B-188342, JULY 1, 1977
Highlights
GAO REAFFIRMS POLICY NOT TO CONSIDER AS BID PROTEST OBJECTION TO AGENCY DETERMINATION THAT LESS RESTRICTIVE SPECIFICATION WILL MEET GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS. IN WHICH WE DECLINED TO RECONSIDER ITS PROTEST CONCERNING AGENCY DETERMINATION THAT LESS RESTRICTIVE SOLICITATION WILL MEET GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS. UNDERLYING MILTOPE'S COMPLAINT IS THE FACT THAT THE PROCURING ACTIVITY HAS SPECIFIED A PSI PERIPHERAL SUPPORT PART AS EQUAL TO MILTOPE'S ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT PART FOR USE IN THE UYK-5 SHIPBOARD COMPUTER. MILTOPE ASSERTS THAT IT IS IN NO WAY ATTEMPTING TO RESTRICT COMPETITION AND THAT IT WOULD EVEN PERMIT PSI TO BUILD AND TEST ITS PART TO MILTOPE'S SPECIFICATIONS. MILTOPE CONTENDS THAT OUR PRIOR DECISION IS "TOTALLY INACCURATE SINCE YOU COULD NOT HAVE FOUND THE TIME TO DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH THE * * * NAVY * * * .".
B-188342, JULY 1, 1977
GAO REAFFIRMS POLICY NOT TO CONSIDER AS BID PROTEST OBJECTION TO AGENCY DETERMINATION THAT LESS RESTRICTIVE SPECIFICATION WILL MEET GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS.
MILTOPE CORPORATION-- RECONSIDERATION (SECOND):
MILTOPE CORPORATION REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION IN THE MATTER OF MILTOPE CORPORATION-- RECONSIDERATION, B-188342, JUNE 9, 1977, 77-1 CPD -- , IN WHICH WE DECLINED TO RECONSIDER ITS PROTEST CONCERNING AGENCY DETERMINATION THAT LESS RESTRICTIVE SOLICITATION WILL MEET GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS, ABSENT EVIDENCE OF FRAUD OR INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT. UNDERLYING MILTOPE'S COMPLAINT IS THE FACT THAT THE PROCURING ACTIVITY HAS SPECIFIED A PSI PERIPHERAL SUPPORT PART AS EQUAL TO MILTOPE'S ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT PART FOR USE IN THE UYK-5 SHIPBOARD COMPUTER.
IN REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION, MILTOPE ASSERTS THAT IT IS IN NO WAY ATTEMPTING TO RESTRICT COMPETITION AND THAT IT WOULD EVEN PERMIT PSI TO BUILD AND TEST ITS PART TO MILTOPE'S SPECIFICATIONS. IT STATES THAT IT HAS SUPPLIED ALL OF THE MANUFACTURING DRAWINGS FOR THE PARTS TO BOTH THE NAVY AND AIR FORCE. MOREOVER, MILTOPE CONTENDS THAT OUR PRIOR DECISION IS "TOTALLY INACCURATE SINCE YOU COULD NOT HAVE FOUND THE TIME TO DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH THE * * * NAVY * * * ."
IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THAT THE PROCURING ACTIVITY'S DECISION TO OPEN COMPETITION TO THE PSI PART IS ESSENTIALLY A DETERMINATION THAT COMPETITION NEED NOT BE RESTRICTED TO THE MILTOPE SPECIFICATION. EVEN IF MILTOPE IS CORRECT IN ITS VIEW THAT THE PSI PART IS VIEWED AS UNSATISFACTORY BY THE USING AGENCIES, THE DISPUTE IS ONE FOR RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE USING AND PROCURING ACTIVITIES AND FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR PRIOR DECISION IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR REVIEW PURSUANT TO OUR BID PROTEST FUNCTION.
ACCORDINGLY, WE REAFFIRM OUR POLICY NOT TO CONSIDER SUCH OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO OUR BID PROTEST FUNCTION.