B-168936 (2), MAY 22, 1970
Highlights
ATTENTION OF NAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS COMMAND IS INVITED TO FACT THAT IN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT STATEMENT IS MADE THAT AWARD TO PROTESTANT WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT INDIRECT COSTS TO GOVERNMENT. USE OF SUCH COSTS AS BASIS FOR REJECTION WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPROPER. OMISSION OF THAT FACT MIGHT HAVE INVALIDATED PROCUREMENT. TO ADMIRAL BIERI: ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO WESCO INFORMATION UTILITY. YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT OF MARCH 26. REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FACT THAT AN AWARD TO WESCO WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT INDIRECT COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT. USE OF SUCH COSTS AS A BASIS FOR REJECTING WESCO'S PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPROPER. ATTENTION IS ALSO DIRECTED TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANYWHERE IN THE SOLICITATION OR CONTRACT ANY INDICATION OF THE POINT AT WHICH THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO PICKUP AND DELIVER THE WORK TO BE PROCESSED.
B-168936 (2), MAY 22, 1970
CONTRACTS--NEGOTIATION--EVALUATION FACTORS--INDIRECT COSTS WHILE GAO FINDS NO BASIS FOR INTERFERING WITH PROCUREMENT FOR COMPUTER TIME FOR OCMM, ATTENTION OF NAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS COMMAND IS INVITED TO FACT THAT IN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT STATEMENT IS MADE THAT AWARD TO PROTESTANT WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT INDIRECT COSTS TO GOVERNMENT; HOWEVER, ABSENT ANY MENTION IN RFP OF EVALUATION OF INDIRECT COSTS, USE OF SUCH COSTS AS BASIS FOR REJECTION WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPROPER. SEE ASPR 3- 501 (B) SEC. D (X). MOREOVER, EXCEPT FOR UNDERSTANDING OF ALL PARTIES CONCERNED AS TO POINT OF PICKUP AND DELIVERY, OMISSION OF THAT FACT MIGHT HAVE INVALIDATED PROCUREMENT.
TO ADMIRAL BIERI:
ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO WESCO INFORMATION UTILITY, INC; KENSINGTON, MARYLAND, RELATIVE TO ITS PROTEST AGAINST AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO HONEYWELL, INC; UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. N00600-70-R- 5132 ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. ; FOR COMPUTER TIME FOR THE OFFICE OF CIVILIAN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT. WHILE FOR THE REASONS STATED WE FIND NO BASIS FOR INTERFERING WITH THE PROCUREMENT IN THIS INSTANCE, YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT OF MARCH 26, 1970, REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FACT THAT AN AWARD TO WESCO WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT INDIRECT COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT.
SOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS AND CONDITIONS, SECTION 4 STATES, "PROPOSALS SHALL BE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF PRICE OFFERED AS WELL AS THE ABILITY OF THE OFFEROR TO MEET THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS AS EVIDENCED BY THE PROPOSED OPERATIONAL PLAN." IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION IN THE RFP OF EVALUATION OF INDIRECT COSTS, USE OF SUCH COSTS AS A BASIS FOR REJECTING WESCO'S PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPROPER. SEE ASPR 3-501 (B) SEC. D (X).
ATTENTION IS ALSO DIRECTED TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANYWHERE IN THE SOLICITATION OR CONTRACT ANY INDICATION OF THE POINT AT WHICH THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO PICKUP AND DELIVER THE WORK TO BE PROCESSED, OTHER THAN THE CITATION OF THE REQUISITION OR PURCHASE REQUEST NUMBER, WHICH REFERS TO "OFFICE OF CIVILIAN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C." EXCEPT FOR THE APPARENT UNDERSTANDING OF ALL PARTIES CONCERNED AS TO THIS POINT SUCH OMISSION MIGHT WELL HAVE INVALIDATED THE PROCUREMENT.