B-129018, NOV. 2, 1956

B-129018, NOV. 2, 1956

TO YORK CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 9, 1956, IN WHICH YOU REFER TO OFFICE LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 1956, SUSTAINING THE REJECTION OF THE BID YOU SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. N140-1396-56.

YOUR LETTER REQUESTS THAT THIS OFFICE ASK THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY TO (1) ADVISE AS TO WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF $4,417.24 FOR THE CARRIER REFRIGERATION UNIT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT WHEN SUCH UNIT WILL PROVIDE ONLY .05 MORE TONS OF REFRIGERATING CAPACITY THAN THE UNIT OFFERED BY YOUR BID, AND (2) ADVISE IF, REGARDLESS OF THE 2.0 TON CAPACITY REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BELIEVES THAT 1.95 TONS OF CAPACITY WOULD ADEQUATELY COOL THE SPACES TO BE REFRIGERATED.

SINCE YOU ALSO REQUEST THAT A REPLY TO YOUR LETTER BE MADE BY THIS OFFICE, IT IS APPARENTLY YOUR INTENTION THAT WE TREAT YOUR REQUEST, TOGETHER WITH THE ANSWERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, AS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1956. WHILE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THIS OFFICE ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW UPON PROPER REQUEST, SUCH REVIEW IS JUSTIFIED ONLY IF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR LEGAL AUTHORITY IS ADVANCED TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION OTHER THAN THAT SET OUT IN THE DECISION. YOUR LETTER CONTAINS NO INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO AND CONSIDERED BY THIS OFFICE IN ARRIVING AT OUR PREVIOUS DECISION, AND THE RECORDS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY INDICATE THAT THE TECHNICAL QUESTION YOU HAVE RAISED HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED IN ARRIVING AT THE SPECIFICATIONS AS DRAWN. AS INDICATED IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISION, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS DID NOT REFLECT A BONA FIDE DETERMINATION OF THE MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT ONLY WHERE THE LOW BIDDER HAS OFFERED MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH SPECIFICATIONS IS THIS OFFICE LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN OBJECTING TO AN AWARD TO A HIGHER BIDDER. SINCE AN AWARD HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE UNDER THE INVITATION IN QUESTION AND INASMUCH AS YOUR BID MUST BE CONSIDERED NOT RESPONSIVE FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1956, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT A REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FOR SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED OR SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE.

AS INDICATED IN OUR PREVIOUS LETTER, WE HAVE INVITED THE ATTENTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO THE LACK OF COMPETITION IN PROCURING THIS TYPE OF REFRIGERATING EQUIPMENT AND SUGGESTED A FURTHER REVIEW OF THAT DEPARTMENT'S REASONABLE NEEDS PRIOR TO FUTURE PURCHASES. SINCE YOUR SECOND QUESTION IS BASED UPON A DIFFERENCE OF TECHNICAL OPINION IT WOULD APPEAR THAT YOUR VIEWS THEREON SHOULD BE ADDRESSED DIRECTLY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR CONSIDERATION IN ANY REVIEW OF FUTURE REQUIREMENTS WHICH HE MAY UNDERTAKE.