B-183098, FEB 13, 1975

B-183098, FEB 13, 1975

ALLEGATION THAT DECISION OF GOVERNMENT TO EXERCISE OPTION WAS IN VIOLATION OF TERMS OF CONTRACT AS OPTION PERIOD HAS EXPIRED, IS NOT FOR RESOLUTION UNDER BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

MURDOCK MACHINE & ENGINEERING CO. OF UTAH:

MURDOCK MACHINE & ENGINEERING CO. OF UTAH (MURDOCK) PROTESTS THE EXERCISING OF AN OPTION UNDER CONTRACT NO. N00104-74-C-B431 HELD BY THE NAVY SHIPS PARTS CONTROL CENTER, MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA. MURDOCK CONTENDS THAT THE OPTION IN QUESTION WAS EXERCISED 6 DAYS AFTER THE OPTION PERIOD HAD EXPIRED. THE CONTRACT REFERENCED ABOVE ALLEGEDLY REQUIRED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO GIVE MURDOCK WRITTEN NOTICE WITHIN THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE OPTION PERIOD. THIS, MURDOCK CONTENDS, WAS NOT DONE AS THE OPTION EXPIRED ON JANUARY 15, 1975, BUT IT WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE DECISION TO EXERCISE THE OPTION UNTIL JANUARY 21, 1975. THEREFORE, MURDOCK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE OPTION WAS ILLEGAL.

THE QUESTION PRESENTED PERTAINS TO CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION WHICH IS A FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCY. MATTERS OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION ARE NOT FOR RESOLUTION UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES WHICH ARE RESERVED FOR CONSIDERING WHETHER AN AWARD, OR PROPOSED AWARD, OF A CONTRACT COMPLIES WITH STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

SINCE THE ALLEGATION PRESENTED BY MURDOCK DEALS ESSENTIALLY WITH WHETHER THE OPTION COULD PROPERLY BE EXERCISED UNDER THE CONTRACT, IT APPEARS APPROPRIATE FOR HANDLING UNDER THE DISPUTES CLAUSE OF THE CONTRACT AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE.