B-204717.2,L/M, JUL 22, 1982, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

B-204717.2,L/M: Jul 22, 1982

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

YOU SUGGEST THAT THE SUBJECT RESTRICTION WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH GERMAN RADIATION LAW. YOU STILL HAVE NOT DONE SO. WE ARE UNAWARE OF SUCH A DOCUMENT. THE STATUTORY FUNCTION OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IS TO ASSIST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES. SINCE YOU HAVE NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE THAT OUR PRIOR DECISION CONTAINS AN ERROR OF FACT OR LAW.

B-204717.2,L/M, JUL 22, 1982, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

SECURITY ASSISTANCE FORCES & EQUIPMENT OHG:

ATTN: E. J. P. TIERNEY

THIS RESPONDS TO YOUR LETTER DATED JUNE 21, 1982 REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION B-204717, MAY 18, 1982, 82-1 CPD 474, WHICH DENIED YOUR PROTEST THAT AIR FORCE SOLICITATION NO. F61521-81-R 0352 UNDULY RESTRICTED COMPETITION FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF SMOKE DETECTORS IN HOUSING UNITS IN GERMANY TO PHOTOELECTRIC DEVICES.

YOUR LETTER RAISES TWO BASES FOR RECONSIDERATION. FIRST, YOU SUGGEST THAT THE SUBJECT RESTRICTION WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH GERMAN RADIATION LAW, AND YOU POINT OUT THAT, APPARENTLY, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL RECENTLY COMPLETED AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY TO PERMIT THE USE OF IONIZATION DETECTORS IN AMERICAN MILITARY HOUSING UNITS IN GERMANY. SECOND, YOU ALLEGE THAT THE SOLICITOR GENERAL HAS ISSUED A DIRECTIVE THAT COMPETITION FOR SMOKE DETECTORS FOR AMERICAN MILITARY HOUSING IN GERMANY SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO PHOTOELECTRIC DEVICES.

YOUR FIRST POINT DOES NOT ADDRESS OUR PRINCIPAL REASON FOR DENYING YOUR PROTEST AS STATED IN OUR DECISION:

"THE AIR FORCE STATES THAT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, PHOTOELECTRIC SMOKE DETECTORS RESPOND FASTER THAN IONIZATION UNITS TO THE TYPES OF FIRES THAT NORMALLY OCCUR IN FAMILY HOUSING UNITS, AND THAT PHOTOELECTRIC DETECTORS PRODUCE LESS FALSE ALARMS, WHICH CAUSE OCCUPANTS TO BE APATHETIC TO THE DEVICES' WARNINGS."

YOU DID NOT REBUT THE AIR FORCE'S POSITION IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR PROTEST, AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT DONE SO.

CONCERNING THE ALLEGED SOLICITOR GENERAL DIRECTIVE, WE ARE UNAWARE OF SUCH A DOCUMENT, AND WE NOTE IN ANY CASE THAT THE SOLICITOR GENERAL LACKS AUTHORITY OVER THE AIR FORCE IN THIS MATTER. THE STATUTORY FUNCTION OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IS TO ASSIST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 505 (1976), WHICH DO NOT INCLUDE SUPERVISING MILITARY ACQUISITIONS.

SINCE YOU HAVE NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE THAT OUR PRIOR DECISION CONTAINS AN ERROR OF FACT OR LAW, WE AFFIRM THE DECISION.