Skip to main content

B-154760, OCT. 29, 1964

B-154760 Oct 29, 1964
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

THE EQUIPMENT WITH WHICH YOUR PROTEST WAS CONCERNED WAS A WASHER EXTRACTOR. WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE A MINIMUM DRY LOAD CAPACITY OF 350 POUNDS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF APPROXIMATELY 5.8 POUNDS DRY WASH PER FREE CUBIC FOOT OF CYLINDER. IT IS THEREFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS THAT THE ITEM MEETS THE 350-POUND DRY LOAD CAPACITY REQUIREMENT COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF APPROXIMATELY 5.8 POUNDS. SINCE THE ACTUAL FACTOR DERIVED BY DIVIDING THE 58.9 CUBIC FOOT CAPACITY INTO THE REQUIRED 350-POUND CAPACITY IS 5.94 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT. THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE REPORTS THAT THE 5.8 FACTOR INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS WAS INTENTIONALLY STATED AS AN APPROXIMATE FIGURE SINCE IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE PERFORMANCE FACTOR BUT IS MERELY A MEASURE OF DENSITY OF MIXED WASHLOAD IN THE CYLINDER WHICH.

View Decision

B-154760, OCT. 29, 1964

TO TROY LAUNDRY MACHINERY:

YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 7, 1964, REQUESTS THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION, B-154760, DATED OCTOBER 2, 1964, WHICH DENIED YOUR PROTEST AGAINST AWARD BY THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF A CONTRACT TO AMERICAN LAUNDRY MACHINERY INDUSTRIES UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 35-161 -4-0584-G, DATED MAY 11, 1964, WHICH SOLICITED BIDS TO FURNISH 8 ITEMS OF LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT FOR INSTITUTIONAL USE.

THE EQUIPMENT WITH WHICH YOUR PROTEST WAS CONCERNED WAS A WASHER EXTRACTOR, LISTED UNDER ITEMS NOS. 1, 2, AND 3 IN THE INVITATION, WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE A MINIMUM DRY LOAD CAPACITY OF 350 POUNDS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF APPROXIMATELY 5.8 POUNDS DRY WASH PER FREE CUBIC FOOT OF CYLINDER. YOU CONTENDED THAT THE MACHINE OFFERED BY AMERICAN LAUNDRY HAS A NET VOLUME OF ONLY 55.8 CUBIC FEET, WHICH, BASED ON 5.8 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT, PROVIDES A LOAD CAPACITY OF ONLY 323.64 POUNDS.

IN OUR DECISION, WE ADVISED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE SUBMITTED ON THE AMERICAN LAUNDRY WASHER- EXTRACTOR STATES THAT IT HAS A GROSS CYLINDER VOLUME OF 58.9 CUBIC FEET. IT IS THEREFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS THAT THE ITEM MEETS THE 350-POUND DRY LOAD CAPACITY REQUIREMENT COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF APPROXIMATELY 5.8 POUNDS, SINCE THE ACTUAL FACTOR DERIVED BY DIVIDING THE 58.9 CUBIC FOOT CAPACITY INTO THE REQUIRED 350-POUND CAPACITY IS 5.94 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE REPORTS THAT THE 5.8 FACTOR INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS WAS INTENTIONALLY STATED AS AN APPROXIMATE FIGURE SINCE IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE PERFORMANCE FACTOR BUT IS MERELY A MEASURE OF DENSITY OF MIXED WASHLOAD IN THE CYLINDER WHICH, WITH OTHER SPECIFIED FACTORS, ENABLES THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE TO PROPERLY EVALUATE THE BIDS AND MAKE AWARD FOR THE PROCUREMENT AT THE LOWEST COST.

"THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DRAFTING SPECIFICATIONS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AS WELL AS THE FACTUAL DETERMINATION WHETHER ARTICLES OFFERED BY BIDDERS COMPLY WITH SUCH SPECIFICATIONS, IS PRIMARILY WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCIES, AND OUR OFFICE WILL NOT QUESTION THE BONA FIDE DETERMINATIONS OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCIES IN SUCH MATTERS UNLESS THEY ARE CLEARLY AT VARIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AS WRITTEN. 17 COMP. GEN. 554. SINCE THE SPECIFICATION OF AN ,APPROXIMATE" FACTOR PERMITS A REASONABLE VARIATION, AND THE PROCURING AGENCY CONSIDERS THE ITEM OFFERED BY AMERICAN TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR OBJECTION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE BID OF AMERICAN LAUNDRY IS RESPONSIVE. SINCE THE AGGREGATE BID OF AMERICAN LAUNDRY IS ALSO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BID, WE MAY NOT PROPERLY QUESTION THE AWARD TO AMERICAN LAUNDRY. ACCORDINGLY, YOU PROTEST IS DENIED.'

IN YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 7, IN WHICH YOU REFER TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AS ARBITRARY, YOU STATE:

"IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR OCTOBER 2ND LETTER, YOU STATE THAT THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE SUBMITTED ON THE AMERICAN WASHER EXTRACTOR STATES THEIR UNIT HAS A GROSS CYLINDER VOLUME OF 58.9 CUBIC FEET. MAINTAIN THAT THE BID SPECIFICATIONS DID NOT STIPULATE GROSS VOLUME BUT RATHER "FREE CU. FT.' OR NET VOLUME AFTER DEDUCTING FOR SPACE TAKEN UP BY THE TRUNNION, PARTITIONS, RIBS, ETC.

"FROM THE INFORMATION WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN IN YOUR LETTER, IT APPEARS THAT SOMEONE MAY BE ATTEMPTING TO DELIBERATELY SIDE-STEP THE SPECIFICATIONS AS ISSUED. IN YOUR LETTER, YOU INDICATE YOU FEEL THAT 5.94 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT IS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AS 5.8 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT. BUT, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS CALLED FOR FREE CUBIC FOOT CAPACITY AND NOT GROSS CAPACITY, THEN YOU WILL READILY SEE THAT THE AMERICAN MACHINES ARE CONSIDERABLY SHORT OF THE SPECIFIED CAPACITY. THEIR NET CAPACITY IS 55.8 CUBIC FEET WHICH RESULTS IN A DENSITY OF 6.27 LBS. PER CUBIC FOOT. SURELY, YOU WOULD NOT CONSIDER A DENSITY OF 6.27 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT AS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AS 5.8 SPECIFIED. THIS IS WHAT THE DISTRICT WILL HAVE TO DO TO ATTAIN A LOAD CAPACITY OF 350 LBS. IN THESE MACHINES. IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE AND COULD NOT POSSIBLY GIVE A SATISFACTORY WASHING JOB.'

THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE, IN A REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1964, MAKES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS PERTINENT TO YOUR PROTEST:

"A COMPARISON OF THE RESPECTIVE FACTORS OF DIFFERENT MACHINES ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS IS NOT NECESSARILY SUBSTANTIVE AS A MEASURE OF WASHING ABILITY. THE ABILITY OF A WASHER-EXTRACTOR TO DO WORK IS A COMBINATION OF MANY FACTORS, SUCH AS VOLUME OF CYLINDER, THE TYPE OF WASH, THE SIZE OF THE LOAD, THE WASH PROGRAM, MACHINE CYCLES, QUANTITY OF WATER USED, WASH SPEED, EXTRACT SPEED, AIR CIRCULATION, ETC. THE ULTIMATE RESULT OF THE MERGER OF THESE FACTORS INTO ONE WORK UNIT CAN ONLY BE ACTUALLY DETERMINED BY BUILDING THE EQUIPMENT AND TESTING IN ACTUAL SERVICE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND IN MANY PLANTS. THIS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF AND HAS BEEN DONE BY THE MANUFACTURERS, EACH FOR HIS OWN EQUIPMENT, AND CONCEDING THE INTEGRITY OF THE MANUFACTURERS, THE RATINGS SO DETERMINED WHEN BACKED UP BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE TRADE, MUST BE ACCEPTED AS FACTUAL UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.

"THE REQUIREMENT OF "APPROXIMATELY 5.8 LBS. PER CUBIC FOOT OF CYLINDER" IS NOT A PERFORMANCE FACTOR AS TROY'S TELEX INDICATES; IT IS A NUMERICAL STATEMENT OF THE WEIGHT CHARACTERISTIC OF THE MIXED WASH LOAD RELATIVE TO THE VOLUME OF CYLINDER. PRACTICE INDICATES THAT FOR AVERAGE CONDITIONS, A WASH LOAD DENSITY OF APPROX. 5.8 LBS. OF MIXED WASH PER CUBIC FOOT OF CYLINDER IS, FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, THE CONDITION IN THE WASH CYLINDER WHICH RESULTS IN A HIGH OVERALL EFFICIENCY CONSIDERING BULK OF THE UNIT, SIZE OF CYLINDER, USE OF WATER, COST OF OPERATION, COST OF EQUIPMENT, ETC. * * * THE EXPRESSION "PER FOOT OF CYLINDER" AND "PER FREE CUBIC FOOT OF CYLINDER" ARE MERELY DIFFERENT EXPRESSIONS FOR THE SAME THING. CYLINDERS OF THE SAME DIMENSIONS AND DESIGNED AS SPECIFIED BUT FOR DIFFERENT MACHINES WILL NOT DIFFER IN NET VOLUME BY MORE THAN A FEW CUBIC INCHES SINCE ALL OF THEM CONTAIN ONLY THREE LONGITUDINAL METAL PARTITIONS AND A SHAFT. SINCE NET VOLUME, IN THE INSTANCE, IS A TECHNICALITY AND ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE, THE MANUFACTURERS QUOTE GROSS VOLUME OF CYLINDER. * * * LIKEWISE,"POUNDS DRY WEIGHT CAPACITY" IS A LIMITED VARIABLE CHANGING ACCORDING TO THE NATURE OF EACH WASH LOAD--- VARYING PERCENTAGES OF TOWELS, GOWNS, UNIFORMS, ETC. CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE WASH LOAD. THUS, THE REDUCTION OF THE CHARACTER OF THE WASH MIX AND THE SIZE OF WASH LOAD TO BE HANDLED ARE CONVERTED INTO MACHINE CAPACITY AND SIZE BY APPLYING THE EXPERIENCE OF THE USING DEPARTMENTS. BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL TESTING IS NOT FEASIBLE; BECAUSE AMERICAN LAUNDRY MACHINERY INDUSTRIES HAS BEEN A LEADER IN THIS FIELD OVER A LONG NUMBER OF YEARS; BECAUSE THE UNIT OFFERED HAS BEEN ADVERTISED TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE TRADE AS A 350 LB. UNIT; BECAUSE IN ALL ITS DEALINGS WITH THE DISTRICT, AMERICAN LAUNDRY STOOD BEHIND ITS EQUIPMENT, THE 60 INCH BY 36 INCH CASCADEX IS ACCEPTED AS A 350 LB. DRY WEIGHT CAPACITY UNIT AS SPECIFIED. BECAUSE OF TROY'S PROTEST, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THEY HAD ESTABLISHED THE RATED CAPACITY OF THEIR MACHINE IN THEIR BID, AMERICAN LAUNDRY WAS ASKED TO CONFIRM ITS ADVERTISED RATING OF 350 LBS. AMERICAN LAUNDRY COMPLIED.'

WHILE THE LANGUAGE OF THE ABOVE REPORT MAY BE SOMEWHAT EQUIVOCAL, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIALS DID, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIOUS FACTORS INVOLVED, REACH THE DEFINITE CONCLUSION THAT THE MACHINE OFFERED BY AMERICAN WOULD SATISFACTORILY MEET THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT. ON THE FIGURES USED BY YOU IN YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A DEFICIENCY OF APPROXIMATELY 8 PERCENT IN THE WEIGHT PER CUBIC FOOT FACTOR OF THE MACHINE ON WHICH AWARD WAS MADE. IT MAY BE CONTENDED THAT ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH A VARIATION WOULD, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, STRETCH THE "APPROXIMATE" QUALIFICATION TO EXTREME LIMITS, BUT WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO HOLD THAT IN THIS INSTANCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WAS SO CLEARLY ARBITRARY OR ERRONEOUS AS TO INVALIDATE THE CONTRACT AWARDED.

NOR DO WE FEEL THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED AS SO RESTRICTIVE AS TO JUSTIFY A BELIEF THAT MANUFACTURERS OF OTHER EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE SAME GENERAL CLASS AS THAT WHICH WAS ACCEPTED MAY HAVE BEEN DETERRED FROM BIDDING ON THE REQUIREMENT.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 2, WHICH ARE QUOTED ABOVE, WE SEE NO VALID BASIS TO QUESTION THE JUDGMENT OF THE PROCUREMENT AGENCY OR TO REQUIRE CANCELLATION AND READVERTISING OF THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENT. OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 2 IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs