B-195377.2, JAN 3, 1980

B-195377.2: Jan 3, 1980

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

DIGEST: REQUEST FOR GAO TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM PROCURING AGENCY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS ALLEGATION CONCERNING AGENCY'S APPROVAL OF AWARDEE'S USE OF MATERIALS SUGGESTED BY PROTESTER IN VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL IS DENIED. WE DENIED SIGMA'S PROTEST CONCERNING AWARD TO ANOTHER FIRM FINDING THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REASONABLY DETERMINED THAT SIGMA WAS NONRESPONSIBLE. THE MATTER WAS NOT FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES.

B-195377.2, JAN 3, 1980

DIGEST: REQUEST FOR GAO TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM PROCURING AGENCY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS ALLEGATION CONCERNING AGENCY'S APPROVAL OF AWARDEE'S USE OF MATERIALS SUGGESTED BY PROTESTER IN VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL IS DENIED. GAO DOES NOT CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE VALIDITY OF PROTESTER'S SPECULATIVE STATEMENTS. MOREOVER, MERE APPROVAL BY ARMY WOULD NOT NECESSARILY ESTABLISH WRONGDOING BY GOVERNMENT TO JUSTIFY CLAIM.

SIGMA INDUSTRIES, INC.:

SIGMA INDUSTRIES, INC. (SIGMA) REQUESTS THAT OUR OFFICE "RE-OPEN" ITS BID PROTEST AND THAT GAO INVESTIGATE ITS ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE USE OF THE FIRM'S PROPRIETARY PRODUCTION METHOD. IN OUR FIRST DECISION, SIGMA INDUSTRIES, INC., B-195377, OCTOBER 5, 1979, 79-2 CPD 242, WE DENIED SIGMA'S PROTEST CONCERNING AWARD TO ANOTHER FIRM FINDING THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REASONABLY DETERMINED THAT SIGMA WAS NONRESPONSIBLE; WE ALSO STATED THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY WRONGDOING ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, SIGMA'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING ITS PROPRIETARY PRODUCTION METHOD CONCERNED A DISPUTE BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES AND, THEREFORE, THE MATTER WAS NOT FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES.

SIGMA NOW REQUESTS THAT WE REOPEN THE MATTER AND INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE ARMY HAS APPROVED THE AWARDEE'S USE OF CYCOLAC KJB 3501 AS AN ALTERNATE MATERIAL FOR THE ITEMS BEING PROCURED. IT BELIEVES THAT THE ARMY'S MERE APPROVAL WOULD SHOW WRONGDOING ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT VIS-A-VIS DISCLOSURE OF SIGMA'S VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL AND JUSTIFY A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

THE BID PROTEST FUNCTION OF THIS OFFICE DOES NOT PROVIDE A FORUM TO INVESTIGATE A PROTESTER'S SPECULATIVE STATEMENTS. M&H MANUFACTURING CO., INC., B-191950, AUGUST 18, 1978, 78-2 CPD 129. MOREOVER, EVEN IF THE ARMY HAS APPROVED A REQUEST BY THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER TO USE MATERIALS PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED BY SIGMA AS A VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL, THAT FACT ALONE DOES NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE WRONGDOING ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. FINALLY, WE NOTE THAT THE ARMY INDICATED IN PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE ON SIGMA'S PROTEST THAT IT WOULD REEVALUATE SIGMA'S VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL AND WE BELIEVE THAT SIGMA'S INQUIRIES IN THIS REGARD SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE ARMY.

WE THEREFORE DENY SIGMA'S REQUEST TO REOPEN THE MATTER.