B-128810, JAN. 28, 1957

B-128810: Jan 28, 1957

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

TO LOCKLEY MACHINE COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED JANUARY 2. REQUEST WAS MADE IN THE LETTER THAT YOU BE ADVISED AS TO THE PRECISE FACTUAL BASIS SUPPORTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT YOUR COMPANY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF MANUFACTURING THE CATAPULTS CALLED FOR BY THE INVITATION WITHIN THE TIME SET FORTH IN THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE. THERE WAS NO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT YOUR COMPANY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF MANUFACTURING THE CATAPULTS IN QUESTION. THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THAT YOU COULD NOT PRODUCE AND DELIVER THE EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE. THERE WAS SET FORTH IN CONSIDERABLE DETAIL THE ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVELY IN THIS MATTER AND UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT WAS DETERMINED BY ENGINEERING PERSONNEL THAT YOUR COMPANY HAD NOT DEMONSTRATED YOUR ABILITY TO PRODUCE THE CATAPULTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE.

B-128810, JAN. 28, 1957

TO LOCKLEY MACHINE COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED JANUARY 2, 1957, FROM LOREN K. OLSON, ESQUIRE, RELATING FURTHER TO YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE REJECTION OF YOUR BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. ORD-36 038-56-C-553, ISSUED BY THE FRANKFORD ARSENAL, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, AND OPENED ON MAY 3, 1956. SPECIFICALLY, REQUEST WAS MADE IN THE LETTER THAT YOU BE ADVISED AS TO THE PRECISE FACTUAL BASIS SUPPORTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT YOUR COMPANY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF MANUFACTURING THE CATAPULTS CALLED FOR BY THE INVITATION WITHIN THE TIME SET FORTH IN THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE. ALSO, THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED A LETTER DATED JANUARY 17, 1957, FROM MR. OLSON, TRANSMITTING YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 15, 1957, TO HIM.

SO FAR AS THE RECORDS HERE SHOW, THERE WAS NO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT YOUR COMPANY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF MANUFACTURING THE CATAPULTS IN QUESTION. RATHER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THAT YOU COULD NOT PRODUCE AND DELIVER THE EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE.

IN OUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 28, 1956, DEALING WITH THE MATTER OF YOUR PROTEST, THERE WAS SET FORTH IN CONSIDERABLE DETAIL THE ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVELY IN THIS MATTER AND UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT WAS DETERMINED BY ENGINEERING PERSONNEL THAT YOUR COMPANY HAD NOT DEMONSTRATED YOUR ABILITY TO PRODUCE THE CATAPULTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE. IT SEEMS CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE CONCLUSION REACHED WAS ARRIVED AT ONLY AFTER A COMPREHENSIVE PHYSICAL SURVEY OF YOUR PLANT AND EQUIPMENT BY QUALIFIED TECHNICAL PERSONNEL OF THE FRANKFORD ARSENAL. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT YOUR PROTEST RECEIVED THE FULLEST CONSIDERATION AT THE HANDS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS INVOLVED. AS SHOWING JUST HOW EXTENSIVE THAT CONSIDERATION WAS, THERE ARE ENCLOSED COPIES OF PAGES 9, 10, AND 11, OF A LETTER DATED AUGUST 22, 1956, FROM THE COMMANDING OFFICER, FRANKFORD ARSENAL, MAKING A REPORT ON THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ORDNANCE CORPS IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR PROTEST. IT APPEARS THEREFROM THAT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES WERE FULLY INFORMED AS TO THE BASIS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN HEREIN.

THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHICH OF THE BIDDERS MET THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS--- IN THIS CASE, THE ABILITY TO MAKE TIMELY DELIVERY--- MUST REST PRIMARILY IN AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. AS WAS STATED IN OUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 28, 1956, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH WE WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN QUESTIONING THE ACTION TAKEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING THAT SUCH ACTION WAS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS. THERE IS NO SUCH SHOWING IN THIS CASE.

Oct 30, 2020

Oct 29, 2020

Oct 28, 2020

Looking for more? Browse all our products here