B-155983, APR. 19, 1965

B-155983: Apr 19, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Ralph O. White
(202) 512-8278
WhiteRO@gao.gov

Kenneth E. Patton
(202) 512-8205
PattonK@gao.gov

 

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

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM AND LETTER. THE MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR LETTER TO YOU OF MARCH 31. IN WHICH WE ADVISED YOU THAT A SOURCE EVALUATION COMMITTEE FOR THE EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS WAS ESTABLISHED AND THAT AS A RESULT OF ITS EVALUATION. NOT INCLUDING GULF AEROSPACE CORPORATION OR YOUR FIRM WHICH ARE PRESENTLY ENGAGED IN CONTRACT WORK FOR NASA. NEGOTIATIONS WERE THEN COMPLETED AND IT WAS DECIDED TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO TEQUIPCO. YOU WILL BE ADVISED UPON SUCH APPLICATION AS TO THE SCORING YOUR PROPOSAL RECEIVED. WHEN THE REPORT OF NASA AS TO HOW THE PROPOSALS WERE EVALUATED WAS FURNISHED OUR OFFICE. IT WAS NOT APPARENT. NOR IS IT NOW APPARENT. WITH REGARD TO YOUR ALLEGATION THAT TEQUIPCO IS A LARGE BUSINESS CONCERN AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE CONTRACT.

B-155983, APR. 19, 1965

TO BARBEE INSTRUMENT AND GYROSCOPE CO., INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM AND LETTER, BOTH DATED APRIL 5, 1965, PROTESTING THE CONTEMPLATED AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO TEST EQUIPMENT CORPORATION (TEQUIPCO) UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. BG831-25-5-109P ISSUED ON DECEMBER 3, 1964, BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA), MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER, HOUSTON, TEXAS.

THE MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR LETTER TO YOU OF MARCH 31, 1965, IN WHICH WE ADVISED YOU THAT A SOURCE EVALUATION COMMITTEE FOR THE EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS WAS ESTABLISHED AND THAT AS A RESULT OF ITS EVALUATION, THE COMMITTEE DECIDED THAT TWO OFFERORS, NOT INCLUDING GULF AEROSPACE CORPORATION OR YOUR FIRM WHICH ARE PRESENTLY ENGAGED IN CONTRACT WORK FOR NASA, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD. NEGOTIATIONS WERE THEN COMPLETED AND IT WAS DECIDED TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO TEQUIPCO. AS WE INFORMED YOU IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON THE THIRD PAGE OF OUR LETTER, NASA REGULATIONS PROVIDE FOR THE DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL COMPANIES UPON THE APPLICATION TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE FIELD INSTALLATION INVOLVED. YOU WILL BE ADVISED UPON SUCH APPLICATION AS TO THE SCORING YOUR PROPOSAL RECEIVED, BOTH AS TO THE TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT AND AS TO THE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. THE EVIDENCE YOU HAD OFFERED TO FURNISH CONCERNED GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD WHICH DID NOT APPEAR TO BE CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE PROBABLE EVALUATION OF THE VARIOUS PROPOSALS RECEIVED. WHEN THE REPORT OF NASA AS TO HOW THE PROPOSALS WERE EVALUATED WAS FURNISHED OUR OFFICE, IT WAS NOT APPARENT, NOR IS IT NOW APPARENT, HOW WE COULD CONSIDER SUCH MATTERS AS THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL RECRUITING OF YOUR PERSONNEL BY YOUR COMPETITORS. ALSO, WE ORDINARILY CANNOT REVIEW THE RATINGS GIVEN BY A SOURCE EVALUATION COMMITTEE.

WITH REGARD TO YOUR ALLEGATION THAT TEQUIPCO IS A LARGE BUSINESS CONCERN AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE CONTRACT, BECAUSE PROPOSALS WERE SOLICITED ON A SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE BASIS, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION IS THE AGENCY WHOSE DETERMINATION IS FINAL UNDER THE LAW AS TO WHETHER A CONCERN QUALIFIES AS A SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN. THEREFORE YOU SHOULD ADVISE NASA THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT TEQUIPCO IS INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD BECAUSE OF ITS PROBABLE CLASSIFICATION AS A LARGE BUSINESS CONCERN AND THE MATTER SHOULD ALSO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.

IF YOU HAVE ANY DATA THAT YOU BELIEVE WILL TEND TO PROVE THAT IMPROPER PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES WERE EMPLOYED IN THIS CASE YOU ARE AT LIBERTY TO PRESENT SUCH DATA AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.

Oct 23, 2020

Oct 22, 2020

Oct 20, 2020

Oct 16, 2020

Oct 15, 2020

Oct 14, 2020

Looking for more? Browse all our products here