Allegations of Restrictive Solicitation Specifications (Best Available Copy)

B-175770: Jan 19, 1973

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Ralph O. White
(202) 512-8278
WhiteRO@gao.gov

Kenneth E. Patton
(202) 512-8205
PattonK@gao.gov

 

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

SINCE PROTESTANT'S PROPOSAL WAS DEFICIENT IN SEVERAL AREAS. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT PROTESTANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE ALLEGEDLY UNDULY RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENT. THUS NO CORRECTIVE ACTION IS REQUIRED. INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 20. ON THE GROUND THAT THE SPECIFICATION FOR THE SYSTEM WAS UNDULY RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITION. THE PROCUREMENT IS CLASSIFIED. WE HAVE RESTRICTED OUR RECITATION OF THE MATTER TO GENERAL TERMS. YOU HAVE PROTESTED THAT ASPECT OF THE SPECIFICATION ON THE BASIS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS APPROVED A SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES SECURITY BY MEANS OTHER THAN A DOOR AND LOCK AND THAT THE SPECIFICATION THEREFORE WAS UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTIVE. THE FACT REMAINS THAT YOUR PROPOSAL OFFERED EQUIPMENT WHICH FAILED TO PROVIDE THE SECURITY THAT YOU SAY IS ACHIEVED BY MEANS OTHER THAN BY A DOOR AND LOCK.

B-175770, JAN 19, 1973

BID PROTEST - ALLEGED UNDULY RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENT DECISION DENYING THE PROTEST OF MRL, INC., AGAINST ANY AWARD OF A CONTRACT UNDER AN RFP ISSUED BY HARRY DIAMOND LABORATORIES FOR AN INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEM. SINCE PROTESTANT'S PROPOSAL WAS DEFICIENT IN SEVERAL AREAS, AND SINCE THE SUBJECT CONTRACT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND FINAL PAYMENT MADE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT PROTESTANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE ALLEGEDLY UNDULY RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENT, AND THUS NO CORRECTIVE ACTION IS REQUIRED.

TO MRL, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1972, AND PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR AN INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEM UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) DAAG39-72-R-9093, ISSUED BY THE HARRY DIAMOND LABORATORIES, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SPECIFICATION FOR THE SYSTEM WAS UNDULY RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITION.

THE PROCUREMENT IS CLASSIFIED. THUS, WE HAVE RESTRICTED OUR RECITATION OF THE MATTER TO GENERAL TERMS. THE RFP SPECIFICATION HAD A "LOCKED DOOR" REQUIREMENT FOR THE SYSTEM. YOU HAVE PROTESTED THAT ASPECT OF THE SPECIFICATION ON THE BASIS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS APPROVED A SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES SECURITY BY MEANS OTHER THAN A DOOR AND LOCK AND THAT THE SPECIFICATION THEREFORE WAS UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTIVE.

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A LOCKED DOOR OR NOT, THE FACT REMAINS THAT YOUR PROPOSAL OFFERED EQUIPMENT WHICH FAILED TO PROVIDE THE SECURITY THAT YOU SAY IS ACHIEVED BY MEANS OTHER THAN BY A DOOR AND LOCK. FURTHER, WE OBSERVE THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WAS FOUND TO BE DEFICIENT IN OTHER AREAS NOT RELATED TO THE "LOCKED DOOR" REQUIREMENT. THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT YOU WERE PREJUDICED BY THE "LOCKED DOOR" REQUIREMENT. MOREOVER, THE AWARDED CONTRACT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND FINAL PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE CONTRACTOR ON AUGUST 18, 1972.

ACCORDINGLY, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO CORRECTIVE ACTION IS REQUIRED. HOWEVER, SINCE YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS APPROVED AN ALTERNATE METHOD OF SECURITY THAN WAS UTILIZED IN THE IMMEDIATE SOLICITATION, WE ARE BY SEPARATE LETTER OF TODAY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY RECOMMENDING THAT THE SPECIFICATION BE COORDINATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A UNIFORM SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT IN THAT RESPECT.

Nov 16, 2017

  • HBI-GF, JV
    We deny the protest.
    B-415036
  • Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc.
    We dismiss the protest because it raises a matter of contract administration over which we do not exercise jurisdiction.
    B-414410.4

Nov 15, 2017

Nov 14, 2017

Nov 9, 2017

Looking for more? Browse all our products here