B-142052, APR. 29, 1960

B-142052, APR. 29, 1960

TO CONTINENTAL COPPER AND STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.:

WE HAVE YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 14, 1960, FILE WELIN QUOTE NUMBER 5227, IN WHICH YOU INVITE ATTENTION TO SEVERAL MATTERS DISCUSSED IN OUR LETTER OF APRIL 11, 1960, TO YOU, IN WHICH WE ADVISED YOU THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY UNDER INVITATION NO. 228 33491-59-E WAS NOT SUBJECT TO LEGAL OBJECTION.

IN THE FIRST PART OF YOUR LETTER YOU STATE THAT YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH OUR STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION IN THE REPLACEMENT INVITATION BECAUSE THE FIRST INVITATION CALLED FOR ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOAT DAVITS TO BE FURNISHED AND THE AWARD MADE TO CARROLL ENGINEERING COMPANY, THE LOW BIDDER UNDER THE SECOND INVITATION, WAS BASED ON ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION. THE FIRST INVITATION ISSUED APRIL 13, 1959, INVITED BIDS--- TO BE OPENED MAY 11, 1959--- FOR FURNISHING 6 BOAT DAVITS, LOTS A, B AND C. PARAGRAPH 3.3/C) OF THE SCHEDULE PROVIDED THAT THE DAVITS, TRACKWAYS AND WINCHES "SHALL BE OF ALUMINUM.' YOUR BID IN THE AMOUNT OF $157,865 WAS THE ONLY ONE RECEIVED. UPON BEING INFORMED THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICE HAD DECIDED TO REDESIGN THE EQUIPMENT TO BE PROCURED, YOU ADDRESSED A LETTER DATED JULY 30, 1959, TO THAT OFFICE AND REQUESTED THAT THE EQUIPMENT NOT BE READVERTISED BUT THAT A CONTRACT BE NEGOTIATED WITH YOUR FIRM. IN SUPPORT OF YOUR REQUEST YOU STATED THAT SINCE ONLY ONE BID WAS RECEIVED, NO OTHER CONTRACTOR WOULD BE INTERESTED IN BIDDING TO SUPPLY THE EQUIPMENT. ALSO, YOU STATED THAT IF OTHER CONTRACTORS SHOULD DECIDE TO BID, YOUR PRICES HAD BEEN ALREADY DISCLOSED AND SINCE THE MODIFICATIONS WERE TO BE MINOR IN NATURE, YOU WOULD BE SUBJECT TO UNFAIR COMPETITION.

HOWEVER, YOU WERE ADVISED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICE ON AUGUST 14, 1959, THAT AFTER REVIEWING THE CHANGES WHICH HAD BEEN MADE IN THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS, IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO READVERTISE. THE REVISIONS IN THE SPECIFICATIONS PERMITTED BIDDERS TO BID ON STEEL CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS ON ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION AND IT IS REPORTED THAT MORE LATITUDE WAS ALLOWED IN DESIGN WITH REFERENCE TO SPACE TO BE OCCUPIED BY THE DAVIT ABOARD SHIP DUE TO CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF THE BOATS. THREE BIDS WERE RECEIVED UPON READVERTISEMENT. THE BIDS FOR STEEL CONSTRUCTION WERE DISREGARDED. AS TO ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION, CARROLL ENGINEERING COMPANY BID A TOTAL OF $150,950; IDEAL WINDLASS COMPANY BID $152,820; AND YOUR BID WAS $186,193.

ALTHOUGH YOU STATE THAT THE CHANGES WERE MINOR IN NATURE, THE AMOUNT OF YOUR SECOND BID WAS APPROXIMATELY $27,000 MORE THAN YOUR FIRST BID. WAS DECIDED THAT SINCE TECHNICAL DATA SHOWED THE ALUMINUM BOAT DAVITS TO BE 5,000 POUNDS LIGHTER PER VESSEL THAN STEEL BOAT DAVITS, AND IN ORDER NOT TO ADD TO TOPSIDE WEIGHT, THE ALUMINUM BOAT DAVITS SHOULD BE PURCHASED. OUR OFFICE AGREES WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE THAT THE REVISION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS TO INVITE BIDS ON STEEL CONSTRUCTION AND TO PERMIT MORE LATITUDE IN DESIGN AS TO SPACE TO BE OCCUPIED BY THE DAVITS WAS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR READVERTISING FOR BIDS.

WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND POINT RAISED IN YOUR LETTER AS TO THE ABILITY AND CAPACITY OF CARROLL ENGINEERING COMPANY, IT MAY BE STATED THAT THE MATTER WAS THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BEFORE AWARD WAS MADE. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS REPORTED THAT IN "VIEW OF THE FORMER ASSOCIATION OF MESSRS. CARROLL AND DESEPIO WITH WELIN, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO QUESTION THEIR ENGINEERING KNOW-HOW.' THE INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL AT NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, SUBMITTED AN 8 PAGE REPORT TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICE ON DECEMBER 29, 1959, PRIOR TO AWARD IN JANUARY 1960, IN WHICH HE OUTLINED THE REASONS AS TO WHY HE CONSIDERED THAT CARROLL ENGINEERING COMPANY AND THE COMPANIES AFFILIATED WITH CARROLL HAVE THE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCED PERSONNEL, AND HE FOUND THAT CARROLL HAD FIRM DELIVERY PROMISES FOR RAW MATERIAL AND COMPONENTS. THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE AND LINE OF CREDIT OF CARROLL ENGINEERING, AS WELL AS THE AFFILIATED COMPANIES, WERE CONSIDERED AND FOUND SATISFACTORY. IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 22, 1960, TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICE YOU APPEAR TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE WORK IS PROGRESSING AHEAD OF SCHEDULE AND IN A VERY SATISFACTORY MANNER. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, ALSO, IN AN UNDATED STATEMENT SUBMITTED HERE ON MARCH 17, 1960, REPORTS THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER'S PROGRESS IS "HIGHLY SATISFACTORY AND AHEAD OF SCHEDULE.' THESE FACTS WOULD TEND TO CONFIRM THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PRE-AWARD SURVEY AS TO THE ABILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT.

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FEEL THAT ANY CHANGE IN THE CONCLUSION HERETOFORE REACHED IN THE MATTER WOULD BE JUSTIFIED.