B-157421, FEB. 16, 1966

B-157421, FEB. 16, 1966

TO IGE EXPORT DIVISION, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY:

WE HAVE YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 27, 1966, REQUESTING THAT THIS OFFICE RECONSIDER B-157421, JANUARY 19, 1966. IN THAT DECISION WE PRESENTED OUR VIEWS REGARDING THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROCUREMENT OF 49 DIESEL- ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES BY THE KOREAN NATIONAL RAILROAD PURSUANT TO AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN NO. 489-H-022.

YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 27, 1966, PRESENTS THE ARGUMENT THAT GE'S BID SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 19 (A) OF THE INVITATION WHICH STATES:

"19. CATALOGS AND BRAND NAMES:

A. REFERENCE TO ANY MANUFACTURER'S BRAND NAMES AND CATALOG NUMBERS ARE INTENDED TO BE DESCRIPTIVE BUT NOT RESTRICTIVE AND ARE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF INDICATING TO PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS, THE TYPE OR QUALITY OF ARTICLE WHICH WILL BE ACCEPTABLE. BIDS ON COMPARABLE ITEMS OFFERED UNDER BRAND NAMES WILL BE CONSIDERED, PROVIDED THAT THE BIDDER CLEARLY STATES WITH HIS BID (BY DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE, ILLUSTRATION, ETC.) THE EXACT ARTICLES HE IS OFFERING AND HOW IT DIFFERS FROM THAT SPECIFIED.'

YOU CONTEND THAT THIS CLAUSE INDICATES THAT: "* * * A MOTOR OF THE KIND AND QUALITY OF THE GE-752 WAS DESIRED BUT NOT NECESSARILY THEGE 752 ITSELF.' AS STATED IN OUR LETTER OF JANUARY 19, 1966, TO AID THE INSTANT SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED: "THE FOUR TRACTION MOTORS TO BE EITHER GE MODEL 752 OR GM D 67 * * *.'

WITH RESPECT TO THE DESIGNATION OF THE MODEL NUMBERS IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THESE MODEL NUMBERS CANNOT BE IGNORED IN EVALUATING THE RESPONSIVENESS OF A BID. IT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE 19 (A), QUOTED ABOVE, TO PERMIT A BIDDER TO DEVIATE FROM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. CLAUSE 19 (A) WOULD PERMIT A BIDDER TO OFFER AN ITEM WHICH WAS COMPARABLE TO THE ITEM SPECIFIED IF THE BIDDER ESTABLISHED THIS COMPARABILITY BY DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE SUBMITTED WITH THE BID. FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR BID WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 19 (A) IF YOU OFFERED A TRACTION MOTOR WHICH WAS COMPARABLE TO GM'S D-67 AND THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE SUBMITTED WITH YOUR BID ESTABLISHED THIS COMPARABILITY. AS STATED IN OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 19, 1966, TO AID, IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT THE GE-752 TRACTION MOTOR AND THE GE-761 TRACTION MOTOR ARE COMPARABLE. IT IS OUR FURTHER VIEW THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE GE-761 TRACTION MOTOR IS COMPARABLE TO THE D-67 TRACTION MOTOR. SEE NO BASIS FOR CHANGING OUR VIEW; CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND THAT YOUR BID COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS THAT YOU OFFERED A TRACTION MOTOR WHICH WAS COMPARABLE TO THE TRACTION MOTORS SPECIFIED.

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE OTHER CONTENTIONS RAISED IN YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 27, 1966.