B-142676, MAY 27, 1960

B-142676, MAY 27, 1960

TO SPRING CITY ELECTRICAL MFG. CO.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 19, 1960, PROTESTING THE AWARD TO ANY OTHER BIDDER OF A CONTRACT UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 0-341881, ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY. YOU ENCLOSED A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 1, 1960, TO THE AGENCY REQUESTING AN EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THE QUANTITIES ON THE 8 ITEMS OF BUSHINGS INCLUDED IN THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT WERE DETERMINED AND YOU STATED THAT YOU HAD NOT AS YET RECEIVED A REPLY.

ON FEBRUARY 12, 1960, THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY ISSUED AN INVITATION REQUESTING BIDS FOR FURNISHING 8 ITEMS OF SEALING BUSHINGS. UNDER EACH ITEM WERE LISTED 3 QUANTITIES ON WHICH BIDS WERE REQUESTED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, UNDER ITEM NO. 1, COVERING A TYPE SB1 BUSHING, THE 3 QUANTITIES ON WHICH BIDS WERE REQUESTED WERE 5,000, 20,000, AND 40,000. IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE AWARD WOULD NOT BE SPLIT AND THAT A SINGLE AWARD WOULD BE MADE IN THE AGGREGATE TO THAT RESPONSIVE BIDDER WHOSE BID IS THE LOWEST RECEIVED FOR THE ITEMS ORDERED. AWARD WAS MADE TO THE O.Z. ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, THE LOWEST BID FOR THE QUANTITIES REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

YOU PROTEST ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN YOU ATTENDED THE BID OPENING ON MARCH 4, 1960, YOU WERE TOLD THAT APPROXIMATELY THE MIDDLE QUANTITY OF EACH ITEM WOULD BE AWARDED, AND ON THE BASIS OF THE MIDDLE QUANTITIES THE AWARD WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO YOU AS YOUR PRICE WAS $45,655 THEREON, WHILE ANOTHER COMPANY WAS SECOND WITH ITS QUOTATION OF $45,741. YOU WANTED TO KNOW WHY THE AWARD FOR ONLY 15,000 BUSHINGS UNDER ITEM NO. 1 WAS MADE WHEREAS YOU HAD BEEN INFORMED THAT 23,330 BUSHINGS WERE REQUIRED. IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 1, 1960, YOU PRESENTED A TABLE OF THE QUANTITIES UNDER EACH ITEM WHICH WERE BEING REQUISITIONED AND THE QUANTITIES FOR WHICH AWARD WAS MADE, AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE

"ITEM NUMBER ORIGINAL REQUISITION BEING ORDERED NOW

1 23,330 15,000

2 162 220

3 1,225 1,230

4 112 120

5 31 35

6 2,614 2,620

7 295 300

8 DON-T KNOW 350"

YOUR UNIT PRICES ON ITEM NO. 1 WERE SOMEWHAT LOWER THAN THOSE QUOTED BY THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER WHILE YOUR UNIT PRICES ON THE 7 OTHER ITEMS WERE CONSIDERABLY HIGHER THAN THOSE QUOTED BY THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER.

IN ITS LETTER OF MAY 5, 1960, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE EXPLAINED TO YOU WHY THE QUANTITY OF ITEM NO. 1 WAS REDUCED. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE FISCAL YEARS 1958 AND 1959 EXISTING TYPE BUSHINGS WERE UTILIZED IN MAKING FIELD INSTALLATIONS OF APPROACH LIGHT LANES BUT THAT IN THE INTERIM A BUSHING WAS DEVISED THAT WAS CONSIDERED MUCH MORE SATISFACTORY. AS OF DECEMBER 14, 1959, IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT 23,000 OF THE SPECIALLY DESIGNED BUSHINGS WERE NEEDED FOR THE WHOLE PROGRAM. PROCUREMENT, HOWEVER, DID NOT GET UNDER WAY UNTIL JANUARY 1960. CONSEQUENTLY, BECAUSE OF THE URGENCY OF THE FIELD INSTALLATION PROGRAM, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ADVISED ITS REGIONAL OFFICES THAT DELIVERY OF THE NEW BUSHINGS COULD NOT BE EXPECTED BEFORE MAY 15, 1960, AND INSTRUCTED THEM TO UTILIZE THE OLD TYPE BUSHINGS ON INSTALLATIONS TO BE MADE PRIOR TO THAT DATE. VIEW OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS, THE ESTIMATE OF THE NEEDS AS OF THE DATE OF AWARD WAS DECREASED TO 15,000 BUSHINGS.

WHILE YOU STATE IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 1, 1960, THAT THE ESTIMATED QUANTITY FIGURE UNDER EACH OF THE OTHER 7 ITEMS "MOVED IN A DIRECTION SO AS TO CAUSE SPRING CITY NOT TO BE LOW BIDDER," THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE STATES THAT THE QUANTITY UNDER ITEM NO. 2 WAS INCREASED FROM 162 TO 220 DUE TO A REQUIREMENT FOR 52 ADDITIONAL UNITS FOR BRAZIL, MAKING THE NUMBER OF UNITS 214, WHICH WAS ROUNDED OFF TO 220 UNITS. THE INCREASES IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS UNDER ITEMS NOS. 3 TO 8 WERE INSIGNIFICANT AND WERE ONLY MADE TO "ROUND OFF" THE FIGURES.

OF COURSE, THE PURPOSE OF REQUESTING QUOTATIONS FOR VARIOUS QUANTITIES UNDER EACH ITEM WAS TO SECURE THE BEST PRICES FOR THE QUANTITIES CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR THE NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT DETERMINED AS OF THE TIME OF AWARD. THE AWARD HERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE NEEDS SO DETERMINED. ACCORDINGLY, ON THE MATTERS PRESENTED BY YOU WE FIND NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE AWARD IN THIS CASE WAS IMPROPER.