Skip to main content

B-214595, OCT 12, 1984, 84-2 CPD 403

B-214595 Oct 12, 1984
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

PROTEST THAT AWARDEE DID NOT MEET DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA REQUIRING EXPERIENCE IN SUCCESSFULLY INSTALLING SIX SPECIFIC FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN IN SATISFACTORY OPERATION FOR AT LEAST 24 MONTHS IS SUSTAINED SINCE THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO CONTRACTING AGENCY PRIOR TO AWARD DID NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR AGENCY'S DETERMINATION THAT AWARDEE MET REQUIREMENT. GAO HAS NO BASIS UPON WHICH TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PROTESTER'S CONTENTION THAT THE INTERMEDIATE BIDDER BETWEEN IT AND THE AWARDEE IS NONRESPONSIBLE. WHERE THE PROTESTER'S ARGUMENT IS ONLY IN GENERAL TERMS AND THE AGENCY ADVISES IT NEVER DETERMINED THE INTERMEDIATE BIDDER'S RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE THAT FIRM WAS NOT IN LINE FOR AWARD.

View Decision

B-214595, OCT 12, 1984, 84-2 CPD 403

CONTRACTORS - RESPONSIBILITY - DETERMINATION - DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA - COMPLIANCE DIGEST: 1. PROTEST THAT AWARDEE DID NOT MEET DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA REQUIRING EXPERIENCE IN SUCCESSFULLY INSTALLING SIX SPECIFIC FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN IN SATISFACTORY OPERATION FOR AT LEAST 24 MONTHS IS SUSTAINED SINCE THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO CONTRACTING AGENCY PRIOR TO AWARD DID NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR AGENCY'S DETERMINATION THAT AWARDEE MET REQUIREMENT. CONTRACTORS - RESPONSIBILITY - DETERMINATION - TIME FOR MAKING DETERMINATION 2. PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE MEASURED WITH RESPECT TO INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT TIME OF AWARD RATHER THAN AT AN EARLIER OR LATER TIME. CONTRACTORS - RESPONSIBILITY - DETERMINATION - DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA - COMPLIANCE 3. VAGUE REFERENCES TO A FIRM'S GENERAL REPUTATION DO NOT SUFFICE TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA REQUIRING DETAILED INFORMATION DOCUMENTING SATISFACTORY EXPERIENCE IN INSTALLING SPECIFIC, NARROWLY-DEFINED TYPES OF FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS. CONTRACTORS - RESPONSIBILITY - DETERMINATION - REVIEW BY GAO - NO BASIS FOR DETERMINATION BY GAO 4. GAO HAS NO BASIS UPON WHICH TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PROTESTER'S CONTENTION THAT THE INTERMEDIATE BIDDER BETWEEN IT AND THE AWARDEE IS NONRESPONSIBLE, WHERE THE PROTESTER'S ARGUMENT IS ONLY IN GENERAL TERMS AND THE AGENCY ADVISES IT NEVER DETERMINED THE INTERMEDIATE BIDDER'S RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE THAT FIRM WAS NOT IN LINE FOR AWARD. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE - RECOMMENDATIONS - CONTRACTS - TERMINATION - NOT REQUIRED - RESULTING DELAYS, COSTS, ETC. 5. GAO DOES NOT RECOMMEND THAT IMPROPERLY-AWARDED CONTRACT BE TERMINATED FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT SINCE TERMINATION COULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL DELAYS FOR LONG-NEEDED PROJECT AND SUBSTANTIAL TERMINATION COSTS. CONTRACTS - NEGOTIATION - OFFERS OR PROPOSALS - PREPARATION - COSTS RECOVERY CRITERIA 6. CLAIM FOR BID PREPARATION COSTS IS SUSTAINED EVEN THOUGH THERE IS ANOTHER BIDDER, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED, BETWEEN PROTESTER AND AWARDEE, WHERE AGENCY PROCEEDED TO MAKE AWARD TO A FIRM WHICH DID NOT MEET UNUSUALLY DETAILED AND STRINGENT DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA.

VULCAN ENGINEERING CO.:

VULCAN ENGINEERING CO. PROTESTS THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ARNOLD M. DIAMOND, INC. UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. N62470-81-B-1597, ISSUED BY THE NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND (NAVFAC) FOR FOUNDRY MODERNIZATION AT THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD IN PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA. VULCAN CONTENDS THAT DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA IN THE IFB WERE MISAPPLIED WHEN NAVFAC DETERMINED DIAMOND TO BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE ALLEGEDLY NEITHER DIAMOND NOR ITS PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTORS POSSESSED THE EXPERIENCE WITH INSTALLATION OF FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS AS REQUIRED BY THE IFB. VULCAN ALSO QUESTIONS THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE NEXT LOW BIDDER. SUSTAIN THE PROTEST.

WE UNDERSTAND THE FOUNDRY PROCESS IN QUESTION HERE GENERALLY TO INVOLVE THE PREPARATION OF MOLDS FROM A BLEND OF SAND AND CHEMICALS, THE HEATING, MELTING AND MIXING OF RAW MATERIALS, CATALYSTS AND ALLOYS TO OBTAIN A MOLTEN METAL, THE POURING OF THE MOLTEN METAL INTO THE MOLDS TO PRODUCE CASTINGS, THE CLEANING OF THE CASTINGS, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MOLDS FOLLOWED BY THE RECLAMATION OF THE SAND THROUGH THE REMOVAL OF THE CHEMICALS AND OTHER IMPURITIES. THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, A SOPHISTICATED VENTILATION SYSTEM IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO REMOVE HARMFUL SILICA PARTICLES FROM THE AIR.

THE IFB DESCRIBES THE SPECIFIC WORK REQUIRED UNDER THE SOLICITATION AS "PROVIDING NEW CONVEYORIZED MOLDING, SAND RECLAMATION, SAND HANDLING, CASTING CLEANING EQUIPMENT; PROVIDING MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING EQUIPMENT AND INCIDENTAL RELATED WORK."

IN A PRE-SOLICITATION MEMO TO NAVFAC SETTING FORTH THE SHIPYARD'S NEEDS, THE COMMANDER OF THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD DESCRIBED THE WORK AS A "HIGHLY SPECIALIZED MODERNIZATION PROJECT" AND WENT ON TO INDICATE THAT:

"THE SCOPE OF THE JOB IS GREATLY WEIGHTED TOWARD THE PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION OF MANY INDEPENDENTLY MANUFACTURED PIECES OF SPECIALIZED FOUNDRY EQUIPMENT. ALL OF THE INDEPENDENT PIECES MUST BE PRECISELY COORDINATED TO PROVIDE A FUNCTIONAL FOUNDRY SYSTEM. THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE KNOWLEDGEABLE OF FOUNDRY METHODS AND SPECIFICALLY MUST HAVE EXPERIENCE IN TOTAL SYSTEM START UP AND DEBUGGING. DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF SAND CONTROL, METAL CONTROL, SAND RECLAMATION, AND VENTILATION AND HOW ALL THE PROCESS VARIABLES INTERRELATE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. RELIANCE UPON ONLY A MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVE TO START UP ONLY HIS INDIVIDUAL PIECE OF EQUIPMENT, COMPRISING ONLY A PORTION OF THE TOTAL SYSTEM, IS SPECIFICALLY NOT SATISFACTORY. DISPUTES OVER RESPONSIBILITIES WOULD BE GUARANTEED. SOLE SOURCE RESPONSIBILITY MUST BE ENSURED FOR THE ENTIRE MODERNIZATION PROJECT."

ACCORDINGLY, HE INFORMED NAVFAC THAT THE SHIPYARD "STRONGLY INSISTS UPON THE NECESSITY FOR INCLUDING PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS' AND PROPOSED REQUIRING A MINIMUM OF 5 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN "PROVIDING AND INSTALLING TURNKEY CHEMICALLY BONDED FOUNDRY SYSTEMS."

NAVFAC SUBSEQUENTLY INCLUDED IN THE IFB THE FOLLOWING EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET BY THE INSTALLER OF THE FOUNDRY EQUIPMENT:

"2.7 QUALIFICATIONS OF EQUIPMENT INSTALLER: SUBMIT DATA TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR APPROVAL BY THE DESIGN DIVISION, CODE 403, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, SHOWING THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS SUCCESSFULLY INSTALLED FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS OF THE SAME TYPE AND DESIGN AS SPECIFIED AND INDICATED FOR THIS PROJECT, OR THAT HE HAS A FIRM CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH A SUBCONTRACTOR HAVING SUCH REQUIRED EXPERIENCE. THE DATA SHALL INCLUDE THE NAMES AND LOCATION OF AT LEAST TWO INSTALLATIONS WHERE THE CONTRACTOR, OR THE SUBCONTRACTOR REFERRED TO ABOVE, HAS INSTALLED SUCH SYSTEMS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INDICATE THE TYPE AND DESIGN OF EACH SYSTEM AND CERTIFY THAT EACH SYSTEM HAS PERFORMED SATISFACTORILY IN THE MANNER INTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN 24 MONTHS. THE SPECIFIED EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE MET FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS:

A) MELTING B) MOLDING C) SAND HANDLING D) RECLAMATION E) VENTILATION F) CASTING CLEANING

"2.7.1 INFORMATION REQUIRED:

A. NAME OF COMPANY (SUBMITTING EXPERIENCE) AND ADDRESS

B. APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE

C. PLANT NAME (IN WHICH PARTICULAR FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEM IS LOCATED) AND ADDRESS

D. PLANT MANAGER'S NAME AND PHONE NUMBER

E. PROCESS SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION START DATE, COMPLETION DATE, AND START-UP DATE

F. PROCESS SYSTEM CAPACITY AND NORMAL LOAD

G. NUMBER OF HOURS THE PROCESS SYSTEM HAS OPERATED AT GREATER THAN 90 PERCENT CAPACITY

H. PROCESS SYSTEM DESIGNED BY; CONSTRUCTED BY

I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT AND PROCESS SYSTEM

"2.7.2 QUALIFICATIONS EVALUATION AND APPLICATION: THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER SHALL SUBMIT THE REQUIRED QUALIFICATION DATA TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER BID OPENING. THE DATA WILL BE UTILIZED AFTER BID OPENING, BUT PRIOR TO AWARD, FOR DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY."

IN RESPONSE TO THE SOLICITATION, NAVFAC RECEIVED SEVEN BIDS. DIAMOND, THE SECOND LOW BIDDER, BECAME ELIGIBLE FOR AWARD WHEN THE APPARENT LOW BID WAS REJECTED. SMS MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS SUBMITTED THE NEXT LOW BID WHILE VULCAN SUBMITTED THE APPARENT FOURTH LOW BID.

PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 2.7, THE NAVY REQUESTED DIAMOND TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED DATA CONCERNING THE EXPERIENCE OF THE EQUIPMENT INSTALLER. AFTER CONTRACTING OFFICIALS REJECTED THE INITIAL LIST OF POTENTIAL SUBCONTRACTORS OFFERED BY DIAMOND TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 2.7, DIAMOND, BY LETTER OF JANUARY 31, 1984, PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTING WITH FOUNDRY SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT COMPANY FOR INSTALLATION AND SUBMITTED A STATEMENT DESCRIBING FOUNDRY SYSTEMS' EXPERIENCE ON PROJECTS FOR THE DUCTILE IRON COMPANY OF AMERICA (ALSO KNOWN AS DICOA) AND THE GRIFFIN PIPE PRODUCTS CO.

BY LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 1, VULCAN WROTE NAVFAC CONTESTING THE "CREDENTIALS" OF DIAMOND AND SMS UNDER PARAGRAPH 2.7. HOWEVER, ON FEBRUARY 13, NAVFAC TECHNICAL PERSONNEL CONCLUDED THAT DIAMOND, THROUGH ITS PROPOSED SUBCONTRACT WITH FOUNDRY SYSTEMS, POSSESSED THE REQUISITE EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE RECOMMENDED AWARD TO DIAMOND. ALTHOUGH VULCAN THEN QUESTIONED THE QUALIFICATIONS OF BOTH DIAMOND AND FOUNDRY SYSTEMS IN A FEBRUARY 29 TELEPHONE CALL AND IN A LETTER OF THE SAME DATE APPARENTLY RECEIVED BY CONTRACTING OFFICIALS PRIOR TO AWARD, AND ALTHOUGH VULCAN SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED THAT OFFICIALS OF DICOA AND GRIFFIN HAD CONFIRMED THAT FOUNDRY SYSTEMS HAD ACTED "ONLY AS A BROKER OF EQUIPMENT AND DID NOT PERFORM AS A CONTRACTOR OR ENGINEER," NAVFAC NEVERTHELESS ISSUED A NOTICE OF AWARD TO DIAMOND ON MARCH 5. VULCAN THEREUPON FILED THIS PROTEST WITH OUR OFFICE.

RESPONSIBILITY OF DIAMOND

VULCAN ALLEGES THAT NEITHER DIAMOND NOR FOUNDRY SYSTEMS WAS SHOWN TO POSSESS, OR IN FACT POSSESSED, THE EXPERIENCE IN THE SUCCESSFUL INSTALLATION OF FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 2.7. VULCAN ARGUES THAT THEREFORE NAVFAC'S AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF DIAMOND'S RESPONSIBILITY WAS ERRONEOUS AND THE SUBSEQUENT AWARD TO DIAMOND WAS IMPROPER.

IN RESPONSE, NAVFAC CONTENDS THAT THE DETERMINATION OF DIAMOND'S RESPONSIBILITY BASED UPON THE SATISFACTION OF PARAGRAPH 2.7 BY THE SUBCONTRACT WITH FOUNDRY SYSTEMS WAS REASONABLE. NAVFAC FURTHER ARGUES THAT:

"ESSENTIALLY, THE PROTESTER QUESTIONS THE RELATIVE QUALITY OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED, AND IN SO DOING, RAISES PRECISELY THE TYPE OF QUESTION WHICH YOUR OFFICE HAS RECOGNIZED AS BEST LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. ONCE THE OBJECTIVE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 2.7.1 IS PROVIDED - INFORMATION WITH WHICH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER COULD REASONABLY DETERMINE THE BIDDER TO BE RESPONSIBLE - THE AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION CANNOT BE SET ASIDE SIMPLY BECAUSE ANOTHER BIDDER DISAGREES WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S NECESSARILY SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION."

AS A GENERAL RULE, OUR OFFICE WILL REVIEW AN AGENCY'S AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY ONLY IF POSSIBLE FRAUD ON THE PART OF CONTRACTING OFFICIALS IS SHOWN OR IF THE SOLICITATION REQUIREMENT CONTAINS DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA WHICH ALLEGEDLY HAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED. SEE URBAN MASONRY CORP., B-213196, JAN. 3, 1984, 84-1 CPD PARA. 48.

DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA ARE SPECIFIC AND OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY AN AGENCY FOR USE IN A PARTICULAR PROCUREMENT FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF A BIDDER'S ABILITY TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT. THESE SPECIAL STANDARDS OF RESPONSIBILITY LIMIT THE CLASS OF BIDDERS TO THOSE MEETING SPECIFIED QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE QUALIFICATIONS NECESSARY FOR ADEQUATE CONTRACT PERFORMANCE. WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY FOUND REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 2.7, THAT A CONTRACTOR SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF HAVING SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE IN A PARTICULAR AREA TO CONSTITUTE DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA. SEE URBAN MASONRY CORP., B-2113196, SUPRA, 84-1 CPD PARA. 48 AT 7 (REQUIREMENT THAT INSTALLER HAVE 5 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE ERECTION OF PRECAST CONCRETE UNITS SIMILAR TO THOSE REQUIRED UNDER SOLICITATION); GAFFNY PLUMBING AND HEATING CORP., B-206006, JUNE 2, 1982, 82-1 CPD PARA. 521 (REQUIREMENT THAT BIDDER SUBMIT LIST OF SIMILAR RENOVATIONS IN WHICH BIDDER WAS PRIME CONTRACTOR AND WITH WHICH THE OWNERS HAD BEEN SATISFIED FOR AT LEAST 1 YEAR); GEORGE HYMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF GEORGIA; WESTINGHOUSE ELEVATOR, B-186279, NOV. 11, 1976, 76-2 CPD PARA. 401 (REQUIREMENT THAT BIDDER HAS INSTALLED ON AT LEAST TWO PRIOR PROJECTS COMPARABLE ELEVATORS WHICH HAVE PERFORMED SATISFACTORILY FOR AT LEAST 1 YEAR).

THE SCOPE OF OUR REVIEW IS LIMITED TO ASCERTAINING WHETHER EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FROM WHICH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REASONABLY COULD CONCLUDE THAT THE DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA HAD BEEN MET. AMPEX CORP., B-212356, NOV. 15, 1983, 83-2 CPD PARA. 565. ALTHOUGH, AS NAVFAC POINTS OUT, WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE RELATIVE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE IS A MATTER FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, SEE URBAN MASONRY CORP., B-213196, SUPRA, 84-1 CPD PARA. 48 AT 7, NEVERTHELESS, WE HAVE ALSO INSISTED UPON THE PRESENCE OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA, ID., AND WE HAVE SUSTAINED PROTESTS AGAINST AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY WHERE SUCH EVIDENCE IS LACKING, SEE AMPEX CORP., B-212356, SUPRA, 83-2 CPD PARA. 565 AT 3 (AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOUND TO BE UNREASONABLE WHERE SOLICITATION REQUIRED SUBMISSION OF THE NAMES OF BIDDER'S CLIENTS OPERATING AGENCY'S AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING HARDWARE IN A DUAL OR TRIPLE PROCESSOR ENVIRONMENT AND ONE CLIENT CITED BY BIDDER OPERATED A SINGLE PROCESSOR SYSTEM WHILE OTHER CLIENT HAD NOT YET COMMENCED OPERATING ITS SYSTEM); POWER SYSTEMS, B-210032, AUG. 23, 1983, 83-2 CPD PARA. 232 (AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOUND TO BE UNREASONABLE WHERE SOLICITATION REQUIRED EXPERIENCE WITH ENGINE IDENTICAL TO THAT OFFERED IN BID BUT BIDDER ONLY CITED EXPERIENCE WITH A DIFFERENT ENGINE).

VULCAN AND NAVFAC HAVE ADVANCED CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY PARAGRAPH 2.7. IN ADDITION TO DISPUTING WHAT CONSTITUTES A CERTIFICATION OF SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, AS DISCUSSED BELOW, THEY ALSO DISAGREE AS TO HOW MANY FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS MUST BE INSTALLED IN EACH INSTALLATION.

VULCAN ARGUES THAT THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT IT HAS INSTALLED TWO "COMPLETE" FOUNDRY SYSTEMS CONTAINING ALL SIX OF THE FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS. THIS INTERPRETATION RECEIVES SUPPORT FROM THE WARNING IN THE NAVY MEMO THAT "ALL OF THE INDEPENDENT PIECES MUST BE PRECISELY COORDINATED TO PROVIDE A FUNCTIONAL FOUNDRY SYSTEM," FROM THE CONCERN EXPRESSED THEREIN THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAVE "EXPERIENCE IN TOTAL SYSTEM START UP AND ... DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF ... HOW ALL THE PROCESS VARIABLES INTERRELATE," AND FROM THE REQUIREMENT IN THE PROPOSED IFB CLAUSE NOT ADOPTED BY NAVFAC THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAVE EXPERIENCE IN "PROVIDING AND INSTALLING TURNKEY CHEMICALLY BONDED FOUNDRY SYSTEMS."

NAVFAC, BY CONTRAST, CONTENDS THAT PARAGRAPH 2.7 MERELY REQUIRES THAT THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER DEMONSTRATE THAT IT HAS SUCCESSFULLY INSTALLED EACH OF THE SIX LISTED FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS IN AT LEAST TWO INSTALLATIONS, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT EACH INSTALLATION INCLUDE ALL SIX OF THE SYSTEMS. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THE PARAGRAPH 2.7 STATES THAT THE EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET FOR "EACH OF THE FOLLOWING (6) FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS," REQUIRING EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST TWO "INSTALLATIONS" WHERE THE CONTRACTOR HAS INSTALLED "SUCH SYSTEMS." ARGUABLY, THE ABOVE FOCUS ON MEETING THE EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENT OF TWO INSTALLATIONS OF EACH OF THE SIX FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS RATHER THAN ON INSTALLING "COMPLETE" FOUNDRY SYSTEMS COULD BE INTERPRETED AS ONLY REQUIRING THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER TO DEMONSTRATE EXPERIENCE IN THE INSTALLATION OF MELTING SYSTEMS AT TWO LOCATIONS, MOLDING SYSTEMS AT TWO, POSSIBLY DIFFERENT, LOCATIONS, ETC.

HOWEVER, WE NEED NOT RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE SINCE WE CONCLUDE THAT UNDER EITHER INTERPRETATION THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA TO PERMIT AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY. IN REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTING OFFICIALS WHEN THEY FOUND DIAMOND TO BE RESPONSIBLE, WE INITIALLY NOTE THAT NAVFAC DENIES THAT IT WAS ON NOTICE PRIOR TO THE AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF DIAMOND'S RESPONSIBILITY THAT VULCAN WAS CHALLENGING FOUNDRY SYSTEMS' CREDENTIALS AS WELL AS THOSE OF DIAMOND ITSELF. IN THIS REGARD, NAVFAC POINTS OUT THAT THE FEBRUARY 29 LETTER IN WHICH VULCAN FIRST QUESTIONED FOUNDRY SYSTEM'S CREDENTIALS WAS NOT RECEIVED UNTIL AFTER THE FEBRUARY 13 MEMORANDUM IN WHICH NAVFAC TECHNICAL PERSONNEL DETERMINED THAT FOUNDRY SYSTEMS MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 2.7 AND RECOMMENDED AWARD TO DIAMOND. HOWEVER, RESPONSIBILITY IS DETERMINED AS OF THE TIME OF AWARD - HERE MARCH 5 - AND THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER NECESSARILY INCLUDES AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OF THE AWARDEE'S RESPONSIBILITY. SEE B.H. AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC., B-210798, APRIL 1, 1983, 83-1 CPD PARA. 344. ACCORDINGLY, NOT ONLY HAVE WE HELD THAT EVIDENCE OF A FIRM'S RESPONSIBILITY MAY BE FURNISHED AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO AWARD, SEE TECOM INC., B-211899, JUNE 27, 1983, 83-2 CPD PARA. 28, BUT WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT A CONTRACTING AGENCY MAY NOT FAIL TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO MAKE AWARD TO A PARTICULAR BIDDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO AWARD AND TENDING TO SHOW THE NONRESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED AWARDEE. CF. BEACON WINCH COMPANY - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, B-204787.2, AUG. 15, 1983, 83-2 CPD PARA. 205 (RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION SHOULD BE BASED UPON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER); INFLATED PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., B-189115, OCT. 31, 1977, 77-2 CPD PARA. 334 (CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD MAKE FINAL DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE AS CLOSELY AS PRACTICABLE TO CONTRACT AWARD); HENRY SPEN & COMPANY, INC., B-183164, JAN. 27, 1976, 76-1 CPD PARA. 46 (SINCE A PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE MEASURED WITH RESPECT TO INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF AWARD, IT WAS PROPER FOR A CONTRACTING AGENCY TO CONSIDER INFORMATION BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION AFTER THE INITIAL FINDING OF NONRESPONSIBILITY BUT PRIOR TO AWARD OF ANY CONTRACT); RADIATION SYSTEMS, INC., B-180268, JULY 29, 1974, 74-2 CPD PARA. 65 (PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE MEASURED WITH RESPECT TO INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT TIME OF AWARD RATHER THAN AT AN EARLIER TIME). SINCE A HAND-WRITTEN NOTATION ON VULCAN'S FEBRUARY 29 LETTER INDICATES THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED BY CONTRACTING AUTHORITIES PRIOR TO AWARD, WE CANNOT AGREE THAT NAVFAC WAS NOT ON NOTICE AS TO VULCAN'S CHALLENGE TO FOUNDRY SYSTEMS' COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 2.7 WHEN IT FOUND DIAMOND TO BE RESPONSIBLE.

VULCAN CONTENDS THAT THE JANUARY 31 LETTER FROM DIAMOND, IN WHICH THAT FIRM DESCRIBED THE EXPERIENCE OF ITS PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTOR, FOUNDRY SYSTEMS, DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS UPON WHICH NAVFAC COULD REASONABLY DETERMINE THAT DIAMOND COMPLIED WITH THE DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA. WE AGREE.

IN THAT LETTER, DIAMOND STATED WITH REGARD TO FOUNDRY SYSTEMS:

"EXPERIENCE:

1) DUCTILE IRON CO. OF AMERICA (DICOA)

LATHROP AVENUE P.O. BOX 2005 SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 31402 JAMES RENDEIRO, PRESIDENT 912-234-4423

AIR SET SYSTEM WITH A MOLD CAPACITY OF 5'X5'X15"/15" CONSTRUCTION STARTED 1978 COMPLETED 1978 DECEMBER START UP 1979 JANUARY SYSTEM CAPACITY AND NORMAL LOAD MOLD 5 MAXIMUM IS 5"X5"X3" - CONTINUOUS MIXER SIZE IS 1,200 LBS. PER MIN. 9 TONS OF DUCTILE IRON PER HOUR. POUR CAPACITY INTO VARIOUS MOLD SIZES PLUS A GREEN SAND SIDE FLOOR. NORMAL LOAD IS DETERMINED BY INFLUX OF COMMERCIAL ORDERS. OPERATION AT GREATER THAN 90 PERCENT. 4 YEARS PROCESS SYSTEM DESIGNED BY FOUNDRY SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT CO. CONSTRUCTED BY FOUNDRY SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT CO.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT - WE ARE FORWARDING DRAWINGS & ILLUSTRATIONS AND A REPRINT FROM A CASTING MAGAZINE.

2) GRIFFIN PIPE PROD. DIV.

AMSTEAD INDUSTRIES UPPER BASIN-P.O. BOX 740 LYNCHBURG, VA. 24505 GEORGE D. FERGUSON,

JR. 804-845-8021

AIR SET SYSTEM WITH A MOLD CAPACITY/SIZE OF 30"X48"X15"X15" (VARIOUS CAST IRON FLASK SIZE)

CONSTRUCTION START DATE - 1980 JUNE COMPLETION - 1981 JANUARY START UP DATE - 1981 FEBRUARY THE SYSTEM CAPACITY AND NORMAL LOAD ... MOLD SIZE VARIES BUT A NOMINAL SIZE WOULD BE 30" X 48" X 15/15" NORMAL LOADING WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 30 MOLDS PER HOUR. NORMAL LOADING IS DICTATED BY THE INFLUX OF COMMERCIAL ORDERS. OPERATING AT GREATER THAN 90 PERCENT - 1-1/2 YEARS. PROCESS SYSTEM DESIGNED BY FOUNDRY SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT CO. CONSTRUCTED BY FOUNDRY SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT CO.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT - WE ARE FORWARDING DRAWINGS & ILLUSTRATIONS. THIS PLANT MAKES WATER, GAS & SOIL PIPE FILLINGS (FITTINGS) - AN ADJUNCT TO A DUCTILE IRON PRESSURE PIPE MANUFACTURING FOUNDRY.

IN ADDITION, FOUNDRY SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT CO., INC. HAS BEEN DESIGNING FOUNDRIES AND FURNISHING EQUIPMENT & SYSTEMS IN ALL METAL CONFIGURATIONS FOR OVER 31 YEARS."

PARAGRAPH 2.7 REQUIRES THAT THE BIDDER "CERTIFY THAT EACH SYSTEM HAS PERFORMED SATISFACTORILY IN THE MANNER INTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN 24 MONTHS." HOWEVER, DIAMOND'S JANUARY 31 LETTER INCLUDES NO SUCH EXPRESS CERTIFICATION FOR EITHER THE DICOA OR THE GRIFFIN PROJECTS.

NAVFAC CONTENDS THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE REFERS HERE TO THE START UP DATE AND THAT THEREFORE DIAMOND IN EFFECT CERTIFIED TO SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE FOR NOT LESS THAN 24 MONTHS BY INDICATING A JANUARY 1979 START UP DATE FOR DICOA AND A FEBRUARY 1981 START UP DATE FOR GRIFFIN. THE SOLICITATION LANGUAGE, HOWEVER, SUGGESTS THAT MERE REFERENCE TO A START-UP DATE CANNOT CONSTITUTE THE REQUIRED CERTIFICATION. GIVEN THE USE IN PARAGRAPH 2.7 OF PHRASES SUCH AS "SUCCESSFULLY INSTALLED" AND "PERFORMED SATISFACTORILY", WE BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE PARAGRAPH IS THAT THE SOLICITATION DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN EXPERIENCE WITH FOUNDRY SYSTEMS WHICH MERELY COMMENCED OPERATION AND EXPERIENCE WITH THOSE WHICH WERE IN SUCCESSFUL OR SATISFACTORY OPERATION. THAT THIS INDEED REFLECTED THE INTENT OF THE NAVY IS FURTHER SUGGESTED BY THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROJECT AS A HIGHLY SPECIALIZED, DEMANDING ONE, REQUIRING DETAILED KNOWLEDGE AND EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE. ONLY SUCCESSFUL CONTRACTORS WERE CONSIDERED CAPABLE OF UNDERTAKING SUCH A DIFFICULT FOUNDRY MODERNIZATION PROJECT. SINCE THE START UP DATE REVEALS NOTHING AS TO WHETHER THE SUBSEQUENT PERFORMANCE WAS SATISFACTORY, THIS INFORMATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AN IMPLICIT CERTIFICATION OF SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE FOR NOT LESS THAN 24 MONTHS.

IN ADDITION, THE NAVY HAS CITED NOTHING IN THE JANUARY 31 LETTER INDICATING THAT FOUNDRY SYSTEMS "INSTALLED" THE REQUIRED SIX FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS IN TWO PROJECTS. ALTHOUGH NAVFAC CLAIMS THAT CONTRACTING OFFICIALS ALSO RECEIVED "FAVORABLE IMPRESSIONS" OF FOUNDRY SYSTEMS FROM THE PRESIDENT AND ANOTHER EMPLOYEE OF GRIFFIN BEFORE AWARD AND THAT A NAVFAC ATTORNEY WAS TOLD BY THE PRESIDENTS OF DICOA AND GRIFFIN AFTER AWARD THAT FOUNDRY SYSTEMS "BORE OVERALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INSTALLATION" OF THEIR FOUNDRY SYSTEMS, THIS INFORMATION LIKEWISE FAILS TO SHOW THAT FOUNDRY SYSTEMS INSTALLED THE SIX FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEMS IN THE TWO PROJECTS.

IN ANY CASE, WE NOTE THAT VULCAN HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF DICOA INDICATING THAT HE TOLD THE NAVY THAT FOUNDRY SYSTEMS BORE "OVERALL RESPONSIBILITY" FOR ONLY A SEGMENT OF THE PROJECT AND A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF GRIFFIN INDICATING THAT HE TOLD THE NAVY THAT FOUNDRY SYSTEM DID NOT "HAVE OVERALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGN NOR ANY APPRECIABLE CONNECTION IN INSTALLATION OR START-UP. ..." WE ALSO NOTE THAT FOUNDRY SYSTEM ITSELF ADMITS IN A JULY 1984 LETTER TO NAVFAC IN REGARDS TO THE DICOA PROJECT THAT (1) "NOT MUCH EXPERIENCE" WAS GATHERED IN REGARDS TO THE MELTING AND CASTING CLEANING SYSTEMS SINCE THEY WERE ALREADY IN PLACE AND (2) THAT THE RECLAMATION SYSTEM WAS "PURCHASED" AS A SEPARATE PROJECT. IN REGARDS TO THE GRIFFIN PROJECT, FOUNDRY SYSTEMS ADMITS THAT (1) A VENTILATION SYSTEM WAS "NOT A FACTOR" AND (2) THAT ITS ONLY INVOLVEMENT IN THE INSTALLATION OF THE MELTING AND MOLDING SYSTEMS WAS IN "INTERFACE" FOR THE FORMER AND IN "INTERFACE" AND "OVER-ALL CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT" FOR THE LATTER. ALTHOUGH WE RECOGNIZE THAT A RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED UPON INFORMATION SUBMITTED AFTER AWARD AND THAT OFFERORS MUST ESTABLISH COMPLIANCE WITH DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA PRIOR TO AWARD, SEE HOLLFELDER TECHNISCHE DIENSTE GMBH, B212403.4 MAY 3, 1984, 84-1 CPD PARA. 506; POWER TESTING, INC., B197190, JULY 28, 1980, 80-2 CPD PARA. 72, WE BELIEVE THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION DOES SUGGEST THAT ANY INFORMATION AS TO FOUNDRY SYSTEMS' EXPERIENCE ON THE DICOA AND GRIFFIN PROJECTS WHICH NAVFAC RECEIVED PRIOR TO AWARD WAS UNLIKELY TO HAVE INDICATED THAT SUCH EXPERIENCE MET THE DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 2.7.

IN ARGUING THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION WAS REASONABLE, NAVFAC ALSO CITES OTHER SPECIFIC SOURCES OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION "AVAILABLE AND USED IN THE EVALUATION OF FOUNDRY SYSTEMS," INCLUDING: (1) A SEPTEMBER 1979 ARTICLE IN A TRADE PUBLICATION EXAMINING DICOA'S NEW FOUNDRY, (2) A FOUNDRY SYSTEMS' MEMORANDUM SUMMARIZING A JULY 1980 CONFERENCE HELD WITH NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD PERSONNEL CONCERNING THE FOUNDRY MODERNIZATION PROJECT, (3) THE STANDARD FORMS 254, "ARCHITECT ENGINEER AND RELATED SERVICES QUESTIONNAIRE," AND 255, "ARCHITECT ENGINEER AND RELATED SERVICES QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SPECIFIC PROJECT," SUBMITTED BY FOUNDRY SYSTEMS IN APRIL 1981 WHEN COMPETING FOR THE CONTRACT TO PREPARE THE SOLICITATION SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE FOUNDRY MODERNIZATION PROJECT, (4) THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED JULY 1983 MEMORANDUM FROM THE COMMANDER OF THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD IN WHICH, WITH THE ASSERTED CONCURRENCE OF THE PROJECT ARCHITECT- ENGINEER, HE LISTED FOUNDRY SYSTEMS AMONG THOSE FIRMS "QUALIFIED" TO UNDERTAKE THE PROJECT, AND (5) OTHER, UNSPECIFIED "WORD OF MOUTH RECOMMENDATIONS RECEIVED FROM CONTACTS IN THE FOUNDRY INDUSTRY" SINCE THE ABOVE JULY 1980 CONFERENCE.

WE HAVE EXAMINED THIS EVIDENCE AND WE FIND NOTHING IN IT WHICH, EVEN WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED EVIDENCE, WOULD PROVIDE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THAT FOUNDRY SYSTEMS HAD SUCCESSFULLY INSTALLED EACH FOUNDRY PROCESS SYSTEM IN AT LEAST TWO PROJECTS, WITH SUCH SYSTEMS PERFORMING SATISFACTORILY FOR NOT LESS THAN 24 MONTHS.

MOREOVER, WE BELIEVE THAT NAVFAC'S EMPHASIS UPON FOUNDRY SYSTEMS' GENERAL REPUTATION REFLECTS A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA. NAVFAC ARGUES THAT "THE REPUTATION OF A FIRM IN THE INDUSTRY MORE VALUABLE INFORMATION THAN DATA SUBMITTED BY A FIRM IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR A RESUME OF PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS." HOWEVER, AS WE INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA LIMIT THE CLASS OF BIDDERS TO THOSE MEETING SPECIFIC QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE QUALIFICATIONS. EVIDENCE WHICH RELATES TO A FIRM'S GENERAL REPUTATION RATHER THAN TO THOSE SPECIFIC QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE QUALIFICATIONS DOES NOT SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA.

SINCE THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO CONTRACTING OFFICIALS PRIOR TO AWARD DID NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION THAT DIAMOND, THROUGH ITS PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTOR, COMPLIED WITH THE DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA OF PARAGRAPH 2.7, THE AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF DIAMOND'S RESPONSIBILITY AND THE RESULTING AWARD TO DIAMOND WERE IMPROPER.

THE PROTEST AS IT RELATES TO DIAMOND'S RESPONSIBILITY IS SUSTAINED.

RESPONSIBILITY OF SMS

VULCAN HAS INDICATED THAT IT ALSO CONTESTS THE CREDENTIALS OF SMS UNDER PARAGRAPH 2.7. IN APPARENT SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, VULCAN STATES THAT IT HAS BEEN INFORMED BY THE NAVY THAT "THE SECOND LOWEST BIDDER," BY WHICH WE UNDERSTAND VULCAN TO BE REFERRING TO SMS AFTER THE INITIAL REJECTION OF THE APPARENT LOW BID, DOES NOT HAVE THE EXPERIENCE REQUIRED UNDER THE DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA. VULCAN HAS SUBMITTED NO OTHER EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING SMS' ALLEGED INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH PARAGRAPH 2.7.

NAVFAC ADVISES THAT ITS CONTRACTING OFFICIALS ONLY INVESTIGATE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPARENT LOW OFFEROR ELIGIBLE FOR AWARD, THAT NAVFAC HAS NOT INVESTIGATED SMS'S ELIGIBILITY, AND THAT NAVFAC HAS NO INDICATION THAT SMS IS NONRESPONSIBLE. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT THE DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS, SEC. 1-905.1(D), REPRINTED IN 32 C.F.R. PTS. 39 (1983), PROVIDES THAT, "GENERALLY, INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY SHALL BE OBTAINED ONLY CONCERNING PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS WITHIN RANGE FOR AN AWARD." MOREOVER, PARAGRAPH 2.7 STATES ONLY THAT THE "APPARENT LOW BIDDER SHALL SUBMIT THE REQUIRED QUALIFICATION DATA. ..."

ON THIS RECORD, THEREFORE, WE CANNOT DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF VULCAN'S CONTENTIONS REGARDING SMS.

TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE

VULCAN REQUESTS THAT WE RECOMMEND TERMINATION FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF DIAMOND'S CONTRACT.

IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND TERMINATION, WE CONSIDER SUCH FACTORS AS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROCUREMENT DEFICIENCY, THE DEGREE OF PREJUDICE TO OTHER OFFERORS OR TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT SYSTEM, THE GOOD FAITH OF THE PARTIES, THE EXTENT OF PERFORMANCE, THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE URGENCY OF THE PROCUREMENT, AND THE IMPACT OF TERMINATION ON THE PROCURING AGENCY'S MISSION. SEE AMDAHL CORP.; VION CORP. - RECONSIDERATION, B-212018.3, ET AL., DEC. 19, 1983, 83-2 CPD PARA. 703. NAVFAC INFORMS US THAT SUBSTANTIAL DELAYS IN PERFORMING THE FOUNDRY MODERNIZATION, THE NEED FOR WHICH AROSE SOME YEARS AGO, AND SUBSTANTIAL COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT WOULD RESULT FROM A TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT WITH DIAMOND AND AWARD TO ANOTHER FIRM. APPROXIMATELY 6 MONTHS OF THE 15 MONTHS ALLOWED FOR PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT HAVE EXPIRED. NAVFAC INDICATES THAT, IN ADDITION TO THE INEVITABLE DELAY BETWEEN ANY RECOMMENDATION FOR A TERMINATION AND THE SUBSEQUENT AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO A NEW CONTRACTOR, THE TIME SPENT THUS FAR IS PREPARING DETAILED BLUEPRINTS AND PLANS WOULD BE LOST IF AWARD WERE MADE TO ANOTHER FIRM SINCE A NEW CONTRACTOR WOULD LIKELY INSIST UPON PREPARING ITS OWN DETAILED BLUEPRINTS AND PLANS. IN ADDITION, NAVFAC ESTIMATES THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD BE LIABLE FOR UP TO $250,000 IN DIRECT COSTS INCURRED IN PERFORMING THE CONTRACT, $60,000 IN OVERHEAD, PLUS UNSPECIFIED LOST PROFITS AND COSTS IN PREPARING THE CONTRACTOR'S TERMINATION CLAIM.

FINALLY, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMALLY ADVISED BY NAVFAC THAT IT INTENDS TO RECONSIDER THE USE OF SUCH DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA IN FUTURE SOLICITATIONS.

SINCE THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT APPEARS TO BE OUT OF PROPORTION TO ANY BENEFITS RECEIVED FROM TERMINATION, WE DECLINE TO RECOMMEND THAT NAVFAC TERMINATE DIAMOND'S CONTRACT FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT. SEE AMDAHL CORP.: VION CORP. - RECONSIDERATION, B-212918.3 ET AL., SUPRA, 83-2 CPD PARA. 703 AT 5. OUR REVIEW OF THE RECORD ALSO SUGGESTS THAT THE STRINGENT DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA USED IN THIS SOLICITATION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY TO THE SELECTION OF A CONTRACTOR CAPABLE OF SATISFACTORILY PERFORMING THE WORK.

BID PREPARATION COSTS

VULCAN REQUESTS THAT WE AWARD IT THE COST OF PREPARING ITS BID IN THE EVENT THAT WE CONSIDER TERMINATION AN INAPPROPRIATE REMEDY HERE. AS A GENERAL RULE, THE CLAIMANT MUST SHOW THAT BUT FOR THE UNFAIR AGENCY ACTION IT WOULD HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL CHANCE OF RECEIVING AN AWARD. SPACE AGE ENGINEERING, INC., B-209543.2, APR. 19, 1984, 84-1 CPD PARA. 447. CANNOT SAY THAT VULCAN SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED AN AWARD IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF AN INTERMEDIATE BIDDER WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS UNDETERMINED. WE HAVE RECOGNIZED, HOWEVER, THAT THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A VALID CLAIM FOR BID PREPARATION COSTS MAY EXIST EVEN WHERE THE FIRM WHOSE PROTEST IS SUSTAINED MIGHT NOT HAVE RECEIVED AN AWARD. SEE UNIFIED INDUSTRIES INC., B212966.2, AUG. 1, 1984, 84-2 CPD PARA. 139. HERE, THE AGENCY INCLUDED IN ITS SOLICITATION UNUSUALLY DETAILED AND STRINGENT DEFINITIVE CRITERIA OF RESPONSIBILITY BUT PROCEEDED WITH AWARD TO A FIRM WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE MET THOSE CRITERIA. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR VULCAN, WHO PROTESTED THIS AWARD, TO RECOVER ITS COSTS OF PREPARING ITS BID.

THE PROTEST AND CLAIM FOR BID PREPARATION COSTS ARE SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs