B-177122(2), FEB 22, 1973

B-177122(2): Feb 22, 1973

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

ALTHOUGH THE PROTEST WAS DENIED. GAO BELIEVES THE RFP COULD HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED BY POTENTIAL OFFERORS AS RESTRICTING CONSIDERATION OF OFFERS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SOURCES. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT. SECRETARY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE NOVEMBER 10 AND DECEMBER 15. WE ARE ENCLOSING A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO COUNSEL FOR ARTKO DENYING THE PROTEST. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE DENIED THE PROTEST. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SOLICITATION COULD HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED BY POTENTIAL OFFERORS AS RESTRICTING CONSIDERATION OF OFFERS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SOURCES. SUGGEST THAT THE SOLICITATION LANGUAGE BE REVISED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT COMPETITION IS NOT LIMITED TO PRIOR SUPPLIERS IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS OF THIS TYPE.

B-177122(2), FEB 22, 1973

BID PROTEST - AMBIGUOUS RFP LANGUAGE CONCERNING THE PROTEST OF ARTKO CORPORATION AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF AN RFP ISSUED BY THE OKLAHOMA CITY AIR MATERIEL AREA, TINKER AFB, OK. ALTHOUGH THE PROTEST WAS DENIED, GAO BELIEVES THE RFP COULD HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED BY POTENTIAL OFFERORS AS RESTRICTING CONSIDERATION OF OFFERS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT, IN THE FUTURE, THIS RFP LANGUAGE BE REVISED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NO SUCH LIMITATION ON COMPETITION EXISTS.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE NOVEMBER 10 AND DECEMBER 15, 1972, LETTERS FROM THE CHIEF, CONTRACT MANAGEMENT DIVISION, DIR/PROCUREMENT POLICY, DCS/S&L, REPORTING ON THE PREAWARD PROTEST OF ARTKO CORPORATION AGAINST THE ALLEGED RESTRICTIONS OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. F34601-73-R-2821, ISSUED BY THE OKLAHOMA CITY AIR MATERIEL AREA, TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA.

WE ARE ENCLOSING A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO COUNSEL FOR ARTKO DENYING THE PROTEST. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE DENIED THE PROTEST, WE BELIEVE THAT THE SOLICITATION COULD HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED BY POTENTIAL OFFERORS AS RESTRICTING CONSIDERATION OF OFFERS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SOURCES. SUGGEST THAT THE SOLICITATION LANGUAGE BE REVISED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT COMPETITION IS NOT LIMITED TO PRIOR SUPPLIERS IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS OF THIS TYPE.