B-156211, JUL. 28, 1965

B-156211: Jul 28, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

HONEYWELL INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 14. OUR OFFICE FURNISHED YOU A COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT OF JUNE 30 WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS. THE REPORT CONCLUDED THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICE WAS CORRECT IN CONSIDERING CERTAIN DATA AND INFORMATION FURNISHED IN THE BID FROM YOUR COMPANY AS BEING MATERIALLY NONRESPONSIVE TO THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT AGREE THAT CERTAIN OTHER DATA WAS TECHNICALLY NONRESPONSIVE. SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS WELL BECAUSE OF CERTAIN MATERIAL DEVIATIONS IN ITS TECHNICAL DATA AND THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICE ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE DEVIATIONS AS MINOR IRREGULARITIES AND IN MAKING AN AWARD TO IT.

B-156211, JUL. 28, 1965

TO MR. JOHN W. HOAG, HONEYWELL INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 14, 1965, AND PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE, REGARDING THE REJECTION OF THE BID OF YOUR COMPANY UNDER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY INVITATION CIVENG-45-164-65-23 AND THE AWARD TO ANOTHER BIDDER.

ON JULY 2, OUR OFFICE FURNISHED YOU A COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT OF JUNE 30 WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS. IN SUMMARY, THE REPORT CONCLUDED THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICE WAS CORRECT IN CONSIDERING CERTAIN DATA AND INFORMATION FURNISHED IN THE BID FROM YOUR COMPANY AS BEING MATERIALLY NONRESPONSIVE TO THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT AGREE THAT CERTAIN OTHER DATA WAS TECHNICALLY NONRESPONSIVE. FURTHER, THE REPORT AGREED WITH YOU THAT THE BID OF THE SECOND LOW BIDDER, COMTEL ENGINEERING, INC., SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS WELL BECAUSE OF CERTAIN MATERIAL DEVIATIONS IN ITS TECHNICAL DATA AND THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICE ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE DEVIATIONS AS MINOR IRREGULARITIES AND IN MAKING AN AWARD TO IT. HOWEVER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT RECOMMENDED THAT, DESPITE THE ERROR IN JUDGMENT WHICH WAS MADE, THE AWARD TO COMTEL NOT BE DISTURBED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD ACTED IN GOOD FAITH; THAT COMTEL HAD ALREADY EXPENDED APPROXIMATELY $45,000 OR ABOUT 13 PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE; THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THE PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE NOT BE DISRUPTED BECAUSE OF THE EQUIPMENT'S RELATIONSHIP TO CERTAIN OTHER COMPLEMENTARY EQUIPMENT; AND BECAUSE DELAY WILL REQUIRE THE RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING OF FIVE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES, AT A PER ANNUM SALARY OF $10,000 EACH, WHICH WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED IF THE EQUIPMENT IS INSTALLED IN TIME.

HOWEVER, YOU CONTEND THAT THE AWARD TO COMTEL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT COST THE GOVERNMENT $50,000 TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT, IF AN AWARD WAS MADE TO HONEYWELL, OR THERE WAS A REBID, THAT COST WOULD BE OFFSET BY THE SAVINGS RESULTING FROM SUCH ACTION SINCE HONEYWELL WAS SOME $70,000 LOWER IN BID PRICE THAN COMTEL. MOREOVER, YOU STATE THAT IT IS NOT STATED ANYWHERE HOW MUCH MORE THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE FORCED TO PAY COMTEL TO OBTAIN TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. ADDITIONALLY, YOU CONTEND THAT THE AWARD TO COMTEL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND BECAUSE PROMPTLY UPON NOTICE OF AN AWARD YOU PROTESTED AND REQUESTED THE ISSUANCE OF A STOP ORDER AND NOW ALL YOU ARE LEFT WITH IS A "HOLLOW VICTORY.'

WHILE ON THE BASIS OF A COMPARISON OF COST EXPENDED BY THE CONTRACTOR WITH SAVINGS IF AN AWARD WAS MADE TO HONEYWELL, THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BENEFIT FROM A SAVINGS, THE FACT REMAINS THAT AN AWARD COULD NOT BE MADE TO HONEYWELL BECAUSE IT IS NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE SPECIFICATIONS. MOREOVER, WHEN THE ADDITIONAL COSTS OF CANCELLATION AND THE DELAY TO THE PROJECT RESULTING THEREFROM ARE CONSIDERED, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A CANCELLATION IS NECESSARILY BENEFICIAL OR IN THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, WE WILL NOT DISTURB THE AWARD WHICH HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS CASE. WHILE IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT YOU DO NOT DERIVE ANY BENEFIT FROM THE FACT THAT YOUR CONTENTION THAT AN AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE TO COMTEL IS SUSTAINED, AS ABOVE INDICATED AN AWARD COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE TO HONEYWELL IN ANY EVENT BECAUSE OF ITS NONRESPONSIVENESS AND THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE BEEN READVERTISED FOR BIDS IS NOT DEFINITE SINCE THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER BIDDERS--- APPARENTLY ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR AWARD--- BESIDE HONEYWELL AND COMTEL. ALSO, IT IS NOT CERTAIN THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD RECEIVE THE SAME PRICES UPON READVERTISEMENT OR THAT HONEYWELL WOULD BE THE LOW BIDDER EVEN IF THE PROCUREMENT WAS READVERTISED. IT IS TO BE HOPED THAT THE IMMEDIATE CASE WILL PROVE TO HAVE A SALUTARY EFFECT IN FUTURE SITUATIONS OF A SIMILAR NATURE AND THAT THERE WILL BE NO REPETITION OF THE ERRORS WHICH OCCURRED HERE.

THERE IS ALSO ENCLOSED FOR YOUR INFORMATION A COPY OF OUR LETTER OF TODAY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY REGARDING THIS CASE.

Jan 14, 2021

Jan 13, 2021

Looking for more? Browse all our products here