B-123491, B-124279, AUG. 8, 1955

B-123491,B-124279: Aug 8, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Ralph O. White
(202) 512-8278
WhiteRO@gao.gov

Kenneth E. Patton
(202) 512-8205
PattonK@gao.gov

 

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

TO ROLLINS FLEET LEASING: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 15. SINCE THE TIME LIMITATION WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE FREE AND OPEN COMPETITION REQUIRED BY SECTION 3709. IT IS STATED IN YOUR LETTER THAT A REVIEW OF THE DECISION IS REQUESTED WITH A VIEW OF ALLEVIATING THE PENALTY INFLICTED UPON YOUR ORGANIZATION BY THE UNFORTUNATE COINCIDENCE OF A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION OF THE PURPORTED ACTIONS OF OTHER PARTIES AND THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTS SHOULD INFLUENCE A DECISION IN YOUR FAVOR: "1. THEIR "RESTRICTIVE" FINDING WAS DIRECTED TOWARD OTHER PARTIES. "2. THE ABILITY TO MEET AND PERFORM GOVERNMENT CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS IS NOT NECESSARILY INHERENT IN EVERY ORGANIZATION LARGE AND SMALL. "4.

B-123491, B-124279, AUG. 8, 1955

TO ROLLINS FLEET LEASING:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 15, 1955, TO THE

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF JUNE 24, 1955, COPY HEREWITH, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ADVISING THAT, SINCE THE TIME LIMITATION WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE FREE AND OPEN COMPETITION REQUIRED BY SECTION 3709, REVISED STATUTES, NO AWARD SHOULD BE MADE UNDER INVITATIONS FOR BIDS NOS. P103 AND P109 ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS FOR THE LEASING OF PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLES TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AT CHEROKEE, NORTH CAROLINA, AND ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, DURING THE FISCAL YEAR, 1956.

IT IS STATED IN YOUR LETTER THAT A REVIEW OF THE DECISION IS REQUESTED WITH A VIEW OF ALLEVIATING THE PENALTY INFLICTED UPON YOUR ORGANIZATION BY THE UNFORTUNATE COINCIDENCE OF A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION OF THE PURPORTED ACTIONS OF OTHER PARTIES AND THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTS SHOULD INFLUENCE A DECISION IN YOUR FAVOR:

"1. THEIR "RESTRICTIVE" FINDING WAS DIRECTED TOWARD OTHER PARTIES.

"2. OUR PROPOSAL MET ALL REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT EXCEPTION INCLUDING AN ALTERNATE PROPOSAL AVAILABLE TO ANY BIDDER.

"3. THE ABILITY TO MEET AND PERFORM GOVERNMENT CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS IS NOT NECESSARILY INHERENT IN EVERY ORGANIZATION LARGE AND SMALL.

"4. AS A DISINTERESTED PARTY IN THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS AND UNIFORMED AS TO THE PROS AND CONS THEREOF, WE DO NOT TAKE A POSITION WHETHER OR NOT THE BID WAS RESTRICTIVE. HOWEVER, THE GAG'S DECISION THAT THEY WERE RESTRICTIVE AND FAVORED ANOTHER PARTY THUS GENERATING SEVERE OPERATING CONDITIONS ON ROLLINS AS LOW BIDDER OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT WE AGREED TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. OUR COMPANY HAS GROWN TO ONE OF THE LARGEST IN THE NATION DUE TO AGGRESSIVENESS, ABILITY, AND EXPERIENCE TO MEET ANY AND ALL OPERATING CONDITIONS AND AS IMPORTANT THE COURAGE TO EXPLORE NEW AREAS IN THE LEASING OF AUTOMOBILES, TRUCKS, AND AIRCRAFT.

"5. A REVIEW OF OUR BIDS FOR FINANCE LEASING AND MAINTENANCE LEASING MAKES IT APPARENT THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN A PROPER LEASING PROGRAM TO MEET GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL RESULT IN IMPORTANT ECONOMIES AND THE MOST EFFICIENT OPERATIONS. THE INTENT OF THE INVITATIONS WAS TO SET UP A PILOT PROGRAM AND WE STAND READY TO PROVE ITS FEASIBILITY.'

AT THE OUTSET, LET IT BE STATED THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARING CONCERNING THE LEASING OF AUTOMOBILES BY THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS HAD NO BEARING ON THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THE DECISION OF JUNE 24, 1955. THE DECISION WAS BASED SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT THE MAXIMUM OF 14 DAYS ALLOWED BY THE INVITATIONS FOR DELIVERY OF THE AUTOMOBILES AT CHEROKEE, NORTH CAROLINA, AND ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, WAS TOO UNREALISTIC TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FREE AND OPEN COMPETITION.

THE "RESTRICTIVE" FINDING WAS NOT DIRECTED TOWARDS ANY PARTIES BUT AGAINST THE DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS OF THE INVITATIONS FOR BIDS. UNDER THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM, AN INVITATION MAY NOT CONTAIN RESTRICTIONS OR CONDITIONS, NOT REQUIRED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH TEND TO LIMIT COMPETITION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHILE YOUR ORGANIZATION MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MEET THE DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS, YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE OF THE FIVE BIDDERS WHO WAS IN THAT POSITION. ALSO, HAD A REASONABLE TIME FOR DELIVERY BEEN ALLOWED, OTHER BIDDERS MIGHT HAVE RESPONDED.

ACCORDINGLY, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS TO MODIFY THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THE DECISION OF JUNE 24, 1955.

Oct 29, 2020

Oct 28, 2020

Oct 27, 2020

  • Silver Investments, Inc.
    We dismiss the protest as untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after the protester knew, or should have known, the basis for its protest.
    B-419028

Looking for more? Browse all our products here