Skip to main content

B-154858, NOV. 6, 1964

B-154858 Nov 06, 1964
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

WHICH MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF YOUR REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 22. THE RFP WAS MAILED TO PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS ON APRIL 24. INTERESTED PARTIES WERE INSTRUCTED TO INCLUDE WITH THEIR PROPOSALS INFORMATION (A) AS TO EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD. OFFERORS WERE INFORMED THAT THE EXISTING OPERATION WAS ON A TWO-SHIFT BASIS. THEY WERE URGED TO ATTEND A BIDDER'S CONFERENCE TO BE HELD ON MAY 5. (CLOSING DATE FOR PROPOSALS WAS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 14. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT ALL OR ANY PART OF YOUR PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. "11. THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT AWARD MAY BE MADE WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSALS RECEIVED. THE RFP ADVISED THAT A FIRM-FIXED-PRICE TYPE CONTRACT WAS CONTEMPLATED.

View Decision

B-154858, NOV. 6, 1964

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE:

THIS REFERS TO THE PROTEST OF GOODWAY PRINTING COMPANY AGAINST THE AWARD MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 08-606-64-30, WHICH MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF YOUR REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 1964, REFERENCE: AFSPPCA.

THE RFP WAS MAILED TO PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS ON APRIL 24, 1964, FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE FIELD PRINTING PLANT, PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA, FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1964, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1965. INTERESTED PARTIES WERE INSTRUCTED TO INCLUDE WITH THEIR PROPOSALS INFORMATION (A) AS TO EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD, (B) EXPERIENCE OF PERSONNEL, (C) NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER FUNCTION, (D) CALIBER OF TECHNICAL PEOPLE (INCLUDING BACKGROUND), (E) TOTAL PERSONNEL BY TYPE (SPECIALISTS AS OPPOSED TO SEMI-SKILLED OR UNSKILLED), AND (F) THE PROPOSED PLAN TO BE FOLLOWED. OFFERORS WERE INFORMED THAT THE EXISTING OPERATION WAS ON A TWO-SHIFT BASIS, CONSISTING OF 32 PEOPLE FOR THE FIRST SHIFT AND 22 PEOPLE FOR THE SECOND SHIFT, AND THEY WERE URGED TO ATTEND A BIDDER'S CONFERENCE TO BE HELD ON MAY 5, 1964, (CLOSING DATE FOR PROPOSALS WAS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 14, 1964) TO INSURE RESPONSIVENESS OF PROPOSALS. THIS CONNECTION, THE RFP STATED AS FOLLOWS:

"10. THE GOVERNMENT MAY DISCUSS THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS WITH THE FIRM SUBMITTING THE PROPOSAL. HOWEVER, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT ALL OR ANY PART OF YOUR PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED.

"11. THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT AWARD MAY BE MADE WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSALS RECEIVED; HENCE PROPOSALS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED INITIALLY ON THE MOST FAVORABLE TERMS, FROM A PRICE AND TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, WHICH THE OFFEROR CAN SUBMIT TO THE GOVERNMENT.'

FINALLY, THE RFP ADVISED THAT A FIRM-FIXED-PRICE TYPE CONTRACT WAS CONTEMPLATED.

A PRE-BID CONFERENCE WAS HELD ON MAY 5, AND IT IS REPORTED THAT GOODWAY DID NOT ATTEND THIS MEETING. ON MAY 14, FIVE PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED AND SUBMITTED FOR EVALUATION TO THE EVALUATION TEAM. POINTS WERE ASSIGNED FOR EACH OF THE SIX FACTORS CITED ABOVE (FACTORS (A) THROUGH (F) (, AND THE PROPOSALS WERE EVALUATED ACCORDINGLY.

THE RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION AND THE PRICE PROPOSED BY EACH FIRM WERE AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE

FIRM PRICE POINTS ASSIGNED

BREVARD GRAPHICS, INC. $310,500 70

ROSE PRINTING COMPANY, INC. $366,253 70

OMNICO, INC. $300,770 65

MCGREGOR AND WERNER, INC. $379,451 64

GOODWAY PRINTING CORP. $200,640 30

GOODWAY PROPOSED A BASIC PLAN (TABLE I OF ITS PROPOSAL) WHICH INCLUDED 16 PEOPLE FOR THE FIRST SHIFT AND 20 PEOPLE FOR THE SECOND SHIFT, OR A TOTAL OF 36 PEOPLE. (IT ALSO OFFERED AN ,ALTERNATE STAFFING PLAN" TOTALLING 28 PEOPLE). WHILE GOODWAY WAS GIVEN A MAXIMUM RATING FOR ,EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD," DEFICIENCIES WERE NOTED IN THE FIRM'S PROPOSED STAFFING ARRANGEMENT. SPECIFICALLY, IT WAS NOTED THAT GOODWAY FAILED TO STATE THE EXPERIENCE OF ITS SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL, THE CALIBER OF ITS TECHNICAL PEOPLE AND A SKILL VERSUS SEMI SKILL BREAKDOWN OF ITS PERSONNEL. HOWEVER, THE PANEL CONCLUDED THAT THE MOST PERTINENT DEFICIENCY WAS THE INADEQUATE NUMBER OF PEOPLE PROPOSED TO PERFORM THE JOB. THE MATTER IS STATED AS FOLLOWS: (MEMO OF THE CHIEF, PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DATED AUGUST 14, 1964)

"2. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A STAFF OF 48 TO 50 PEOPLE WOULD BE EXCELLENT AND THAT A STAFF OF 44 TO 46 PEOPLE WOULD MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS.

"3. GOODWAY'S BASIC PROPOSAL PROJECTED A STAFF OF 36 PEOPLE. THIS WAS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR ITS REJECTION. * * *.' A QUESTION WAS ALSO RAISED AS TO WHETHER GOODWAY INTENDED ITS PRICE OF $200.640 AS A FIRM OFFER.

A CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO BREVARD GRAPHICS, INCORPORATED ON JUNE 8, 1964, AT A PRICE OF $295,500.08. (THE FIRM REDUCED ITS QUOTED PRICE BY $15,000 AFTER FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS.)

GOODWAY'S CONTENTION IS THAT ITS PROPOSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED AND AWARD MADE AT A PRICE ALMOST $100,000 MORE THAN THE GOODWAY PRICE WITHOUT PERMITTING THE FIRM TO CORRECT THE ,SHORTCOMINGS" IN ITS PROPOSAL. THE OFFEROR ALLEGES THAT ITS PRICE WAS CLEARLY A FIRM PRICE AND THAT "THERE COULD BE NO QUESTION AS TO THE ABILITY OF GOODWAY PRINTING COMPANY TO STAND IN BACK OF ITS FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER ANY CONTRACT RESULTING FROM ITS BID.'

YOUR DEPARTMENT BELIEVES THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PREFERABLE FOR THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO NEGOTIATE WITH GOODWAY TO ASSURE HIMSELF WHETHER ITS PRICE INCLUDED ALL THE WORK REQUIRED TO BE PERFORMED UNDER THE CONTRACT, BUT CONCLUDES THAT, IN VIEW OF THE "INFERIOR" TECHNICAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY GOODWAY AND THE ADMONITION IN THE RFP THAT PROPOSALS SHOULD BE INITIALLY SUBMITTED ON THE MOST FAVORABLE TERMS, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THAT FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WITH GOODWAY WERE NOT WARRANTED. (IT WAS NOTED THAT GOODWAY DID NOT AVAIL ITSELF OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND THE PRE-BID MEETING.)

CONCERNING THE SELECTION OF OFFERORS FOR NEGOTIATION AND AWARD, ASPR 3- 805.1/A) PROVIDES THAT:

"AFTER RECEIPT OF INITIAL PROPOSALS, WRITTEN OR ORAL DISCUSSIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED WITH ALL RESPONSIBLE OFFERORS WHO SUBMIT PROPOSALS WITHIN A COMPETITIVE RANGE, PRICE AND OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED, EXCEPT THAT THIS REQUIREMENT NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE APPLIED TO:

"/V) PROCUREMENTS IN WHICH IT CAN BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED FROM THE EXISTENCE OF ADEQUATE COMPETITION OR ACCURATE PRIOR COST EXPERIENCE WITH THE PRODUCT OR SERVICE THAT ACCEPTANCE OF THE MOST FAVORABLE INITIAL PROPOSAL WITHOUT DISCUSSION WOULD RESULT IN A FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE. (PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IN SUCH PROCUREMENTS, THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SHALL NOTIFY ALL OFFERORS OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT AWARD MAY BE MADE WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF PROPOSALS RECEIVED AND HENCE, THAT PROPOSALS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED INITIALLY ON THE MOST FAVORABLE TERMS FROM A PRICE AND TECHNICAL STANDPOINT WHICH THE OFFEROR CAN SUBMIT TO THE GOVERNMENT. ANY CASE WHERE THERE IS UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE PRICING OR TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF ANY PROPOSALS, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHALL NOT MAKE AWARD WITHOUT FURTHER EXPLORATION AND DISCUSSION PRIOR TO AWARD. ALSO, WHEN THE PROPOSAL MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVES A MATERIAL DEPARTURE FROM THE STATED REQUIREMENTS, CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO OFFERING THE OTHER FIRMS WHICH SUBMITTED PROPOSALS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT NEW PROPOSALS ON A TECHNICAL BASIS WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO THAT OF THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL, PROVIDED THAT THIS CAN BE DONE WITHOUT REVEALING TO THE OTHER FIRMS ANY INFORMATION WHICH IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER 3- 506.1).'

(THE OTHER ENUMERATED EXCEPTIONS DO NOT PERTAIN TO THIS CASE.)

WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE FINAL SELECTION OF A CONTRACTOR UNDER NEGOTIATING PROCEDURES IS LARGELY A MATTER OF JUDGMENT, AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF THE MATTER SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO STAND IN THE ABSENCE OF BAD FAITH OR ABUSE OF DISCRETION. B-149330, OCTOBER 10, 1962; B-149344, DECEMBER 26, 1962. CLEARLY, THE FACTS IN THIS CASE DO NOT INDICATE THAT THE AWARD TO BREVARD WAS MADE IN BAD FAITH OR THAT THE AWARD WAS MADE WITHOUT A SUPPORTABLE BASIS, ALTHOUGH WE AGREE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PREFERABLE TO CHECK FURTHER WITH GOODWAY.

IT APPEARS THAT GOODWAY'S SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED IN PART BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL WAS INCOMPLETE AS TO WHETHER A FIRM COULD SATISFACTORILY PERFORM THE CONTRACT WITH ONLY 36 EMPLOYEES, AS INDICATED IN GOODWAY'S PROPOSAL. WHILE THIS PART OF GOODWAY'S PROPOSAL RAISES CONSIDERABLE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE FIRM UNDERSTOOD THE NATURE OF THE REQUIRED WORK, FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE OFFEROR MIGHT HAVE CLARIFIED THE MATTER.

THE FACTS INDICATE THAT GOODWAY WAS A RESPONSIBLE OFFEROR WHO SUBMITTED A COMPETITIVE PRICE. HENCE, UNDER ASPR 3-805.1, FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WITH GOODWAY WERE APPROPRIATE. HOWEVER, AS INDICATED ABOVE, A VALID AND LEGAL AWARD HAS BEEN MADE. ACCORDINGLY, BY LETTER OF TODAY (COPY ENCLOSED), WE ARE INFORMING THE ATTORNEYS FOR GOODWAY THAT ITS PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD IS ..END :

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs