B-159480, AUG. 11, 1966

B-159480, AUG. 11, 1966

TO PAUL'S REPAIR SERVICE:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER, WITH ENCLOSURES, DATED JUNE 15, 1966, IN WHICH YOU PROTEST THE AWARD TO GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 33-601-66-302, ISSUED BY WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO (WPAFB).

ON PAGE 1 OF THE IFB BIDDERS WERE TO QUOTE MONTHLY RATES FOR THE FOLLOWING:

"NON PERSONAL SERVICES: TO PROVIDE FOR FURNISHING ALL LABOR, PARTS AND MATERIALS AND FOR PERFORMING ALL OPERATIONS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE SERVICE AND REPAIR FOR GOVERNMENT OWNED HOUSEHOLD ELECTRIC WASHERS AND ELECTRIC DRYERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY 66 THRU 30 JUNE 67.'

EXHIBIT "A" GIVES THE NAME, MODEL AND NUMBER OF THE WASHING AND DRYING MACHINES WHICH WOULD BE COVERED BY THE AWARDED CONTRACT.

ANOTHER PROVISION ON PAGE 1 ENTITLED "SCOPE OF WORK" STATED AS FOLLOWS:

"THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PERIOD SPECIFIED THE SERVICES NECESSARY TO REPAIR, RECONDITION AND OTHERWISE MAINTAIN THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED WASHERS AND DRYERS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT "A," WHICH MAY BE AMENDED, OR SUPPLEMENTED BY SUBSTITUTING OR ADDING SIMILAR EQUIPMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL LABOR, REPLACEMENT PARTS, MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH THE NECESSARY PARTS. SERVICES ACCOMPLISHED SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD COMMERCIAL PRACTICE.'

THE IFB ISSUED ON MAY 27, 1966, AND BIDS WERE OPENED ON JUNE 13, 1966.

THE FOLLOWING BIDS WERE RECEIVED:

TABLE

BIDDER MONTHLY RATE TOTAL PRICE DISTRIBUTOR APPLIANCE SERVICE

$2,000 $24,000 (*) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (GE)

$1,871 $22,452 PAUL'S REPAIR SERVICE $4,000 $48,000 (*)

(*) DOES NOT INCLUDE DISCOUNT

(1) THE AWARD WAS MADE TO THE LOW BIDDER, GE.

YOU CONTEND THAT THE INSTANT PROCUREMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE FOR SMALL BUSINESS. YOU BRING TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THERE WAS NO SYNOPSIS OF THE INSTANT PROCUREMENT, AND YOU CONTEND THAT THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TIME BETWEEN THE DATE OF DISTRIBUTION OF THE IFB AND THE DATE SET FOR THE OPENING OF BIDS TO ALLOW BIDDERS AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT THEIR BIDS. YOU ADVISE THAT YOUR BID PRICE INCLUDED COSTS FOR OVERHAULING THE MACHINES WHICH WERE NOT REQUIRED. IN THIS CONNECTION YOU CONTEND THAT THE "SCOPE OF WORK" PROVISION, QUOTED ABOVE, SHOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH THE WORK WHICH WAS REQUIRED BY THE INSTANT PROCUREMENT.

THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES THAT A DETERMINATION WAS MADE BY THE SMALL BUSINESS SPECIALIST THAT A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF RESPONSIBLE SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS WERE NOT AVAILABLE SO THAT AN AWARD FOR THE INSTANT PROCUREMENT COULD BE MADE AT A REASONABLE PRICE UNDER A SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE. THIS CONNECTION, WE ARE ADVISED THAT THE FISCAL YEAR 1965 REQUIREMENT FOR REPAIR WORK TO WASHERS AND DRYERS AT WPAFB WAS SYNOPSIZED AND THAT 15 SOURCES WERE SOLICITED. PURSUANT TO THIS SOLICITATION ONE BID FROM GE WAS RECEIVED WHICH QUOTED A MONTHLY RATE OF $1,625 OR $19,500 FOR THE YEARLY REQUIREMENT. THE WPAFB REQUIREMENT FOR WASHER AND DRYER REPAIRS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1966 WAS NOT SYNOPSIZED BUT 22 SOURCES WERE SOLICITED. TWO BIDS, ONE FROM GE AND ONE FROM YOU, WERE RECEIVED. GE'S BID WHICH QUOTED A MONTHLY RATE OF $1,660 OR $19,920 FOR THE YEARLY REQUIREMENT QUOTED A MONTHLY RATE OF $5,300, OR $63,600 FOR THE YEARLY REQUIREMENT. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1967 REQUIREMENT, THE INSTANT PROCUREMENT, 11 SOURCES WERE SOLICITED. THREE BIDS AS INDICATED ABOVE WERE RECEIVED PURSUANT TO THIS SOLICITATION.

SECTION 1-702 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION SETS FORTH THE GENERAL POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REGARDING SMALL BUSINESS SET- ASIDES, WHICH IS THAT A FAIR PORTION OF ITS TOTAL PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS WILL BE SET ASIDE FOR SMALL BUSINESS. SECTION 1-706.5 (A) (1) OF ASPR PROVIDES THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF AN INDIVIDUAL PROCUREMENT SHALL BE SET ASIDE FOR EXCLUSIVE SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION IF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINES THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT BIDS OR PROPOSALS WILL BE OBTAINED FROM A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF RESPONSIBLE SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS SO THAT AWARDS WILL BE MADE AT REASONABLE PRICES. OTHER WORDS A CONDITION MUST BE MET BEFORE A PROCUREMENT IS TOTALLY SET ASIDE FOR SMALL BUSINESS--- THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MUST REASONABLY EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE SUFFICIENT COMPETITION SO THAT THE AWARD WILL BE AT A REASONABLE PRICE. IN THE INSTANT PROCUREMENT THIS EXPECTATION, THAT THERE WOULD BE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF SMALL BUSINESS BIDDERS SO THAT THE AWARD WOULD BE AT A REASONABLE PRICE, DID NOT EXIST. PURSUANT TO OUR REVIEW WE FIND NO BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION NOT TO SET ASIDE THE PROCUREMENT EXCLUSIVELY FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS. SEE B- 150887, APRIL 25, 1963.

IN VIEW OF THE LOCAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROCUREMENT AND THE NUMBER OF SOURCES SOLICITED, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE FAILURE TO SYNOPSIZE WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FAILURE TO SYNOPSIZE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LEGAL BASIS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE INSTANT IFB. SEE B-159052, MAY 20, 1966.

IN REGARD TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE BIDDING TIME WAS ADEQUATE, WENOTE THAT ALL INTERESTED BIDDERS, INCLUDING YOU, WERE ABLE TO SUBMIT BIDS AND NO OTHER BIDDER HAS PROTESTED THE ADEQUACY OF THE BIDDING TIME. MOREOVER, YOU APPARENTLY WERE SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH THE INSTANT IFB SINCE YOU HAD BEEN SOLICITED FOR FISCAL YEARS 1965 AND 1966 REQUIREMENTS. PURSUANT TO OUR REVIEW, WE FIND THAT YOUR ALLEGATION REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE BIDDING TIME HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED.

WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTENTION THAT YOU WERE PREJUDICED BECAUSE THE "SCOPE OF WORK" PROVISION DID NOT ADEQUATELY DEFINE THE OVERHAUL WORK REQUIREMENT, IT IS THE AIR FORCE'S POSITION THAT SUCH DETERMINATIONS SHOULD BE MADE BY THE BIDDERS BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE OF THE WORK GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTAINING WASHERS AND DRYERS. IN THIS CONNECTION AN OVERHAUL WOULD BE IN ORDER IF NECESSARY TO PLACE A MACHINE IN AN OPERABLE CONDITION; THEREFORE, NO SPECIFIC WORK REQUIREMENT WAS OMITTED BY THE "SCOPE OF WORK" PROVISION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES YOUR CONTENTION REGARDING THE "SCOPE OF WORK" PROVISION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR CANCELLING THE INSTANT IFB.

WE HAVE SUGGESTED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE THAT A REVIEW BE MADE TO DETERMINE WHETHER, IN THE FUTURE PROCUREMENTS OF WPAFB'S REQUIREMENTS FOR WASHER AND DRYER REPAIRS IT WOULD BE FEASIBLE TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA REGARDING WORK REQUIREMENTS TO ADVISE BIDDERS MORE PRECISELY AS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROCUREMENT.