B-198587(1), JUN 3, 1980

B-198587(1): Jun 3, 1980

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

IS UNTIMELY AND NOT FOR CONSIDERATION ON MERITS. VARIOUS DRAWING DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED WHICH RESULTED IN CHANGES TO 16 OF THE DRAWINGS WHICH ARE PART OF THE SOLICITATION. T M WAS ADVISED THAT ITS UNIT PRICE WAS $1. WHICH WERE SUPPLIED WITH THE SOLICITATION. WERE ACTUALLY CHANGED. SINCE ALL THIS INFORMATION WAS PREVIOUSLY COMMUNICATED TO THE NAVY.". T M BELIEVES THAT THE OTHER BIDDER'S LOWER PRICE WAS POSSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE OF THIS DEFICIENCY IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. T M'S PROTEST WAS FILED (RECEIVED) IN OUR OFFICE ON APRIL 25. OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT PROTESTS BASED ON ALLEGED IMPROPRIETIES IN A SOLICITATION WHICH ARE APPARENT PRIOR TO BID OPENING BE FILED PRIOR TO BID OPENING. 4 C.F.R.

B-198587(1), JUN 3, 1980

DIGEST: PROTEST AGAINST ALLEGED IMPROPRIETY IN SOLICITATION APPARENT PRIOR TO BID OPENING, BUT FILED AFTER BID OPENING, IS UNTIMELY AND NOT FOR CONSIDERATION ON MERITS.

T M SYSTEMS, INC.:

T M SYSTEMS, INC. (T M), BY TELEGRAM OF APRIL 25, 1979, PROTESTS THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT BY THE NAVY UNDER SOLICITATION NO. N68335-80-B 1092.

T M ASSERTS THAT THE SOLICITATION, FOR CERTAIN WAVE OFF CUT SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED SPARE PARTS, CONTAINED DEFICIENT SPECIFICATIONS. T M STATES THAT DURING ITS PERFORMANCE OF A PRIOR CONTRACT FOR THE IDENTICAL ITEMS, VARIOUS DRAWING DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED WHICH RESULTED IN CHANGES TO 16 OF THE DRAWINGS WHICH ARE PART OF THE SOLICITATION. WHEN T M RECEIVED THE CURRENT SOLICITATION ON MARCH 17, 1980, IT PREPARED ITS BID TO REFLECT THESE CHANGES WHICH IT "KNEW THE NAVY REQUIRED."

BID OPENING OCCURRED ON APRIL 16, 1980, AND T M WAS ADVISED THAT ITS UNIT PRICE WAS $1,000 HIGHER THAN THAT SUBMITTED BY THE OTHER BIDDER. T M THEN REVIEWED ITS BID PREPARATION AND "FOR THE FIRST TIME *** CAREFULLY CHECKED THE DRAWINGS FURNISHED WITH THE REFERENCED BID SET." IT ASCERTAINED THAT ONLY THREE OF THE 16 DRAWINGS ALLEGEDLY REQUIRING CHANGES, WHICH WERE SUPPLIED WITH THE SOLICITATION, WERE ACTUALLY CHANGED. T M CONTENDS THAT: "WE HAD A RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT THE DRAWING PACKAGE FURNISHED UNDER THE REFERENCED SOLICITATION REFLECTED (ALL 16) CHANGES, SINCE ALL THIS INFORMATION WAS PREVIOUSLY COMMUNICATED TO THE NAVY." T M BELIEVES THAT THE OTHER BIDDER'S LOWER PRICE WAS POSSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE OF THIS DEFICIENCY IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.

T M'S PROTEST WAS FILED (RECEIVED) IN OUR OFFICE ON APRIL 25, 1980. OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT PROTESTS BASED ON ALLEGED IMPROPRIETIES IN A SOLICITATION WHICH ARE APPARENT PRIOR TO BID OPENING BE FILED PRIOR TO BID OPENING. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 20.2(B)(1) (1980).

THE PROTEST IS DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY.