B-142595, SEP. 14, 1960
Highlights
ALABAMA) IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE THROUGH ONLY ONE FIRM AND. ON THE PREMISE THAT OTHER TESTING EQUIPMENT WITH EQUAL PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS IS AVAILABLE. SUGGEST THAT THE SPECIFICATION WAS RESTRICTIVE. IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT. WHILE ASSURANCES WERE OBTAINED THAT SEVERAL FIRMS COULD MANUFACTURE THE EQUIPMENT. ONLY ONE WAS DOING SO CURRENTLY. ONLY A SINGLE SOURCE OF THE EQUIPMENT WAS AVAILABLE. AS IS POINTED OUT IN 36 COMP. THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR BIDDER MAY BE UNWILLING TO MEET THE ADVERTISED REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLYING A GOVERNMENT NEED IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A CONCLUSION THAT THE SPECIFICATION IS UNDULY RESTRICTIVE. DISCUSSED THE PROCUREMENT FROM AN ANGLE OF RESTRICTIVENESS IN WHICH YOU WERE INTERESTED.
B-142595, SEP. 14, 1960
TO MR. R. R. MALIK, PRESIDENT:
IN LETTER OF AUGUST 31, 1960, SUPPLEMENTED BY LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 2, YOU POINT OUT THAT THE VARIABLE RATIO V-BELT DRIVE EQUIPMENT CONTEMPLATED BY INVITATION FOR BIDS 01-601-60-1615 (BROOKLEY AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA) IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE THROUGH ONLY ONE FIRM AND, ON THE PREMISE THAT OTHER TESTING EQUIPMENT WITH EQUAL PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS IS AVAILABLE, SUGGEST THAT THE SPECIFICATION WAS RESTRICTIVE.
A CAREFUL READING OF OUR DECISION OF JULY 25, 1960, AND OF THE AIR FORCE REPORTS RELIED UPON FOR FACTUAL BACKGROUND, FAILS TO DISCLOSE ANY INCONSISTENCY. IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT, WHILE ASSURANCES WERE OBTAINED THAT SEVERAL FIRMS COULD MANUFACTURE THE EQUIPMENT, ONLY ONE WAS DOING SO CURRENTLY. HENCE, AS CONCLUDED IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 27, 1960, DUE TO A REFUSAL OF POTENTIAL MANUFACTURERS TO QUOTE, ONLY A SINGLE SOURCE OF THE EQUIPMENT WAS AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, AS IS POINTED OUT IN 36 COMP. GEN. 251, 33 ID. 586, AND 30 ID. 368, THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR BIDDER MAY BE UNWILLING TO MEET THE ADVERTISED REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLYING A GOVERNMENT NEED IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A CONCLUSION THAT THE SPECIFICATION IS UNDULY RESTRICTIVE.
WHILE THE DECISION OF JULY 25, 1960, DISCUSSED THE PROCUREMENT FROM AN ANGLE OF RESTRICTIVENESS IN WHICH YOU WERE INTERESTED, THE AIR FORCE ALSO REPORTED THAT IT HAD INVESTIGATED YOUR CONTENTION THAT A WARD LEONARD SYSTEM WOULD MEET ITS NEEDS AND HAD CONCLUDED, IN THE LIGHT OF REPORTS BY COGNIZANT AIR FORCE ENGINEERS, THAT INFORMATION DEVELOPED SO FAR NOT ONLY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS OF EQUALITY AND ECONOMY BUT DISPROVED THEM. THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF DETERMINING SPECIALIZED NEEDS AND OF DRAFTING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THEIR PROCUREMENT ARE, OF COURSE, PRIMARILY ADMINISTRATIVE ONES. 17 COMP. GEN. 554.
YOUR INTEREST IN SUPPLYING ECONOMICALLY THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING EQUIPMENT OF THE GENERAL NATURE COVERED BY THE INVITATION IS APPRECIATED. HOWEVER, REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OR SUITABILITY FOR PROCUREMENT OF ONE TYPE OR ANOTHER SHOULD BE MADE TO THE VARIOUS CONTRACTING AGENCIES.