B-157471, NOV. 5, 1965
Highlights
TO MUNSTON ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING CORP.: WE HAVE YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 1. YOU IMPLY THAT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AND STATE THAT YOU ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHOICE OF CERTAIN REPAIR PARTS CALLED FOR BY THE SPECIFICATION IS DEFINITE OR FLEXIBLE AND ELECTIVE. FURTHER EXPRESS THE OPINION THAT THE SPECIFICATION IS NOT DEFINITE BUT IS ELECTIVE. THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A SPECIFICATION IS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO ALLOW BIDDERS TO COMPETE ON A COMMON BASIS. WE ARE STILL OF THE OPINION THAT. THAT DISCRETION IS LIMITED BY WELL-DEFINED GUIDELINES. WHILE YOURS WAS $295. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN A LOOSE OR VARYING INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIFICATION SUCH AS YOU SUGGEST.
B-157471, NOV. 5, 1965
TO MUNSTON ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING CORP.:
WE HAVE YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 1, 1965, REQUESTING THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION B-157471, SEPTEMBER 28, 1965, IN WHICH WE DENIED YOUR PROTEST OF AWARD OF A CONTRACT UNDER NAVY INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 600-930-65 TO ANY OTHER BIDDER.
YOU IMPLY THAT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AND STATE THAT YOU ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHOICE OF CERTAIN REPAIR PARTS CALLED FOR BY THE SPECIFICATION IS DEFINITE OR FLEXIBLE AND ELECTIVE, AND FURTHER EXPRESS THE OPINION THAT THE SPECIFICATION IS NOT DEFINITE BUT IS ELECTIVE. WE DO NOT QUESTION YOUR TECHNICAL COMPETENCE IN THE FIELD OF ELECTRICAL PARTS, AND, ADMITTEDLY, THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE DOES NOT POSSESS THIS TECHNICAL COMPETENCE. WE FEEL, HOWEVER, THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A SPECIFICATION IS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO ALLOW BIDDERS TO COMPETE ON A COMMON BASIS, 38 COMP. GEN. 190, FOR THAT DETERMINATION DOES NOT REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUNCTION OF THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS. AFTER STUDYING THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION, WE ARE STILL OF THE OPINION THAT, IN VIEW OF THE ACCOMPANYING DIAGRAMS AND DRAWINGS AND THE AVAILABILITY OF A SAMPLE MODEL FOR STUDY, TABLE I FURNISHES A DEFINITE QUANTITY OF PARTS TO BE FURNISHED, AND THAT ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME DISCRETION EXERCISED WITH RESPECT TO PARTS NOT LISTED IN TABLE I, THAT DISCRETION IS LIMITED BY WELL-DEFINED GUIDELINES. AS WE SAID BEFORE, THIS ALSO ELIMINATES THE NECESSITY FOR AN ACCOMPANYING PARTS LIST.
IT APPEARS THAT THE FOUR OTHER BIDDERS SUBMITTING PRICES ON ITEM 3 FOUND THE SPECIFICATIONS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE FOR THEIR USE, SINCE THEIR BIDS RANGED FROM $46 TO $70.50, WHILE YOURS WAS $295. THEREFORE, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN A LOOSE OR VARYING INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIFICATION SUCH AS YOU SUGGEST.