Skip to main content

B-188146, JULY 13, 1977

B-188146 Jul 13, 1977
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

THAT IS INSUFFICIENT BASIS TO CONCLUDE THAT INSTANT SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE MANIPULATED TO CONTRACTOR'S ADVANTAGE AND IN DEROGATION OF COMPETITIVE BID SYSTEM. THIS SOLICITATION WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PRIOR PROTEST BY POTOMAC WHICH WE DISMISSED ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE IT FAILED TO STATE A BASIS UPON WHICH THE VALIDITY OF ANY AWARD COULD BE CHALLENGED IN THIS OFFICE. WE POINTED OUT THAT SUCH MODIFICATIONS ARE MATTERS OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND ARE NOT FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS OFFICE. THAT A WIDE RANGE IN BID PRICES MAY SUGGEST THAT BIDDERS HAVE SUBMITTED OFFERS BASED UPON DISPARATE INTERPRETATIONS OF AN AGENCY'S REQUIREMENTS BUT THAT FACT. WERE SELF- GENERATED BY ROACH AND WERE BOTH SUBSTANTIAL AND UNJUSTIFIED IN AMOUNT.

View Decision

B-188146, JULY 13, 1977

EVEN IF GAO COULD CONCLUDE THAT ADMINISTRATION OF SIMILAR PRIOR CONTRACTS PERMITTED CONTRACTOR TO MANIPULATE SPECIFICATIONS TO ITS ADVANTAGE, THAT IS INSUFFICIENT BASIS TO CONCLUDE THAT INSTANT SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE MANIPULATED TO CONTRACTOR'S ADVANTAGE AND IN DEROGATION OF COMPETITIVE BID SYSTEM.

POTOMAC INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS, INC.:

ON THE BASIS OF NEWLY ACQUIRED INFORMATION, POTOMAC INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS, INC. (POTOMAC) HAS REINSTATED ITS PROTEST RELATIVE TO ANY CONTRACT AWARD TO ROACH MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (ROACH) UNDER IFB N00600-76-B-0082, ISSUED BY THE NAVAL REGIONAL PROCUREMENT OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR A POWER CONVEYOR SYSTEM AT THE NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA.

THIS SOLICITATION WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PRIOR PROTEST BY POTOMAC WHICH WE DISMISSED ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE IT FAILED TO STATE A BASIS UPON WHICH THE VALIDITY OF ANY AWARD COULD BE CHALLENGED IN THIS OFFICE. SEE POTOMAC INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS, INC., B-188146, JANUARY 21, 1977, 77-1 CPD 45. INSOFAR AS OUR PRIOR DECISION RELATES TO THE CURRENT ALLEGATION THAT ROACH UNJUSTIFIABLY BENEFITED FROM MODIFICATIONS AFTER AWARD OF SIMILAR PRIOR CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT, WE POINTED OUT THAT SUCH MODIFICATIONS ARE MATTERS OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND ARE NOT FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS OFFICE. IN ADDITION, WE NOTED WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT ROACH SUBMITTED A COMPARATIVELY VERY LOW PRICE, THAT A WIDE RANGE IN BID PRICES MAY SUGGEST THAT BIDDERS HAVE SUBMITTED OFFERS BASED UPON DISPARATE INTERPRETATIONS OF AN AGENCY'S REQUIREMENTS BUT THAT FACT, OF ITSELF, DOES NOT ESTABLISH AN ISSUE UPON WHICH A PROTEST MAY BE PURSUED.

POTOMAC HAS REINSTATED ITS PROTEST ON THE BASIS THAT IT HAS NEWLY ACQUIRED INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE SOLICITATION'S SPECIFICATIONS. POTOMAC HAS DETAILED ITS OBJECTIONS REGARDING INSTANCES IN PAST PROCUREMENTS OF SIMILAR SYSTEMS RESULTING IN CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS AND INCREASED PRICES WHICH, IN POTOMAC'S OPINION, WERE SELF- GENERATED BY ROACH AND WERE BOTH SUBSTANTIAL AND UNJUSTIFIED IN AMOUNT.

IT IS ARGUES THAT "THIS PATTERN IS BEING REPEATED IN THE (INSTANT) SOLICITATION * * * ." ESSENTIALLY, POTOMAC CALLS ON US TO REVIEW THE ADEQUACY OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF ROACH'S PRIOR CONTRACTS. IN THE EVENT WE FIND FAULT WITH THOSE DETERMINATIONS, POTOMAC WOULD HAVE US FURTHER ASSUME THAT ROACH SIMILARLY WILL BE ABLE TO MANIPULATE THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, EVEN IF WE FOUND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF ROACH'S PRIOR CONTRACTS WAS INADEQUATE, THIS IS NOT ENOUGH TO CALL INTO QUESTION THE ADEQUACY OF THE INSTANT COMPETITION. A CAUSAL OR NECESSARY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PRIOR CONTRACT OCCURRENCES AND THE INSTANT SPECIFICATIONS HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROTESTER'S ASSERTIONS TO THE CONTRARY.

WHILE IT IS THE NAVY'S POSITION THAT THE MODIFICATIONS OF PRIOR CONTRACTS AND PRICE ADJUSTMENTS NEITHER HAVE NOR WILL WORK TO UNDERMINE THE COMPETITIVE BID SYSTEM, THE AGENCY ADVISES THAT IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS OF THIS TYPE IT INTENDS TO UTILIZE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION OR TWO-STEP PROCUREMENT TECHNIQUES.

ACCORDINGLY, THE PROTEST IS DENIED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs