B-174155(2), FEB 18, 1972

B-174155(2): Feb 18, 1972

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

ARE REVISED FOR FUTURE PROCUREMENT. SECRETARY: ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY CONCERNING THE PROTEST OF SILVER CREEK PRECISION CORPORATION AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER BIDDER UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) DAAB05-71-B-0634. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE DENIED THE PROTEST. YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THAT PORTION OF OUR DECISION WHICH CONCLUDES THAT AMENDMENT 0003 COULD NOT OPERATE TO AFFECT THE RELATIVE STANDING OF THE BIDDERS. WAS IN ACCORD WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S ASSUMPTION. YOU MAY WISH TO TAKE SUCH ACTION AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO ASSURE THAT CONCLUSIONS ON THIS POINT WHICH ARE IN ACCORD WITH OUR DECISION OF TODAY ARE REACHED IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS. ARE RETURNED.

B-174155(2), FEB 18, 1972

BID PROTEST - NONRESPONSIVENESS - FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AMENDMENT - LATE BID CONCERNING A DECISION OF THE COMP. GEN. DENYING THE PROTEST OF SILVER CREEK PRECISION CORPORATION AGAINST AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER BIDDER UNDER AN IFB ISSUED BY THE ARMY ELECTRONICS COMMAND, PHILADELPHIA, PA. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO INSURE THAT THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND HEADQUARTERS, ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND, THAT AMENDMENT 0003 COULD AFFECT THE RELATIVE STANDING OF BIDDERS, ARE REVISED FOR FUTURE PROCUREMENT.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY CONCERNING THE PROTEST OF SILVER CREEK PRECISION CORPORATION AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER BIDDER UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) DAAB05-71-B-0634, ISSUED BY THE U.S. ARMY ELECTRONICS COMMAND, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.

ALTHOUGH WE HAVE DENIED THE PROTEST, YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THAT PORTION OF OUR DECISION WHICH CONCLUDES THAT AMENDMENT 0003 COULD NOT OPERATE TO AFFECT THE RELATIVE STANDING OF THE BIDDERS. SINCE THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ACTED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AMENDMENT COULD, BUT DID NOT, AFFECT THE RELATIVE STANDING OF BIDDERS, AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT DATED JANUARY 3, 1972, INDICATES THAT HEADQUARTERS, ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND, WAS IN ACCORD WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S ASSUMPTION, YOU MAY WISH TO TAKE SUCH ACTION AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO ASSURE THAT CONCLUSIONS ON THIS POINT WHICH ARE IN ACCORD WITH OUR DECISION OF TODAY ARE REACHED IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS.

THE FILES FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE ON NOVEMBER 11 AND 30, 1971, AND JANUARY 3, 1972, BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND, ARE RETURNED.