B-144757, SEP. 28, 1961

B-144757: Sep 28, 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.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 2. AS STATED IN THE DECISION THE MATTER OF RESPONSIVENESS OF YOUR BID BECAME ACADEMIC WHEN IT WAS DECIDED TO REJECT ALL BIDS AND READVERTISE ON A DIFFERENT BASIS. FOR THAT REASON A REJECTION OF YOUR BID AS BEING NONRESPONSIVE WAS NOT REQUIRED ALTHOUGH THE RECORD INDICATES THAT IF AN AWARD HAD BEEN MADE ON THE FIRST INVITATION YOUR BID WOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED FOR THAT REASON. SHOW THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICE LISTED THREE REASONS AS TO WHY YOUR BID WAS NOT RESPONSIVE. (1) THAT THE SYSTEM WAS NOT ENGINEERED AS REQUIRED IN THE INVITATION. (2) THAT IT WAS PROPOSED TO MODIFY STUDIO EQUIPMENT FOR FIELD USE. (3) THAT YOU DID NOT FURNISH A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM YOU PROPOSED TO SUPPLY AND THE DRAWING SHOWING THE LAYOUT OF EQUIPMENT WAS DETERMINED BY THE AIR FORCE ENGINEERS TO BE UNSATISFACTORY.

B-144757, SEP. 28, 1961

TO SARKES TARZIAN, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 2, 1961, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF MAY 1, 1961, IN REGARD TO THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE IN CANCELLING INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 41-612-61-23 WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED ON OCTOBER 14, 1960.

YOU AGAIN CONTEND THAT THE CANCELLATION OF THE CITED INVITATION GAVE THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER ON THE SECOND INVITATION AN UNFAIR BIDDING ADVANTAGE EVEN THOUGH YOU DID NOT SUBMIT A BID UNDER THE SECOND INVITATION. ALSO, YOU STATE THAT YOUR BID FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S SPECIFICATIONS AND THAT OUR DECISION DID NOT RULE ON THE ALLEGED NONRESPONSIVENESS OF YOUR BID.

AS STATED IN THE DECISION THE MATTER OF RESPONSIVENESS OF YOUR BID BECAME ACADEMIC WHEN IT WAS DECIDED TO REJECT ALL BIDS AND READVERTISE ON A DIFFERENT BASIS. FOR THAT REASON A REJECTION OF YOUR BID AS BEING NONRESPONSIVE WAS NOT REQUIRED ALTHOUGH THE RECORD INDICATES THAT IF AN AWARD HAD BEEN MADE ON THE FIRST INVITATION YOUR BID WOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED FOR THAT REASON. THE ENCLOSURES TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 2, 1961, SHOW THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICE LISTED THREE REASONS AS TO WHY YOUR BID WAS NOT RESPONSIVE, NAMELY, (1) THAT THE SYSTEM WAS NOT ENGINEERED AS REQUIRED IN THE INVITATION; (2) THAT IT WAS PROPOSED TO MODIFY STUDIO EQUIPMENT FOR FIELD USE, A PROCEDURE UNACCEPTABLE TO SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE AND AIR FORCE ENGINEERS; AND (3) THAT YOU DID NOT FURNISH A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM YOU PROPOSED TO SUPPLY AND THE DRAWING SHOWING THE LAYOUT OF EQUIPMENT WAS DETERMINED BY THE AIR FORCE ENGINEERS TO BE UNSATISFACTORY. THIS ANALYSIS OF YOUR BID APPEARS TO BE THE RESULT OF AN EVALUATION MADE BY A CONSULTING ENGINEER, MR. T. G. MORRISSEY, ON NOVEMBER 15, 1960, AND A SUPPLEMENTARY EVALUATION DATED DECEMBER 7, 1960.

WITH REGARD TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT UPON READVERTISEMENT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT PROCURE A "LESS COSTLY SYSTEM" AS YOU WERE LED TO BELIEVE, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AFTER THE SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE PROCUREMENT PERSONNEL HAD CONCLUDED TO CANCEL THE FIRST INVITATION BECAUSE IT WAS FELT THAT A MUCH LESS COSTLY SYSTEM WOULD BE SUITABLE, THE AUTHORITY DELEGATED BY ROME AIR MATERIEL AREA TO SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE TO PROCURE TELEVISION SYSTEMS WAS WITHDRAWN BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN PLANNING, ENGINEERING, COSTS AND STANDARDIZATION OF EQUIPMENT. THEREAFTER ROME AIR MATERIEL AREA ADVERTISED FOR COMPLETE SYSTEMS AT BOTH SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE AND KESSLER AIR FORCE BASE, MISSISSIPPI. TO WHAT EXTENT THE READVERTISEMENT BY ANOTHER PROCUREMENT OFFICE DIFFERED FROM THE FIRST ADVERTISEMENT IS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD BEFORE OUR OFFICE. HOWEVER, AS STATED ABOVE, SINCE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOUR BID WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE YOU FAILED TO FURNISH A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM YOU PROPOSED TO SUPPLY AND PAGE 10 OF THE INVITATION PROVIDED THAT NO PROPOSAL WOULD BE CONSIDERED UNLESS SUCH A DESCRIPTION WAS FURNISHED, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE READVERTISEMENT IN THIS CASE OPERATED TO YOUR DISADVANTAGE AND THEREFORE THE DECISION OF MAY 1, 1961, IS AFFIRMED.

Nov 16, 2018

Nov 15, 2018

Nov 14, 2018

Nov 9, 2018

Looking for more? Browse all our products here