B-151923, APR. 17, 1964

B-151923, APR. 17, 1964

TO C AND M INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATES, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 24, 1964, QUESTIONING THE PROPRIETY OF OUR DECISION DATED MARCH 3, 1964, WHICH AGAIN UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF CONTRACT NO. AF 08/617/-2169 WITH PAUL H. WERRES COMPANY.

WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT A CLOSE INSPECTION OF THE THREE WALKIE STACKERS AT FORT MEADE WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THAT TWO OF THE UNITS DID NOT MEET THE MCCOY AIR FORCE BASE SPECIFICATIONS, BUT THAT ONE OF THOSE UNITS HAS BEEN IN OPERATION IN THE COMMISSARY FOR SEVERAL YEARS, WE ASSUME THAT THESE THREE UNITS WERE PURCHASED BY THE ARMY AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND PROBABLY UNDER DIFFERENT SPECIFICATIONS. THE FACT THAT THEY MAY BE SERVING SATISFACTORILY IS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR PROHIBITING ANY MODIFICATION OF SPECIFICATION TO REFLECT CHANGING OR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT. IN ANY EVENT, NO PURPOSE IS SERVED BY COMPARING EQUIPMENT IN USE AT THE TWO INSTALLATIONS, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT IT IS BEING USED UNDER IDENTICAL CONDITIONS.

THE TENOR OF YOUR LETTER INDICATES THAT YOU CONSIDER THE DESCRIPTION USED AT MCCOY AIR FORCE BASE AS BEING IN THE NATURE OF A FEDERAL OR MILITARY SPECIFICATION OR, AT LEAST, AS BEING IN GENERAL USE IN THE PURCHASE OF WALKIE STACKERS BY THE AIR FORCE. THIS WAS A SINGLE PURCHASE OF A SINGLE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AND WAS BASED ON THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY AS REPORTED BY THE AIR FORCE. THIS SITUATION WOULD NOT APPEAR TO JUSTIFY CANVASSING THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY FOR ITS COMMENTS.

IN OUR LETTER OF JANUARY 23, 1964, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO YOU, WE CAUTIONED THE AIR FORCE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF SPECIFYING ONLY THE MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND AVOIDING THE USE OF ANY DESCRIPTION WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AS PROPRIETARY OR UNDULY RESTRICTIVE. WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THIS POLICY IS NOT BEING FOLLOWING OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION COMPLAINED OF BY YOU HAS BEEN OR WILL BE USED IN ANY OTHER PROCUREMENT WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. IN ANY EVENT, THE DETERMINATION OF THE NEEDS OF A GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND THE DRAFTING OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR ARTICLES TO SERVE THOSE NEEDS IS PRIMARILY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AGENCY CONCERNED AND NOT OF THIS OFFICE, AND YOUR VIEWS WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT IN GENERAL MIGHT MORE PROPERLY BE ADDRESSED TO THE MILITARY AGENCIES CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF DEVELOPING SUCH SPECIFICATIONS.

FOR THE REASONS STATED NO FURTHER ACTION IN THE MATTER OF YOUR PROTEST OF THE AWARD IN THIS CASE IS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS OFFICE.