B-174019(1), DEC 15, 1971

B-174019(1): Dec 15, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

IT IS ALLEGED THAT TCI SHOULD BE DECLARED NONRESPONSIVE FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT CERTAIN DATA WHICH ALLEGEDLY WAS SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR IN THE IFB. THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA IS LARGELY A FACTUAL MATTER TO BE DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING AGENCY AND GAO WILL NOT OVERTURN SUCH DETERMINATION WHEN SUPPORTED BY A GOOD FAITH EXPLANATION. THE PROTEST IS DENIED. PETTIT & EVERS: REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM BOTH YOUR OFFICE AND GRANGER ASSOCIATES. THE SOLICITATION WAS ISSUED FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE 3 MF AND 22 HF ANTENNA SYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION NO. THE FIVE BIDS RECEIVED WERE OPENED ON JULY 13. TCI WAS FOUND TO BE RESPONSIVE.

B-174019(1), DEC 15, 1971

BID PROTEST - NONRESPONSIVENESS - FAILURE TO SUBMIT DATA DECISION DENYING THE PROTEST OF GRANGER ASSOCIATES AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO TECHNOLOGY FOR COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL (TCI) BY THE COAST GUARD FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING A TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE ANTENNA SYSTEM. IT IS ALLEGED THAT TCI SHOULD BE DECLARED NONRESPONSIVE FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT CERTAIN DATA WHICH ALLEGEDLY WAS SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR IN THE IFB. WHILE THE COMP. GEN. READS THE "PROOF OF DESIGN" PROVISIONS OF THE IFB TO REQUIRE IMPEDANCE AND PATTERN DATA ON EACH MODEL OFFERED, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT TCI'S FAILURE TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THE DATA SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS RENDERED ITS BID DEFICIENT IN ANY MATERIAL SENSE. THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA IS LARGELY A FACTUAL MATTER TO BE DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING AGENCY AND GAO WILL NOT OVERTURN SUCH DETERMINATION WHEN SUPPORTED BY A GOOD FAITH EXPLANATION. THE RECORD SHOWS TCI FURNISHED SUFFICIENT IMPEDANCE AND PATTERN DATA TO PERMIT EVALUATION; THEREFORE, THE PROTEST IS DENIED.

TO MILLER, GROEZINGER, PETTIT & EVERS:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM BOTH YOUR OFFICE AND GRANGER ASSOCIATES, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER CONCERN UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. CG-14175-A, ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, WASHINGTON, D.C., ON MAY 24, 1971.

THE SOLICITATION WAS ISSUED FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE 3 MF AND 22 HF ANTENNA SYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION NO. EEE-5-71 DATED MARCH 29, 1971. THE FIVE BIDS RECEIVED WERE OPENED ON JULY 13, 1971. TECHNOLOGY FOR COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL (TCI) SUBMITTED THE LOW BID AT $244,944. AFTER A TWO STAGE TECHNICAL EVALUATION BY THE ENGINEERING OFFICE OF COAST GUARD, TCI WAS FOUND TO BE RESPONSIVE. A CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO TCI ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 14, 1971, AFTER THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HAD REFUSED TO GRANT A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND A DETERMINATION OF URGENCY HAD BEEN MADE BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND APPROVED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE COAST GUARD.

YOU PROTEST THAT TCI SHOULD BE DECLARED NONRESPONSIVE FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT, PRIOR TO OPENING OF BIDS, CERTAIN DATA WHICH YOU ALLEGE WAS SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR BY THE IFB AS A CONDITION OF RESPONSIVENESS. FURTHER SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM YOU ASSERT THAT CERTAIN OTHER DATA, CONTAINED IN TCI'S BID, ARE INCOMPLETE AND, THEREFORE, DO NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE SPECIFICATION.

THE IFB PROVIDES AT PAGE 3 UNDER A SECTION ENTITLED "PROOF OF DESIGN", AS FOLLOWS:

"SUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING DATA IN SUPPORT OF BID IS REQUIRED FOR THE BIDDER TO BE RESPONSIVE. DATA IS TO VERIFY THAT ELECTRICAL AND STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS REQUIRED HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED ON FULL SIZE OR SCALE MODELS REPRESENTING THE ANTENNA STRUCTURES THAT ARE OFFERED.

"(1) IMPEDANCE DATA: PROVIDED ON SMITH CHARTS FOR THE REQUIRED BANDWIDTH AT INTERVALS NO GREATER THAN IMHZ FOR EACH ANTENNA INCLUDING BALUN OR MATCHING DEVICE.

"(2) PATTERN DATA: PROVIDE VERTICAL PLANE AND AZIMUTH PLANE PATTERN PLOTS WITH GAIN IN DB ABOVE ISOTROPIC OVER PERFECTLY CONDUCTING EARTH. THE NUMBER OF PATTERNS FURNISHED SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE BANDWIDTH, DEPENDENT ON BANDWIDTH AS TABULATED BELOW:

BANDWIDTH MIN. NO. OF PATTERNS

2-30 MHZ 5

4-30 4

7-30 3

"THE PATTERNS SHALL BE DEVELOPED FROM A SCALE MODEL SCALED FOR BOTH LENGTH AND DIAMETER OF THE RADIATING ELEMENTS. THE RATIO OF WIRE DIAMETER TO WIRE SPACING FOR FEEDLINES SHALL BE SCALED TO HAVE THE SAME CHARACTERISTIC IMPEDANCE AS THE FULL SCALE ANTENNA. THE SCALE SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100 TO 1."

YOU CONTEND THAT TCI'S BID DOES NOT MEET THE ABOVE-QUOTED SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT BECAUSE DATA WAS NOT SUBMITTED FOR EACH ANTENNA. YOU CITE THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES: NO IMPEDANCE DATA WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE ANTENNA DESIGNATED AS OV5 4-30; NO IMPEDANCE DATA WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECEIVING ANTENNA DESIGNATED AS OV1 MF; NO PATTERN DATA WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE TRANSMITTING ANTENNA DESIGNATED AS OV5, AND NO IMPEDANCE DATA WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE BALUN OR MATCHING DEVICE FOR EACH ANTENNA. FURTHERMORE, YOU ALLEGE THAT THE SMITH CHART PLOT SUBMITTED BY TCI, THOUGH NORMALIZED, DOES NOT CONTAIN REFERENCE TO THE NORMALIZING IMPEDANCE WHICH ALLEGEDLY PREVENTS THE BID FROM COMPLYING WITH USCG SPECIFICATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE 50 OHMS REQUIREMENT.

IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSERTION THAT TCI FAILED TO SUPPLY IMPEDANCE DATA FOR THE RECEIVING ANTENNA DESIGNATED AS OV1 MF, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT TCI WAS ADVISED ON JUNE 28, 1971, THAT NO IMPEDANCE DATA WAS REQUIRED FOR OV1 MF SINCE THE ELECTRICAL DATA SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS COVERED THE HIGH FREQUENCY ANTENNAS ONLY. WE NOTE THAT GRANGER ASSOCIATES WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF THIS INTERPRETATION. SINCE WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR THE COAST GUARD TO HAVE NOTIFIED ALL OTHER PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS BY ISSUING AN AMENDMENT TO THE INVITATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS 1 2.207(D), WE ARE TODAY ADVISING THE COAST GUARD TO INSURE THAT SUCH A PROCEDURE IS FOLLOWED IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS.

WITH REGARD TO THE PROTESTANT'S CONTENTION THAT NO IMPEDANCE DATA WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE HIGH FREQUENCY ANTENNA DESIGNATED AS OV5 4-30, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS RESPONDED AS FOLLOWS:

"TCI INDICATED THAT DATA SUBMITTED FOR THE ANTENNA DESIGNATED AS OV2 2-30 WAS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE OV5 4-30 STATING, 'THE OV5 ANTENNA IS IDENTICAL TO OV2 *** EXCEPT ITS HEIGHT IS 43' VERSUS 64' FOR THE OV2.' THEREFORE, TCI WAS RESPONSIVE ON THIS POINT. SCALING OF IMPEDANCE FOR STRUCTURES OF PROPORTIONAL PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS IS A STANDARD PRACTICE, I.E., THE IMPEDANCE REMAINS CONSTANT WHEN THE ANTENNA STRUCTURE IS EITHER ENLARGED OR REDUCED IN SIZE AND THE FREQUENCY IS LOWERED OR RAISED IN PROPER PROPORTION. IN FACT, GRANGER'S COMMERCIAL BROCHURES USE THIS STANDARD PRACTICE TO SET FORTH IMPEDANCE DATA."

THE SAME EXPLANATION IS PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH THE OV5 PATTERN DATA.

SINCE THE HEIGHTS OF THE ANTENNAS SUPPORT STRUCTURES DO NOT REPRESENT PROPORTIONED PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS, WE REQUESTED FURTHER CLARIFICATION. COAST GUARD ENGINEERING SUPPORT ADVISED US THAT THE USE OF THE SCALING CONVENTION WAS BEING APPLIED TO THE ANTENNAS THEMSELVES AS OPPOSED TO THE TOTAL SUPPORT STRUCTURES OF 64' AND 43'.

WHILE WE READ THE "PROOF OF DESIGN" PROVISION OF THE IFB AS REQUIRING IMPEDANCE AND PATTERN DATA ON EACH MODEL ANTENNA OFFERED, WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT TCI'S FAILURE TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THE DATA SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT RENDERED ITS BID DEFICIENT IN ANY MEANINGFUL SENSE. WE HAVE HELD THAT A BID SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED BECAUSE OF DATA OMISSIONS WHICH CAN BE REMEDIED BY THE APPLICATION OF GENERALLY ACCEPTED ENGINEERING APPROACHES. SEE 39 COMP. GEN. 595 (1960). FURTHER, THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA IS LARGELY A FACTUAL MATTER TO BE DECIDED ESSENTIALLY BY THE CONTRACTING AGENCY AND WE WILL NOT OVERTURN SUCH DETERMINATION WHEN SUPPORTED BY A GOOD FAITH EXPLANATION. 43 COMP. GEN. 77 (1963). THE RECORD SHOWS THAT TCI FURNISHED SUFFICIENT IMPEDANCE AND PATTERN DATA TO PERMIT EVALUATION OF THE OV5 ANTENNA AS OFFERED IN THE BID PACKAGE.

YOU FURTHER ALLEGE THAT NO IMPEDANCE DATA WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE BALUN OR MATCHING DEVICE FOR EACH ANTENNA, AND THAT THE SMITH CHART PLOT SUBMITTED BY TCI, THOUGH NORMALIZED, DOES NOT REFER TO THE NORMALIZING IMPEDANCE. PARAGRAPH 1, PAGE 3, OF THE IFB REQUIRES THAT SMITH CHARTS INCLUDE BALUN OR MATCHING DEVICE. PARAGRAPH 3.1.7 OF THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS CALLS FOR THESE BALUNS OR MATCHING DEVICES TO BE 50 OHM INPUT IMPEDANCE DEVICES. THE TCI BID PACKAGE CONTAINS A CHART IDENTIFIED AS "505-1 (2-30 MHZ)". THIS CHART REPRESENTS IMPEDANCE DATA, WHICH INCLUDES THE BALUN OR MATCHING DEVICE, NORMALIZED TO A 50 OHM CHARACTERISTIC IMPEDANCE. THE CHART CONTAINS A PRE-PRINTED AND CIRCLED NUMERAL ONE (1) INSTEAD OF A CIRCLED NUMERAL FIFTY (50) TO INDICATE THAT THE CHART HAS BEEN NORMALIZED TO 50 OHM CHARACTERISTIC IMPEDANCE. THE COAST GUARD HAS DETERMINED THAT FIFTY SHOULD BE READ INTO THE CHART IN LIEU OF THE ONE SINCE FIFTY IS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 3.1.7 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AND TCI'S BID TRANSMITTAL LETTER STATED THAT THE DATA SUBMITTED WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 1, PAGE 3, OF THE IFB. ALTHOUGH WE QUESTION WHETHER THE TCI TRANSMITTAL LETTER AFFORDS ANY BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT TCI FURNISHED COMPLETE IMPEDANCE DATA ON THE BALUN OR MATCHING DEVICE FOR EACH ANTENNA, WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO FIND THAT THE DATA SUBMITTED BY TCI WAS NOT REASONABLY SUBJECT TO THE INTERPRETATION PLACED UPON IT BY THE COAST GUARD.

THE SECOND MAJOR PREMISE IN YOUR PROTEST IS THAT "CERTAIN DATA CONTAINED IN TCI'S BID IS INCOMPLETE AND DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFICATION NO. EEE-5-71, THE SPECIFICATION TO WHICH THE ANTENNA SYSTEM LINE ITEM MUST BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED."

IN SUPPORT OF THIS PREMISE YOU PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES: COMBINED COMPRESSION AND BENDING FORMULAS; INCREASE IN TENSION MEMBERS IN PROJECTED WIND DRAG AREAS TO ALLOW FOR THE PRESENCE OF SPECIFIED INSULATORS; SAFETY FACTOR OF BASE INSULATOR OF 4.1 OR BETTER, AND DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS AND ANCHORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NAVFAC DM-2 AND DM 7.

THE COMBINED COMPRESSION AND BENDING FORMULAS (1), (2), AND (3), REFER TO FORMULAS CONTAINED IN THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (ASCE) PAPER NO. 3341 "SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURES OF ALUMINUM ALLOYS 6061-T6 AND 6062-T6," WHICH HAS BEEN REFERENCED INTO SPECIFICATION EEE 5-71 IN SECTION 3.2 (SEE ABOVE). IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT A 2:1 FACTOR OF SAFETY IS INHERENT IN THE FORMULAS IN THE REFERENCED ASCE SPECIFICATION AND THAT SUCH SAFETY FACTOR HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED FOR BY TCI. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S REPORT CONTRADICTS THIS ALLEGATION BY STATING THAT A SAFETY FACTOR OF 2 IS NOT CALLED FOR IN THE REFERENCED ASCE SPECIFICATION. THIS REGARD THE COAST GUARD ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING DIVISION HAS PROVIDED US WITH THE FOLLOWING FURTHER EXPLANATION:

"EXAMINATION OF THE GRANGER DATA, PAST AND PRESENT, SHOWS A BASIC FLAW. GRANGER ANALYZED THE TOWER AS HAVING AN UNSUPPORTED LENGTH OF 76 FEET, DISREGARDING CATENARY SUPPORTS AT THE SIXTEEN FOOT LEVEL WHICH DO IN FACT CONSTITUTE A POINT OF SUPPORT FOR THE TOWER SHAFT. THE CORRECT UNSUPPORTED LENGTH OF 60 FEET DOES IN FACT SATISFY EQUATIONS (1), (2), AND (3) OF THE ASCE SPECIFICATION CITED AS A REQUIREMENT BY THE COAST GUARD."

IN REBUTTAL YOU STATE THE FOLLOWING:

"THE COAST GUARD'S ALLEGATION THAT THERE IS SUPPORT AT THE 16 FOOT LEVEL IS TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT CERTAIN CATENARIES TERMINATE AT THE 16 FOOT LEVEL, IT IS NOT CORRECT THAT THIS CONSTITUTES SUPPORT AT THAT LEVEL. TO THE CONTRARY, A REVIEW OF THE SHEER AND MOMENT DIAGRAMS WHICH TCI SUBMITTED WITH THIS BID CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE IS NOT ANY SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT AT THE 16 FOOT LEVEL. THEREFORE, THE COAST GUARD IS INCORRECT THAT THE UNSUPPORTED LENGTH OF THE ANTENNA IS 60 FEET, RATHER THAN 76 FEET. IN ADDITION, THE COAST GUARD HAS IN EFFECT CONCEDED THAT IF IN FACT THE UNSUPPORTED LENGTH IS 76 FEET, WHICH IT IS, THE SAFETY FACTOR REQUIRED IN THE APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS HAS NOT BEEN MET. OTHERWISE, WHY WOULD THE COAST GUARD HAVE TO BASE ITS POSITION ON THE NOTION THAT 60 FEET RATHER THAN 76 FEET, IS THE NUMBER TO PLUG INTO THE ASCE REFERENCED FORMULAS?"

THE ISSUE WOULD APPEAR TO BE WHETHER OR NOT THE CATENARIES CONSTITUTE SUPPORT WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY DIMINISH THE UNSUPPORTED STRUCTURE LENGTH FROM 76 FEET TO 60 FEET. WE MUST RELY ON THE TECHNICAL OPINION OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY IN THE RESOLUTION OF THIS DISPUTE UNLESS THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SAFETY FACTOR HAS NOT ADEQUATELY BEEN PROVIDED FOR IN THE TCI TOWER.

YOU ALSO ALLEGE THAT THE TCI DATA DID NOT INDICATE WHETHER WIND LOADING ON INSULATORS WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3.2.1 OF SPECIFICATION EEE-5-71 (SEE ABOVE). THE COAST GUARD HAS RESPONDED TO THIS ALLEGATION AS FOLLOWS:

"CONCERNING WIND DRAG ON INSULATORS, FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT, IT IS IMPLICIT THAT INSULATORS ARE EXAMINED AND THEN INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATIONS ONLY IF THEY CONSTITUTE A SIGNIFICANT AREA. EXAMINATION OF THE FAIL-SAFE JOHNNY BALL TYPE INSULATORS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE REVEALED INSIGNIFICANT AREA AND SATISFIED THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT THAT INSULATORS BE INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE STRUCTURE SUBJECT TO WIND."

GRANGER HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING IN REBUTTAL:

"IT IS AGAIN POINTED OUT THAT THE COAST GUARD HAS NO BASIS UPON WHICH TO CONCLUDE THAT THE INSULATORS ARE INSIGNIFICANT. IF ONLY 1 OR 2 JOHNNY BALL TYPE INSULATORS WERE INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT, THE COAST GUARD'S CONTENTION THAT THE INSULATORS ARE INSIGNIFICANT, I.E., CONSTITUTE ONLY 1 OR 2 PERCENT MIGHT BE WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE COAST GUARD CAN DETERMINE HOW MANY INSULATORS TCI PROPOSED TO INCLUDE, AS ITS BID WAS COMPLETELY SILENT ON THIS POINT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF IN FACT 20 INSULATORS WERE REQUIRED, THEN THIS BECOMES A MATTER OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE. IN SHORT, THE COAST GUARD'S CONCLUSION OF 'INSIGNIFICANCE' HAS BEEN MADE IN A VACUUM: TCI SUBMITTED NO DATA FROM WHICH ANY EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION COULD BE MADE. HAVING SO FAILED, TCI MUST BE DEEMED NONRESPONSIVE."

ALTHOUGH TCI'S BID PACKAGE IS SILENT AS TO THE EXACT NUMBER OF INSULATORS TO BE PROVIDED, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO ASSUME THAT TCI WILL SUPPLY ANY MORE OR LESS THAN IS PRUDENTLY REQUIRED. THE NUMBER OF INSULATORS REQUIRED IS A FUNCTION OF THE ELECTRICAL OUTPUT PRODUCED. THE ELECTRICAL OUTPUT CAN BE DETERMINED FROM THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF INSULATORS TO BE PROVIDED CAN BE APPROXIMATED WITH SOME ACCURACY. THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION THAT THE NUMBER OF INSULATORS TO BE PROVIDED WILL BE INSIGNIFICANT APPEARS REASONABLY SUPPORTABLE. YOU NEXT ALLEGE THAT THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 3.1.3(B), I.E., THAT A SAFETY FACTOR OF 4.1 OR BETTER EXIST FOR THE BASE INSULATOR HAS NOT BEEN SUPPORTED BY TCI IN ITS DATA. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER POINTS OUT NO SUCH DATA WAS CALLED FOR WITH THE BID ALTHOUGH THE SAFETY FACTOR MUST BE MET IN PERFORMANCE. WE FIND NO REQUIREMENT FOR DATA IN CONNECTION WITH PARAGRAPH 3.1.3(B) OF THE SPECIFICATION.

YOU FURTHER CONTEND THAT TCI DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS REPRESENTED BY PARAGRAPH 3.2.4 OF SPECIFICATION EEE-5-71 DEALING WITH THE DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS AND ANCHORS. ALTHOUGH THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATION PRIMARILY REPRESENTS A DELIVERY REQUIREMENT, THE LOW BIDDER DID INCLUDE WITHIN ITS DATA SUBMITTAL A PAGE ENTITLED "MODEL 502-Z ANTENNA WIND 98 MPH 0 DEGS" WHICH INCLUDES GROUND BEARING AREA REQUIREMENTS AND A TYPICAL ANCHOR AND FOUNDATION SKETCH. WE BELIEVE THIS SATISFACTORILY FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENT OF PARAGRAPH 3.2.4.

YOU HAVE ALSO CITED OUR OPINION IN 40 COMP. GEN. 132 (1960). THAT CASE INVOLVED AN IFB FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM. THE PROTESTOR WAS HELD TO BE NONRESPONSIVE FOR FAILURE TO EMPLOY EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE PROTESTOR ARGUED THAT HE HAD PLANNED TO MODIFY THE PROPOSED EQUIPMENT WITH SPECIFIC COMPONENTS THAT CONCEDEDLY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE PROPOSAL WITHIN THE SPECIFICATIONS. HOWEVER, THESE COMPONENTS WERE NOT LISTED IN THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA TO BE SUBMITTED WITH EACH BID UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION. WE UPHELD THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION OF NONRESPONSIVENESS. IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT IN 40 COMP. GEN. 132 THE BID AS SUBMITTED WAS ON ITS FACE INCONSISTENT WITH THE SYSTEM REQUESTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, I.E., THE PROPOSED SYSTEM REPRESENTED AN EXCEPTION TO, AND A MATERIAL DEVIATION FROM, THE IFB. THE BID SUBMITTED BY TCI TAKES NO EXCEPTION TO THE SPECIFICATIONS.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING WE FIND NO LEGAL OBJECTION TO THE AWARD. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.