS REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 12. WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE. BASICALLY IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT IN VIEW OF THE HIGH RISK POTENTIAL OF THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED. THE MOST RELIABLE PRODUCER RATHER THAN THE LOW PRICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE CRITERION FOR AWARD. YOU ALSO URGE THAT THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR IS QUESTIONABLE AND THAT EG & G'S AWARD PROCEDURE WAS PREJUDICIAL TO YOUR CONCERN. WE DO NOT THINK AN AWARD TO YOUR CONCERN AT A HIGHER PRICE WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.

B-171945, MAY 10, 1971

BID PROTEST - SUBCONTRACT DECISION DENYING PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A SUBCONTRACT BY EG & G, INC., AS PRIME CONTRACTOR FOR THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, TO ORION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADVANCED MAGNETIC TAPE RECORDER. BECAUSE ORION HAD THE TECHNICAL ABILITY AND CREDIT TO PERFORM THE COMP. GEN. CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT AN AWARD TO PROTESTANT AT A HIGHER PRICE WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED. ALSO, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PRIME CONTRACTOR'S AWARD PROCEDURE WAS PREJUDICIAL TO PROTESTANT. THEREFORE, THE PROTEST IS DENIED.

TO BORG-WARNER CONTROLS

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 12, 1971, WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD OF A SUBCONTRACT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADVANCED MAGNETIC TAPE RECORDER AND HARDWARE BY EG & G, INCORPORATED, A PRIME CONTRACTOR FOR THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC).

BASICALLY IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT IN VIEW OF THE HIGH RISK POTENTIAL OF THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED, THE MOST RELIABLE PRODUCER RATHER THAN THE LOW PRICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE CRITERION FOR AWARD. YOU ALSO URGE THAT THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR IS QUESTIONABLE AND THAT EG & G'S AWARD PROCEDURE WAS PREJUDICIAL TO YOUR CONCERN.

THE AEC'S NEVADA OPERATIONS OFFICE, BY LETTER OF MARCH 5, 1971, GAVE THOROUGH CONSIDERATION TO THE PROCUREMENT IN LIGHT OF YOUR COMPLAINT. BELIEVE THAT THE LETTER PROVIDES A COMPLETE RESPONSE TO YOUR PROTEST.

IN VIEW OF THE DETERMINATION THAT ORION HAD THE TECHNICAL ABILITY AND CREDIT TO PERFORM, WE DO NOT THINK AN AWARD TO YOUR CONCERN AT A HIGHER PRICE WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. SEE B- 169148, OCTOBER 6, 1970. WE HAVE FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT EG & G'S AWARD PROCEDURE WAS PREJUDICIAL TO YOUR CONCERN.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.