B-156811, JUL. 28, 1964
Highlights
INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF JULY 15. YOU STATE THAT YOUR OFFER OF 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PROCUREMENT QUANTITY PLUS THE FULL QUANTITY OF PREPRODUCTION SAMPLES WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 8 (C) OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS WHICH AUTHORIZES BIDS UPON LESS THAN THE TOTAL PROCUREMENT QUANTITY. YOU STATE THAT THE ADVANTAGES OF A SPLIT PROCUREMENT ARE THAT IT PUTS TOOLING IN THE HANDS OF MORE THAN ONE COMPANY. SUCH AN AWARD CAN ONLY BE MADE TO BIDDERS WHO ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION FOR BIDS. IT IS TRUE THAT THE INVITATION PERMITTED BIDDERS TO OFFER LESS THAN THE TOTAL PROCUREMENT QUANTITY. THE BID FROM YOUR COMPANY WAS OTHERWISE NONRESPONSIVE IN THAT IT DEVIATED FROM THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE SINCE IT OFFERED DELIVERY OF 100 UNITS A WEEK WHEREAS THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE REQUIRED DELIVERY AT THE RATE OF 200 UNITS PER WEEK.
B-156811, JUL. 28, 1964
TO MR. CLIFFORD M. LYDIARD, GUNTHER MANUFACTURING CO., INC.:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF JULY 15, 1965, PROTESTING AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THE BID SUBMITTED BY YOUR COMPANY UNDER NAVY INVITATION FOR BIDS 174-97-65B.
YOU STATE THAT YOUR OFFER OF 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PROCUREMENT QUANTITY PLUS THE FULL QUANTITY OF PREPRODUCTION SAMPLES WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 8 (C) OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS WHICH AUTHORIZES BIDS UPON LESS THAN THE TOTAL PROCUREMENT QUANTITY. YOU STATE THAT THE ADVANTAGES OF A SPLIT PROCUREMENT ARE THAT IT PUTS TOOLING IN THE HANDS OF MORE THAN ONE COMPANY, INCREASES THE EXPERIENCE AVAILABLE, INCREASES THE GOVERNMENT'S INSURANCE OF PERFORMANCE, PROVIDES MORE THAN ONE SOURCE READY TO PRODUCE IN A CRISIS, PROMOTES COMPETITIVE BIDDING, PROVIDES A GEOGRAPHICAL SEPARATION OF SOURCES, AND PROVIDES THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PRICES.
HOWEVER, WHILE IT MAY BE THAT THE AFORESAID ADVANTAGES RESULT FROM A SPLIT AWARD OF A PROCUREMENT, SUCH AN AWARD CAN ONLY BE MADE TO BIDDERS WHO ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION FOR BIDS. IN THE IMMEDIATE CASE, IT IS TRUE THAT THE INVITATION PERMITTED BIDDERS TO OFFER LESS THAN THE TOTAL PROCUREMENT QUANTITY, BUT THE BID FROM YOUR COMPANY WAS OTHERWISE NONRESPONSIVE IN THAT IT DEVIATED FROM THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE SINCE IT OFFERED DELIVERY OF 100 UNITS A WEEK WHEREAS THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE REQUIRED DELIVERY AT THE RATE OF 200 UNITS PER WEEK. AS WAS INDICATED IN DECISION B-156811 OF JULY 8, 1965, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, REGARDING THE SUBJECT INVITATION, PRECEDENT OF PRIOR DECISIONS DICTATES THAT THE DEVIATION IN THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE IN THIS CASE NOT BE WAIVED AS A MINOR INFORMALITY.
YOU HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE DECISION DEPRIVES THE GOVERNMENT, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE, FROM SECURING THE ADVANTAGES CREATED BY ARTICLE 8 (C). WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENT INVITATION, IT IS TRUE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS UNABLE TO SECURE THE ADVANTAGES TO WHICH YOU REFER BUT, AS INDICATED, THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE INVITATION DELIVERY PROVISIONS. OUR DECISION WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THE CONTRACTING AGENCY FROM UTILIZING A DIFFERENT SCHEDULE IN FUTURE INVITATIONS TO PRECLUDE RECURRENCE OF THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION IF A DIFFERENT SCHEDULE WILL SATISFY ITS NEEDS.