B-154087, MAY 26, 1964
Highlights
INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 4. IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE CHAMPION SPARK PLUG COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BID BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE OFFERED EQUIPMENT WHICH. WOULD HAVE BEEN MANUFACTURED BY YOUR COMPANY WHICH IS ALLEGED TO BE SMALL BUSINESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE IMPLEMENTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS. ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY TO THE CHAMPION SPARK PLUG COMPANY DENYING ITS PROTEST IN THE MATTER. IT IS OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE PROTEST OF YOUR COMPANY MUST ALSO BE DENIED.
B-154087, MAY 26, 1964
TO THE OILJACK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 4, 1964, TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AT THE ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL, ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS, PROTESTING THE EXCLUSION OF THE CHAMPION SPARK PLUG COMPANY, TOLEDO, OHIO, A LARGE BUSINESS CONCERN, FROM THE MAILING LIST USED IN THE SOLICITATION OF BIDS FROM SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. AMC/2/-11-070- 64-381, ISSUED ON JANUARY 23, 1964, BASED UPON A REQUIREMENT FOR 649 SPARK PLUG CLEANING AND TESTING MACHINES. IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE CHAMPION SPARK PLUG COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BID BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE OFFERED EQUIPMENT WHICH, IN FACT, WOULD HAVE BEEN MANUFACTURED BY YOUR COMPANY WHICH IS ALLEGED TO BE SMALL BUSINESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE IMPLEMENTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS.
ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY TO THE CHAMPION SPARK PLUG COMPANY DENYING ITS PROTEST IN THE MATTER. FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THAT DECISION, IT IS OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE PROTEST OF YOUR COMPANY MUST ALSO BE DENIED.