B-150039, JAN. 7, 1963
Highlights
THAT YOUR BID TO SUPPLY CERTAIN TRACTORS WAS NONRESPONSIVE TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF IFB NO. YOU ALLEGE THAT OUR DECISION AND THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WERE BASED ON THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF FACT THAT A TRACTOR WEIGHING LESS THAN 42. COULD NOT HAVE A DRAWBAR PULL OF 32. YOU STATE THAT ITS CALCULATED DRAWBAR PULL IS 31. THIS DETERMINATION APPARENTLY WAS MADE BY CONFERRING WITH FOUR OF YOUR COMPETITORS. ALL OF WHOM HAVE CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE IN MANUFACTURING A TRACTOR WITH A MORE CONVENTIONALLY MOUNTED MOTOR. SINCE THE INTERIM FEDERAL SPECIFICATION FOR TRACTORS WAS SIMILARLY EXPRESSED. WE HAVE BEEN INFORMALLY ADVISED THAT THE BUREAU WILL CONSIDER CHANGING ITS SPECIFICATIONS SO AS TO DEFINE ITS ESSENTIAL NEEDS IN TERMS OF DRAWBAR PULL.
B-150039, JAN. 7, 1963
TO THE EIMCO CORPORATION:
IN YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 21, 1962, YOU REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 13, 1962, WHICH UPHELD THE DETERMINATION BY THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, THAT YOUR BID TO SUPPLY CERTAIN TRACTORS WAS NONRESPONSIVE TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF IFB NO. BIA-0650-239. YOU ALLEGE THAT OUR DECISION AND THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WERE BASED ON THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF FACT THAT A TRACTOR WEIGHING LESS THAN 42,000 LBS. COULD NOT HAVE A DRAWBAR PULL OF 32,000 LBS. AT 1.5 MILES PER HOUR. YOU SAY THAT YOUR TRACTOR COULD PRODUCE THE REQUIRED DRAWBAR PULL BECAUSE OF ITS UNIQUE DESIGN, ALTHOUGH IT WEIGHS ONLY 36,000 LBS. AT THE SAME TIME, YOU STATE THAT ITS CALCULATED DRAWBAR PULL IS 31,000 LBS., 1,000 LBS. SHORT OF THE MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE AGENCY.
THE BUREAU DOES NOT DENY YOUR ALLEGATION, AND INFORMALLY ADMITS THAT IT HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT A TRACTOR MUST WEIGH 42,000 LBS. TO PRODUCE 32,000 LBS. DRAWBAR PULL AT 1.5 MILES PER HOUR. THIS DETERMINATION APPARENTLY WAS MADE BY CONFERRING WITH FOUR OF YOUR COMPETITORS, ALL OF WHOM HAVE CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE IN MANUFACTURING A TRACTOR WITH A MORE CONVENTIONALLY MOUNTED MOTOR. THE AGENCY ASKED FOR THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE IT BELIEVED ITS REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF WEIGHT RATHER THAN DRAWBAR PULL, SINCE THE INTERIM FEDERAL SPECIFICATION FOR TRACTORS WAS SIMILARLY EXPRESSED. HOWEVER, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMALLY ADVISED THAT THE BUREAU WILL CONSIDER CHANGING ITS SPECIFICATIONS SO AS TO DEFINE ITS ESSENTIAL NEEDS IN TERMS OF DRAWBAR PULL. SUCH A CHANGE WOULD PREVENT YOUR COMPANY'S BID FROM BEING REJECTED SOLELY FOR FAILURE TO MEET THE WEIGHT REQUIREMENT.
WHILE IT APPEARS THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN INCOMPLETE IN THAT THEY DID NOT STATE THE DRAWBAR PULL REQUIREMENT, AWARD HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT WARRANT ACTION BY OUR OFFICE AT THE PRESENT TIME. THIS BELIEF IS ESPECIALLY SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT EVEN IF THE SPECIFICATIONS HAD INCLUDED A DRAWBAR PULL REQUIREMENT OF 32,000 LBS. AT 1.5 MILES PER HOUR, YOUR BID WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN NONRESPONSIVE, SINCE BY YOUR OWN CALCULATIONS THE DRAWBAR PULL OF YOUR 106B TRACTOR IS ANTICIPATED TO BE LESS THAN THE MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE AGENCY. FURTHERMORE, WHILE THERE IS NO CERTAIN PROOF THAT A WEIGHT OF 42,000 LBS. IS A NECESSARY CONCOMITANCE OF THE REQUIRED DRAWBAR PULL, THERE IS NO CERTAIN PROOF THAT IT IS NOT.