B-145786, SEP. 26, 1961

B-145786: Sep 26, 1961

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Ralph O. White
(202) 512-8278
WhiteRO@gao.gov

Kenneth E. Patton
(202) 512-8205
PattonK@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 8. YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY CONTENDED THAT YOUR FIRM WAS NOT SOLICITED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROCUREMENT AND YOU NOW ALLEGE THAT YOU WERE NOT CONTACTED AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE PROCUREMENT REGARDING THE ABILITY OF YOUR FIRM'S EQUIPMENT TO SATISFY THE NAVY'S REQUIREMENTS. THE RECORD CONTAINS OTHER INFORMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUR 231R ANALOG COMPUTER WERE DISCUSSED IN A TELEPHONE CALL INITIATED BY MR. O-BRIEN WAS THEN REQUESTED TO SEND A TEST PROCEDURE WHICH COULD BE USED TO COMPARE THE RELATIVE MERITS OF ANALOG COMPUTERS AND THAT THE TEST PROCEDURE WAS NEVER RECEIVED FROM YOUR FIRM. AT LEAST BEFORE THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO WITH COMPUTER SYSTEMS.

B-145786, SEP. 26, 1961

TO THE ELECTRONIC ASSOCIATES, INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 8, 1961, RELATIVE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS AS SET FORTH IN OUR LETTER TO YOU OF JUNE 20, 1961, CONCERNING THE NEGOTIATIONS OF A CONTRACT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY WITH COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., MONMOUTH JUNCTION, NEW JERSEY, FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF ANALOG COMPUTERS.

YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY CONTENDED THAT YOUR FIRM WAS NOT SOLICITED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROCUREMENT AND YOU NOW ALLEGE THAT YOU WERE NOT CONTACTED AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE PROCUREMENT REGARDING THE ABILITY OF YOUR FIRM'S EQUIPMENT TO SATISFY THE NAVY'S REQUIREMENTS. THE RECORD BEFORE OUR OFFICE CONTAINS A COPY OF A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 17, 1960, TO MR. WILLIAM O-BRIEN OF YOUR FIRM, WHICH EVIDENCES THE FACT THAT THE NAVY HAD SHOWN AN INTEREST IN EXAMINING AND TESTING ONE OF YOUR NEW COMPUTERS. THE RECORD CONTAINS OTHER INFORMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUR 231R ANALOG COMPUTER WERE DISCUSSED IN A TELEPHONE CALL INITIATED BY MR. O-BRIEN DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 1960, THAT MR. O-BRIEN WAS THEN REQUESTED TO SEND A TEST PROCEDURE WHICH COULD BE USED TO COMPARE THE RELATIVE MERITS OF ANALOG COMPUTERS AND THAT THE TEST PROCEDURE WAS NEVER RECEIVED FROM YOUR FIRM, AT LEAST BEFORE THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO WITH COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. THE RECORD OTHERWISE INDICATES THAT A SURVEY OF LITERATURE DESCRIBING ANALOG COMPUTERS BEING MANUFACTURED BY VARIOUS COMPANIES WAS MADE TO DETERMINE WHETHER EQUIPMENT WHICH COULD MEET THE NAVY'S SPECIFICATIONS WAS READILY AVAILABLE, AND WE ASSUME THAT THE NAVY OBTAINED FROM SOME SOURCE YOUR LITERATURE DESCRIBING THE COMPUTER REFERRED TO BY MR. O BRIEN IN DECEMBER 1960.

YOUR PRESENT COMPLAINT IS BASED PRIMARILY UPON A BELIEF THAT THE EQUIPMENT OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., DOES NOT MEET SOME OF THE FIVE ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED REQUIREMENTS AS LISTED IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF OUR LETTER DATED JUNE 20, 1961. YOU STATE THAT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF CSI'S EQUIPMENT IS BASED UPON THAT FIRM'S PUBLISHED SPECIFICATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS THAT IT HAD TAKEN IN A PUBLIC BID WHICH WAS OPENED AFTER THE NAVY AWARD. YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE SO-CALLED PUBLIC BID, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT CSI'S PROPOSAL TO THE NAVY OFFERED EQUIPMENT WHICH WOULD MEET THE NAVY'S PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, IN REGARD TO THE THREE REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE DISCUSSED IN YOUR LETTER, THE NAVY HAS FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION.

THE STANDARD CSI AMPLIFIER MODEL 508DR IN A COMPUTER CABINET IS CAPABLE OF OPERATING AT MUCH HIGHER REPETITIVE OPERATION RATES THAN SPECIFIED AND THE UNIT BEING BUILT FOR THE NAVY WILL BE CAPABLE OF REPETITIVE OPERATION RATES IN EXCESS OF 2,000 PER SECOND. THE SAME MODEL WHEN USED AS A DYNAMIC STORAGE ANALOG COMPUTER MEMORY DOES STORE DATA WITHIN 2.5 MICROSECONDS OF A CONTROL INSTRUCTION WHICH CAN COME FROM ANY NUMBER OF SOURCES SUCH AS A REPETITIVE OPERATION CONTROL UNIT, A SPECIAL DIGITAL COMPUTER OUTPUT, SPECIAL CLOCK PULSES OR AN ELECTRONIC COMPARATOR. REQUIREMENT NO. 5, AS REPORTED TO OUR OFFICE, CONTAINED A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN STATED AS: "ABILITY TO TRACK A 200 CPS SIGNAL, 200 VOLTS PEAK-TO-PEAK, WITH A MAXIMUM DYNAMIC ERROR OF 10 MILLIVOLTS.' SUCH CHANGE WOULD MAKE THE STATED REQUIREMENT AGREE WITH THE NAVY SPECIFICATIONS MADE A PART OF THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. CSI INDICATED THAT IT COULD MEET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR TRACKING SIGNALS WITH A DYNAMIC ERROR OF 50 MILLIVOLTS AND THE NAVY CONSIDERED SUCH DEVIATION FROM SPECIFICATIONS TO BE OF MINOR CONSEQUENCE.

YOU HAVE REQUESTED INFORMATION AS TO WHETHER THE CONTRACT SPECIFIED THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS ONE TO FIVE BE MET. THE CONTRACT IS TO THAT EFFECT ALTHOUGH THE FIVE REQUIREMENTS AS LISTED IN OUR LETTER OF JUNE 20, 1961, CONSTITUTE NO MORE THAN A PARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED TO THE CONTRACT. WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR FURTHER QUESTION IN THE MATTER, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS REPORTED THAT A DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION 1-903 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION, AND THIS WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THAT CSI WAS FOUND TO HAVE THE NECESSARY FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR PERFORMING ITS OBLIGATIONS IF AWARDED A CONTRACT FOR THE COMPUTERS WHICH IT PROPOSED TO FURNISH TO THE GOVERNMENT.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL BASIS UPON WHICH WE WOULD BE WARRANTED IN TAKING ANY EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD AS MADE TO COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. ..END :

Jan 25, 2021

Jan 22, 2021

Jan 21, 2021

Jan 19, 2021

Looking for more? Browse all our products here