B-156086, NOV. 4, 1965

B-156086, NOV. 4, 1965

TO CONTROL ENGINEERING CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 7, 1965, REQUESTING REVIEW OF DECISION DATED JUNE 21, 1965, B-156086, WHICH SUSTAINED OUR DECISION OF APRIL 5, 1965, TO YOU, AND IN WHICH WE STATED THAT WE FOUND NO VALID BASIS FOR OBJECTING TO THE ACTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY IN CONSIDERING YOUR BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 600-448-65 TO BE NONRESPONSIVE. IN VIEW OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN YOUR MOST RECENT LETTER, WE REQUESTED A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 7, 1965, DEALING WITH THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE ASPECT OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IN QUESTION, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:

"1. THE REFERENCED INVITATION CALLED FOR A VIDEO LINE AMPLIFIER TO BE USED AS A COMPONENT PART OF A TELEVISION SYSTEM. THE INVITATION REQUIRED A FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF PLUS OR MINUS (T) 0.25 DECIBELS (DB) TO 7 MEGACYCLES (MC) AND T 3DB TO 8 MC. RAM ELECTRONICS SUBMITTED A BID OFFERING AN AMPLIFIER WITH A FREQUENCY RESPONSE TO T LDB TO 8 MC. QUESTION HAS ARISEN CONCERNING WHETHER RAM'S OFFER OF T LDB TO 8 MC MEETS THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT OF T 0.25 DB TO 7 MC.

"2. ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFICATION REQUIRED A FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF T 0.25 DECIBELS FROM 0 TO 7 MEGACYCLES, THE RESPONSE BECOMES CRITICAL AS THE BAND WIDTH IS EXTENDED INTO THE UPPER RANGES. THUS THE PRIMARY ENGINEERING PROBLEM IN DESIGN AND PRODUCTION OF A VIDEO AMPLIFIER IS TO EXTEND THE RANGE AT THE HIGH END OF THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE CURVE, I.E. 7 AND 8 MEGACYCLES. THE HIGHER THE FREQUENCY AT WHICH THE RESPONSE CAN BE MAINTAINED, THE FINER THE DETAIL WHICH WILL BE PRODUCED IN THE TELEVISION PICTURE. RAM OFFERED TO PRODUCE A DESIRABLE RESPONSE AT A HIGHER FREQUENCY THAN THAT SPECIFIED IN THE INVITATION, I.E., T LDB AT 8 MC RATHER THAN T 3DB AT 8 MC. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AMPLIFIER CAN BE EXPECTED TO PRODUCE A PICTURE OF A QUALITY EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN THAT ANTICIPATED.

"3. EVALUATION OF THE BID FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT REVEALS THAT RAM'S OFFERED RESPONSE OF T LDB TO 8 MC MEETS THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT OF T 0.25 DB TO 7MC FOR THE FOLLOWING EASONS:

A. IT IS THE OPINION OF THIS OFFICE THAT ANY VIDEO AMPLIFIER WHICH PRODUCES A FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF T LDB TO 8MC WOULD ALSO BE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A RESPONSE OF T 0.25DB TO 7MC. THE AMPLIFIER IN QUESTION IS A RESISTANCE COUPLED AMPLIFIER, THE ONLY TYPE SUITABLE FOR USE IN A TELEVISION SYSTEM. IT IS AN INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS TYPE OF AMPLIFIER THAT THERE WILL BE LITTLE DROP OFF IN FREQUENCY RESPONSE IN THE LOWER RANGES. A UNIT WHICH PRODUCES A RESPONSE OF T LDB TO 8MC WOULD, IN OUR OPINION, PRODUCE A RESPONSE WITHIN T 0.25 TO 7MC.

B. IN ORDER TO PRODUCE A RESPONSE OF T LDB TO 8MC AN ENGINEERING PROCESS MUST BE UNDERTAKEN TO BOOST THE RESPONSE THROUGHOUT MUCH OF ITS FREQUENCY RANGE. TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED RESPONSE AT THE HIGHER RANGES SEVERAL PEAKING COMPONENTS MUST BE INTEGRATED INTO THE EQUIPMENT TO CORRECT THE RESPONSE AND TO PREVENT IT FROM DROPPING OFF AT SUCCESSIVE STEPS IN THE FREQUENCY RANGE. THUS A VIDEO AMPLIFIER WHICH IS ENGINEERED TO PRODUCE A FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF T LDB TO 8MC HAS NECESSARILY BEEN BOOSTED ALONG THE LOWER FREQUENCY RANGES TO PREVENT THE CURVE FROM DROPPING OFF AT 7MC, 6MC, 5MC, ETC. IT IS THE OPINION OF THIS OFFICE THAT THE ENGINEERING REQUIRED IN THE LOWER RANGES OF AN AMPLIFIER PRODUCING A T LDB TO 8MC RESPONSE WOULD NECESSARILY RESULT IN A FREQUENCY RESPONSE WITHIN T 0.25DB TO 7MC.

C. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT WHEN THE DESCRIBED CORRECTION PROCESS IS NO LONGER APPLIED AT A PARTICULAR RANGE, THE DROP OFF IN FREQUENCY RESPONSE IS RAPID. SINCE RAM'S BID PROPOSES A MAXIMUM DROP OFF OF LDB AT 8MC, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT SOME CORRECTION IS BEING APPLIED IN THE 7MC TO 8MC RANGE. THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, ALLOWS A RAPID DROP OFF BETWEEN 7MC AND 8MC, I.E., 0.25DB TO 3DB. TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT WOULD REQUIRE LITTLE OR NO RESPONSE CORRECTION BETWEEN 7MC AND 8MC. THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT THE RESPONSE OFFERED BY RAM IS HIGHER THAN THE RESPONSE REQUESTED IN THE INVITATION AND THAT THE OFFERED EQUIPMENT EXCEEDS THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

"4. ALTHOUGH IT WOULD APPEAR FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE NUMERICAL FIGURES THAT RAM OFFERED A WIDER TOLERANCE BELOW 7 MEGACYCLES THAN THAT REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATION (I.E., T LDB IN LIEU OF T 0.25 DB), RAM'S BID IS CONSIDERED TO BE TECHNICALLY RESPONSIVE. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT AN AMPLIFIER WHICH PRODUCES A RESPONSE OF T LDB AT 8MC WOULD ALSO PRODUCE A RESPONSE WITHIN T 0.25DB AT 7 MC AND BELOW. RAM OFFERED AN AMPLIFIER WITH A FREQUENCY RESPONSE REPRESENTED IN DIFFERENT TERMS THAN THE RESPONSE SPECIFIED IN THE IFB. THE OFFER DID NOT, HOWEVER, DEVIATE FROM THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

"5. IT IS THE POSITION OF THIS OFFICE THAT RAM'S OFFER MEETS THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT AND PROBABLY EXCEEDS IT.'

AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT IN OUR PRIOR DECISIONS TO YOU IN THIS MATTER, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER CERTAIN EQUIPMENT OFFERED BY A BIDDER MEETS THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF A SPECIFICATION IS A MATTER PRIMARILY FOR DETERMINATION BY THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL EMPLOYED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AS OUR OFFICE DOES NOT EMPLOY SUCH PERSONNEL. NEITHER IS IT OUR FUNCTION TO CONSULT OR EMPLOY OUTSIDE "TECHNICAL OPINION" TO WEIGH THE TECHNICAL MERITS OF A PROTESTANT'S CONTENTIONS AGAINST THAT OF THE PROCURING AGENCY'S FINDINGS. IT IS OUR FUNCTION TO SEE THAT CONTRACTS INVOLVING THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS BE LEGALLY MADE, INCLUDING OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW RESPECTING COMPETITIVE BIDDING.

WHILE WE APPRECIATE THE EARNESTNESS AND CONVICTION APPARENT IN YOUR PROTEST LETTERS, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT YOUR DISAGREEMENT AND CONTENTIONS IN THIS CASE REVOLVE ABOUT THE TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PROCUREMENT. IN THIS REGARD, IN OUR DECISION B-139830, DATED AUGUST 19, 1959, WE MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:

"THIS OFFICE HAS NEITHER AN ENGINEERING STAFF NOR A TESTING LABORATORY TO EVALUATE THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF SPECIFICATIONS. MOREOVER, IN DISPUTES OF FACT BETWEEN A PROTESTANT AND A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, WE USUALLY ARE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AS CORRECT. WHETHER A PARTICULAR BID IS RESPONSIVE TO THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IS NOT A MATTER, ORDINARILY, FOR OUR DETERMINATION. * *

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE MUST AFFIRM OUR DECISIONS OF APRIL 5, 1965, AND JUNE 21, 1965, TO YOU IN THIS MATTER.