B-158933, APR. 29, 1966
Highlights
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: HEREWITH IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY TO GREAT LAKES DREDGE AND DOCK COMPANY DENYING THAT FIRM'S PROTEST AGAINST THE REJECTION OF ALL BIDS UNDER IFB NO. THAT EXPRESSES VIEWS WHICH WE FEEL ARE EQUALLY PERTINENT TO THE SPECIFICATIONS USED BY THE BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS IN THE ABOVE IFB. THIS MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF A REPORT TO THIS OFFICE DATED APRIL 19. THE BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS HAS REPORTED THAT NO SHORE DISPOSAL AREAS FOR THE SPOIL PERMITTING SUCH MEANS OF DREDGING WERE KNOWN TO IT AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE IFB. BIDDERS IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS ARE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY WHENEVER PRACTICABLE TO INITIALLY SUBMIT BIDS BASED ON ACCOMPLISHING THE DESIRED DREDGING AND SATISFACTORILY DISPOSING OF THE SPOIL BY THE MOST ECONOMICAL MEANS AVAILABLE TO THEM.
B-158933, APR. 29, 1966
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:
HEREWITH IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY TO GREAT LAKES DREDGE AND DOCK COMPANY DENYING THAT FIRM'S PROTEST AGAINST THE REJECTION OF ALL BIDS UNDER IFB NO. NBY-70528, SPEC. NO. 70528/66, ISSUED MARCH 14, 1966, TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF APRIL 1, 1964, B-153004 (43 COMP. GEN. 643), THAT EXPRESSES VIEWS WHICH WE FEEL ARE EQUALLY PERTINENT TO THE SPECIFICATIONS USED BY THE BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS IN THE ABOVE IFB. THIS MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF A REPORT TO THIS OFFICE DATED APRIL 19, 1966, FROM YOUR COUNSEL, BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS PRECLUDED THE SUBMISSION OF RESPONSIVE BIDS BASED ON THE USE OF THE HYDRAULIC METHOD OF DREDGING, AND THE BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS HAS REPORTED THAT NO SHORE DISPOSAL AREAS FOR THE SPOIL PERMITTING SUCH MEANS OF DREDGING WERE KNOWN TO IT AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE IFB.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENT POINTS OUT CLEARLY THE UNDESIRABLE SITUATIONS THAT MAY BE EXPECTED TO RESULT FROM THE USE OF DREDGING PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS WHICH AUTOMATICALLY RENDER A BID NONRESPONSIVE FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THE BIDDER PROPOSED THE USE OF A DIFFERENT (BUT SATISFACTORY) DISPOSAL AREA OR METHOD OF DREDGING THAN THAT DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
WE THEREFORE ASK THAT YOUR EXISTING PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES BE REVIEWED, AND, IF NECESSARY, AMENDED TO INSURE THAT, IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE COMPETITIVE ADVERTISING SYSTEM, BIDDERS IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS ARE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY WHENEVER PRACTICABLE TO INITIALLY SUBMIT BIDS BASED ON ACCOMPLISHING THE DESIRED DREDGING AND SATISFACTORILY DISPOSING OF THE SPOIL BY THE MOST ECONOMICAL MEANS AVAILABLE TO THEM.
INASMUCH AS INVITATIONS ON DREDGING SHOULD ADVISE BIDDERS OF ALL AVAILABLE DISPOSAL LOCATIONS WHICH MAY BE LOCATED WITH REASONABLE EFFORTS, YOU MAY ALSO WISH TO REVIEW YOUR DEPARTMENT'S PRESENT PROCEDURES IN THIS AREA, SINCE IT WOULD APPEAR THEY WERE INEFFECTIVE IN THE PRESENT PROCUREMENT IN BRINGING THE LIGHT THE EXISTING NEEDS OF TWO LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES FOR SPOIL.
THE FILE TRANSMITTED WITH YOUR COUNSEL'S REPORT OF APRIL 19 IS RETURNED.