B-154271, JUN. 24, 1964

B-154271, JUN. 24, 1964

TO THE SPRA-CON COMPANY:

YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 4, 1964, ASKS FOR CLARIFICATION OF OUR DECISION B- 154271 OF MAY 27, 1964, TO THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.

INITIALLY, WE SHOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE STATEMENT IN AN INVITATION THAT "ALTERNATE" BIDS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED MEANS SIMPLY THAT BIDS WHICH OFFER SOMETHING DIFFERING IN ANY MATERIAL RESPECT FROM THE INVITATION REQUIREMENTS MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED. IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE A BIDDER FROM SUBMITTING TWO BIDS, ONE WHICH MEETS THE IFB REQUIREMENTS AND ONE WHICH DIFFERS THEREFROM. THE CONFORMING BID IN SUCH CASE PROPERLY MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD; THE OTHER BID MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IF ITS DEVIATIONS ARE MATERIAL.

AS WE POINTED OUT IN OUR MAY 27, 1964, DECISION, THE WEBB BID FOR $876,220 PLUS WHAT IT CHOSE TO CALL AN "ELECTRICAL ALTERNATE" FOR AN ADDITIONAL $74,149 DID OFFER EVERYTHING CALLED FOR BY THE SPECIFICATIONS. ITS TOTAL PRICE WAS $950,369, WHICH WAS LOWER THAN YOUR BID OF $968,730. AS WE FURTHER POINTED OUT, WEBB'S TOTAL BID OF $950,369 OFFERED CERTAIN FEATURES IN ADDITION TO THE SPECIFICATIONS, NOT IN PLACE OF, OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO, ANY OF THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. IN OTHER WORDS, WEBB'S TOTAL BID INCLUDING ITS SO-CALLED "ELECTRIC ALTERNATE" MADE NO CHANGE WHATEVER IN THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS, ALTHOUGH IT DID OFFER ADDITIONS TO THOSE SPECIFICATIONS. THIS CANNOT BE SAID OF YOUR PRE-BID REQUEST TO CHANGE THE SPECIFICATION LOCATION OF THE SYSTEM IN PART.

WE AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION THAT AWARD SHOULD NOT BE MADE EXCEPT ON THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, UNLESS OF COURSE THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE MODIFIED FOR ALL BIDDERS BY AN ADDENDUM TO THE INVITATION. AWARD WAS MADE TO WEBB SOLELY ON THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND THE "EXTRA" OR "ADDITIONAL" FEATURES WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN ITS TOTAL PRICE OF $950,369 WERE DELETED.

THE DECISIVE FACTOR INFLUENCING OUR DECISION WAS THE FACT THAT WEBB OFFERED TO FURNISH EVERYTHING REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS, WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN LOCATION OR ITEM, PLUS CERTAIN ADDITIONAL, NOT ALTERNATIVE FEATURES, AT A PRICE LOWER THAN ANY OTHER BIDDER. AN ANALOGY MIGHT BE MADE BETWEEN THIS CASE AND ONE IN WHICH BIDS WERE REQUESTED FOR A STANDARD AUTOMOBILE WITHOUT EXTRAS AND ONE BIDDER OFFERED A STANDARD AUTOMOBILE EQUIPPED WITH RADIO, HEATER, AND OTHER ADDITIONAL ACCESSORIES AT A TOTAL PRICE LESS THAN THAT OFFERED BY ANY OTHER BIDDER FOR THE STANDARD AUTOMOBILE WITHOUT SUCH EXTRAS. SUCH A BID WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN "ALTERNATE" BID, SINCE IT DID NOT PROPOSE TO CHANGE ANYTHING IN THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS; IT MERELY OFFERED MORE THAN WAS CALLED FOR.

WE AGREE IF IT WAS NOT CLEAR, IN THE CASE OF THE BID ON THE AUTOMOBILE, PRECISELY WHAT THE BID PRICE WAS ON THE STANDARD AUTOMOBILE WITHOUT THE EXTRAS, AND THE BID WITH EXTRAS WAS NOT LOW, THAT SUCH A BID SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED, NOT BECAUSE IT WAS AN ALTERNATE BID, BUT BECAUSE IT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED WITH CERTAINTY WHAT THE BID PRICE WAS ON THE REQUIREMENTS ON WHICH OTHER BIDDERS WERE BIDDING. HOWEVER, IF THE BID WITH THE EXTRAS WAS LOWER THAN ALL OTHER BIDS, IT IS TOO CLEAR FOR ARGUMENT THAT SUCH BID WAS LOWER THAN ALL OTHERS ON THE AUTOMOBILE WITHOUT EXTRAS, WHICH IS WHY WE STATED IN OUR DECISION OF MAY 27, 1964, THAT THE QUESTION AS TO THE ELECTRICAL ,ALTERNATE" OR "EXTRA" WAS SIMPLIFIED BY THE FACT THAT WEBB'S BID AS A WHOLE, INCLUDING SUCH ALTERNATE, DID CONFORM TO ALL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, SINCE IT WAS LOW EVEN AT $950,369.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CRITICISM OF THE INVITATION REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING MAINTENANCE AND TRAINING, WE CAN STATE ONLY THAT IT IS OBVIOUS THE INVITATION MUST COVER THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE NEEDS OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. WE AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION THAT BIDDERS SHOULD NOT BE PUT IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE IN THEIR BIDS A CONTINGENCY FOR WORK WHICH MAY NOT BE REQUIRED. IT WAS FOR THIS REASON THAT WE SUGGESTED THE POSSIBLE DESIRABILITY OF CALLING FOR PRICES ON THIS TYPE OF WORK ON SOME METHOD SIMILAR TO A UNIT PRICE BASIS IN FUTURE INVITATIONS. THE FACT REMAINS, HOWEVER, THAT ALL BIDDERS ON THE CHICAGO INVITATION HAD TO ASSUME THE SAME RISKS AS TO THE QUANTUM OF MAINTENANCE AND TRAINING WHICH WOULD BE CALLED FOR, AND WERE THEREFORE BIDDING ON THE SAME BASIS IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY COULD BE REQUIRED TO FURNISH. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FELT IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM TO REQUIRE READVERTISING AFTER BID PRICES HAD BEEN EXPOSED, WHICH WOULD BE THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE.

WE HOPE THAT THE FOREGOING WILL SERVE TO CLARIFY FOR YOU THE REASONS UNDERLYING OUR DECISION.