Skip to main content

B-163024, AUG. 27, 1968

B-163024 Aug 27, 1968
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

SECRETARY: ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO SCANWELL LABORATORIES. THIS MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF A REPORT DATED APRIL 15. FPR 1-3.305 (B) STATES THAT THE DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS REQUIRED TO JUSTIFY THE NEGOTIATION OF A CONTRACT UNDER FPR 1 3.210 SHALL SET FORTH ENOUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY ESTABLISH THAT THE USE OF FORMAL ADVERTISING WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FEASIBLE OR PRACTICABLE. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER JUSTIFIED NEGOTIATION OF THIS PROCUREMENT ON THE BASIS THAT PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS WERE BEING USED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ORDER TO PROCURE AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM AND THAT IT WAS THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE TO DRAFT DEFINITIVE SPECIFICATIONS THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE AN INTEGRATED SOLID STATE ILS.

View Decision

B-163024, AUG. 27, 1968

TO MR. SECRETARY:

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO SCANWELL LABORATORIES, INCORPORATED, DENYING ITS PROTEST IN CONNECTION WITH A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR MARK I INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEMS (ILS) ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. THIS MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF A REPORT DATED APRIL 15, 1968, FROM THE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEVELOPMENT, FAA.

FPR 1-3.210 (B) REQUIRES THAT EVERY CONTRACT NEGOTIATED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THAT SECTION SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY A DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS SIGNED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER JUSTIFYING USE OF THAT AUTHORITY. FPR 1-3.305 (B) STATES THAT THE DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS REQUIRED TO JUSTIFY THE NEGOTIATION OF A CONTRACT UNDER FPR 1 3.210 SHALL SET FORTH ENOUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY ESTABLISH THAT THE USE OF FORMAL ADVERTISING WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FEASIBLE OR PRACTICABLE.

THE CONTRACTING OFFICER JUSTIFIED NEGOTIATION OF THIS PROCUREMENT ON THE BASIS THAT PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS WERE BEING USED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ORDER TO PROCURE AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM AND THAT IT WAS THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE TO DRAFT DEFINITIVE SPECIFICATIONS THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE AN INTEGRATED SOLID STATE ILS. AS INDICATED IN OUR DECISION TO THE PROTESTANT, SOME OF THE COMPONENTS OF THIS SYSTEM HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY COMPETITIVE BIDDING USING PERFORMANCE TYPE SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS APPARENTLY WERE AVAILABLE FOR ALL OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE ILS. THE DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS FAILS TO POINT OUT ANY GOOD REASON WHY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS ARE ADEQUATE FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING IN SOME INSTANCES AND INADEQUATE IN OTHER PROCUREMENTS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY ESTABLISHED THAT A NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT WAS JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRAFT ADEQUATE SPECIFICATIONS. CONSEQUENTLY, WE SUGGEST THAT THIS MATTER BE CAREFULLY REVIEWED PRIOR TO ANY FUTURE PROCUREMENTS OF THE ILS.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs