B-176929(2), MAR 6, 1973

B-176929(2): Mar 6, 1973

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

IS THEREFORE SUGGESTED THAT THE AMC INSTRUCTION BE REEXAMINED TO ASSURE THAT THE COC PROGRAM WILL NOT BE FRUSTRATED BY LENGTHY INTERNAL REVIEWS OF PROPOSED COC ACTIONS. THERE IS ENCLOSED A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY DENYING THE PROTEST. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS REQUIRED BY AMC PROCUREMENT INSTRUCTION 1-705.4(B). ABOUT A MONTH ELAPSED BEFORE SUCH APPROVAL WAS GRANTED TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WHO DETERMINED THAT INSO WAS NON-RESPONSIBLE TWO AND A HALF MONTHS EARLIER. THESE PROCEDURES CONNOTE A SENSE OF URGENCY WHICH IS REFLECTED BY CONTRACTING OFFICER REFERRALS DIRECTLY TO SBA. WE SUGGEST THAT THE AMC INSTRUCTION BE REEXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PROTEST TO ASSURE THAT THE COC PROGRAM WILL NOT BE FRUSTRATED BY LENGTHY INTERNAL REVIEWS OF PROPOSED COC ACTIONS.

B-176929(2), MAR 6, 1973

BID PROTEST - COC PROGRAM - RECOMMENDATIONS DECISION REGARDING THE PROTEST BY INSO ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS, INC., AGAINST THE CANCELLATION OF A PORTION OF AN IFB ISSUED BY THE U.S. ARMY ELECTRONICS COMMAND, PHILADELPHIA, PA. ALTHOUGH THIS PROTEST HAS BEEN DENIED, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT AMC PROCUREMENT INSTRUCTION 1-705-4(B) APPEARS TO ACT AS A CONSTRAINT ON THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY (COC) PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN ASPR 1 705.4. IS THEREFORE SUGGESTED THAT THE AMC INSTRUCTION BE REEXAMINED TO ASSURE THAT THE COC PROGRAM WILL NOT BE FRUSTRATED BY LENGTHY INTERNAL REVIEWS OF PROPOSED COC ACTIONS.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

WE REFER TO LETTER AMCGC-P OF DECEMBER 26, 1972, FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL, HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND, FURNISHING A REPORT ON THE PROTEST OF INSO ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS, INC., UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DAAB05-72-B-0463. THERE IS ENCLOSED A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY DENYING THE PROTEST.

WE NOTED IN OUR DECISION THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REQUESTED APPROVAL FROM HIS COMMANDING GENERAL TO REFER INSO'S NONRESPONSIBILITY TO SBA FOR COC CONSIDERATION. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS REQUIRED BY AMC PROCUREMENT INSTRUCTION 1-705.4(B). HOWEVER, ABOUT A MONTH ELAPSED BEFORE SUCH APPROVAL WAS GRANTED TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WHO DETERMINED THAT INSO WAS NON-RESPONSIBLE TWO AND A HALF MONTHS EARLIER. WE BELIEVE, IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PROTEST, THAT THE AMC INSTRUCTION OPERATES AS A CONSTRAINT ON THE COC PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN ASPR 1-705.4. THESE PROCEDURES CONNOTE A SENSE OF URGENCY WHICH IS REFLECTED BY CONTRACTING OFFICER REFERRALS DIRECTLY TO SBA. WHILE WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THE AMC INSTRUCTION MAY SERVE AS VALUABLE MANAGEMENT CONTROL OVER SBA REFERRALS, WE SUGGEST THAT THE AMC INSTRUCTION BE REEXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PROTEST TO ASSURE THAT THE COC PROGRAM WILL NOT BE FRUSTRATED BY LENGTHY INTERNAL REVIEWS OF PROPOSED COC ACTIONS. WE WOULD APPRECIATE BEING ADVISED OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN IN THIS REGARD.