B-138859, MAY 19, 1960

B-138859, MAY 19, 1960

TO AMERICAN SNOWBLAST CORPORATION:

WE REFER AGAIN TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 10, 1960, TO THE AMC AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS CENTER, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FURNISHED OUR OFFICE, AND TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 25, 1960, WITH ENCLOSURES, TO US, PROTESTING THE SPECIFICATIONS WITH REGARD TO SNOWPLOWS USED IN CONNECTION WITH INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 33-600-60-129, ISSUED BY THE AMC AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS CENTER ON JANUARY 12, 1960, FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF 90 SNOWPLOWS.

IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT YOUR PRODUCT IS CAPABLE OF MEETING THE AIR FORCE REQUIREMENT FOR SNOWPLOWS AS WELL AS, OR BETTER THAN, THE EQUIPMENT PRESCRIBED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, YOU CONTEND THAT UNDER OUR DECISIONS, B-138859, AUGUST 18, 1959, AND NOVEMBER 17, 1959, THE SPECIFICATIONS SHOULD BE BROADENED TO INCLUDE A UNIT SUCH AS THAT MANUFACTURED BY YOU. YOU POINT OUT FURTHER THAT THE AIR FORCE HAS HAD IN ITS POSSESSION SINCE 1958 A UNIT MANUFACTURED BY YOUR PREDECESSOR WHICH APPARENTLY IS IDENTICAL WITH, OR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO, THE UNIT CURRENTLY OFFERED BY YOUR FIRM.

IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT DATED APRIL 26, 1960, WE WERE ADVISED THAT A 30-TON EXPERIMENTAL ROTARY PLOW WAS PROCURED BY THE AIR FORCE IN 1958 FOR THE SUM OF $118,000. THIS EQUIPMENT WAS MANUFACTURED BY YOUR PREDECESSOR FIRM AND IS PRESUMABLY SIMILAR TO YOUR MODEL R-2200. IT IS REPORTED THAT THE EQUIPMENT WAS INSTALLED ON A GOVERNMENT-OWNED VEHICLE FOR TESTING. HOWEVER, SUCH TESTING WAS REQUIRED TO BE DISCONTINUED AFTER A SERIES OF BREAKDOWNS OF THE EQUIPMENT. IT IS FURTHER REPORTED THAT IN THE AUTUMN OF 1959 THE AIR FORCE AGREED TO LEND THE SNOWPLOW TO THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE WHICH APPARENTLY HAS AN EQUIPPED FACILITY FOR TESTING SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT. THE EQUIPMENT WAS REPORTED SHIPPED TO THE RCAF ON FEBRUARY 26, 1960.

YOU ALSO CONTEND THAT ROTARY TYPE SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE PROCURED SEPARATELY FROM PUSH PLOW TYPE EQUIPMENT. UNDER THE TERMS OF PARAGRAPH G OF THE SCHEDULE TO THE INVITATION, THE ENTIRE PROCUREMENT MAY ONLY BE AWARDED TO ONE BIDDER.

THE POSITION OF THE AIR FORCE WITH RESPECT TO THIS MATTER IS THAT PROCUREMENT FROM ONE SOURCE ACHIEVES STANDARDIZATION AND INTERCHANGEABILITY BY PROVIDING A STANDARD CARRIER AND HITCH USABLE WITH EITHER THE PUSH OR ROTARY TYPE PLOW, AND THAT THE AF/S32U-10 IS A FAMILY OF SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT CONSISTING OF A TRUCK, AN AUXILIARY POWER PLANT, A UNIVERSAL PLOW HITCH AND FOUR DIFFERENT TYPE PLOWS. SO LONG AS THE SPECIFICATIONS REMAIN SUBSTANTIALLY IN THEIR PRESENT FORM PROCUREMENT OF THE ENTIRE REQUIREMENT FROM A SINGLE SOURCE MAY BE JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF THE INTERCHANGEABILITY FEATURE.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT IS OBVIOUSLY A FUNCTION PRIMARILY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CONCERNED. COMP. GEN. 554. HOWEVER, WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY TAKEN THE POSITION THAT ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS SHOULD BE STATED IN SUCH TERMS AS TO PERMIT THE BROADEST FIELD OF COMPETITION CONSISTENT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE AGENCY. COMP. GEN. 384. IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT IN THE ORDINARY SITUATION THE PROCUREMENT OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT IS MERELY A TOOL FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WITH WHICH THE AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE CHARGED. WHILE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES STATED ABOVE AN AGENCY SHOULD, IN OUR VIEW, BE ALERT TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND NEW PRODUCTS WHICH WILL PERMIT THE CARRYING OUT OF THEIR FUNCTIONS MORE EFFICIENTLY OR ECONOMICALLY, THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF ITS SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE TO MEET ITS ACTUAL NEEDS RATHER THAN TO INCREASE COMPETITION FOR FILLING OF THEM. 36 COMP. GEN. 610. THE TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC MISSIONS, IS, AS A PRACTICAL PROPOSITION, LIMITED AS TO FUNDS AND TIME FOR THE TESTING OF NEW PRODUCTS WHICH MAY CONTRIBUTE TO A GREATER OR LESSER DEGREE TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ITS MISSIONS, AND WE MUST ACCEPT ITS DETERMINATIONS AS TO THE TYPES OF EQUIPMENT BEST SUITED TO ITS NEEDS IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR INDICATION THAT SUCH TERMINATIONS ARE ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS.

AS INDICATED ABOVE, WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FROM YOUR PREDECESSOR WILL BE OR IS BEING TESTED BY THE RCAF. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT COOPERATION BETWEEN THE RCAF AND THE USAF IN OPERATIONS OF THIS TYPE IS NOT UNUSUAL. SHOULD THE TEST RESULTS INDICATE, AS YOU CONTEND, THAT YOUR PRODUCT CAN MEET THE AIR FORCE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL OR BETTER THAN EQUIPMENT CONFORMING TO THE PRESENT SPECIFICATIONS, WE WILL EXPECT THE AIR FORCE TO AMEND THE SPECIFICATIONS ACCORDINGLY AS PROMPTLY AS PRACTICABLE WITHOUT INTERFERENCE WITH THE REGULAR PROCUREMENT CYCLE. SEE B-138859, NOVEMBER 17, 1959.