B-134238, DEC. 17, 1957

B-134238, DEC. 17, 1957

TO PENNSYLVANIA TESTING LABORATORY, INC.:

A REPORT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY CONCERNING YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE REJECTION OF A BID SUBMITTED BY YOUR COMPANY IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 160-306-57, ISSUED ON MARCH 29, 1957, BY THE YARDS AND DOCKS SUPPLY OFFICE, PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF ONE COMBINATION TYPE DYNAMOMETER TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS MADE A PART OF THE INVITATION.

ONLY TWO BIDS WERE RECEIVED, ONE FROM YOUR COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,250, AND ANOTHER FROM THE MAXWELL DYNAMOMETER COMPANY, DOWNINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,990. FOLLOWING SURVEYS MADE OF BOTH COMPANIES, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED THAT YOU COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A RESPONSIBLE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PARTICULAR WORK. AWARD WAS THEN MADE TO THE MAXWELL COMPANY. THAT COMPANY HAD PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF DYNAMOMETERS FOR THE NAVY AND APPEARED TO BE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A DYNAMOMETER WHICH WOULD COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF INVITATION NO. 160-306-57.

ALTHOUGH YOU CONTENDED THAT YOUR COMPANY HAD NOT BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THAT IT COULD PERFORM SATISFACTORILY, THE SURVEY OF YOUR PLANT INDICATED THAT YOU DID NOT POSSESS FACILITIES OR EQUIPMENT FOR METAL FABRICATION OR MACHINING WHICH WOULD BE NECESSARY TO MANUFACTURE DYNAMOMETER WHICH YOU PROPOSED TO FURNISH. NO PRELIMINARY WORK TOWARDS ITS DESIGN AND ENGINEERING HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN, NOR HAD SOURCES OF MATERIALS AND COMPONENTS BEEN TENTATIVELY ESTABLISHED. APPARENTLY, THE NAVY INSPECTOR MADE APPROPRIATE INQUIRIES TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING THESE MATTERS BEFORE SUBMITTING HIS REPORT TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. THERE IS NOTHING OF RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ACTED ARBITRARILY IN REJECTING YOUR BID WITHOUT FIRST DISCUSSING WITH YOU THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY WHICH WAS MADE.

YOU ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE REJECTION OF YOUR BID WAS INFLUENCED BY THE FACT THAT YOU SUBMITTED NO DESCRIPTIVE DATA. IT APPEARS THAT THIS ALLEGATION IS BASED UPON A NOTATION MADE ON AN ABSTRACT OF BIDS PREPARED BY A COMMERCIAL ABSTRACTING SERVICE AND CIRCULATED TO SUBSCRIBING BIDDERS. THE WORDS "NO INFORMATION ATTACHED WHATSOEVER" ARE REPORTED AS HAVING BEEN NOTED ON THAT ABSTRACT. HOWEVER, NO SUCH NOTATION WAS MADE ON THE OFFICIAL ABSTRACT OF BIDS. THE INVITATION DID NOT REQUIRE DESCRIPTIVE DATA TO ACCOMPANY BIDS AND IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT WHEN GIVING CONSIDERATION TO YOUR BID.

IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR SUGGESTION THAT THE MAXWELL BID WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS, IT IS TRUE THAT THE BID OF THE MAXWELL DYNAMOMETER COMPANY WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A LETTER WHICH DISCUSSES CERTAIN FEATURES OF THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS AS COMPARED WITH THOSE OF A MODEL WHICH THE COMPANY HAD DEVELOPED. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS INFORMED BY HIS TECHNICAL ADVISORS THAT THE MAXWELL BID MET THE SPECIFICATIONS AND IT HAS SINCE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY THAT THE BID CONFORMED TO THE SPECIFICATIONS IN ALL RESPECTS. DELIVERY UNDER THE MAXWELL CONTRACT WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 1957, AND THE CONTRACT PRICE HAS BEEN PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR'S ASSIGNEE BANK.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND CONSIDERING THAT THE CONTRACTING AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING WHETHER BIDS MEET THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS AND WHETHER BIDDERS HAVE THE NECESSARY FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND TECHNICAL ABILITY TO PERFORM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR PROPOSALS, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT NO FURTHER ACTION ON YOUR PROTEST APPEARS TO BE REQUIRED BY OUR OFFICE.