Skip to main content

B-155358, SEP. 23, 1965

B-155358 Sep 23, 1965
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

TO FUTURONICS CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 1. WE HAVE DELAYED REPLYING TO YOUR RECENT LETTERS IN VIEW OF YOUR STATEMENT OF AUGUST 9. THAT YOU "WILL CALL FOR AN APPOINTMENT IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.'. SINCE WE HAVE RECEIVED NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION. IN YOUR EARLIER PROTESTATIONS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT YOUR PRODUCT AND BID SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED. THAT DISQUALIFICATION WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR TWO PRIOR DECISIONS. IT IS YOUR VIEW THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL CASES FOR EACH MODULE. THAT AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE SPECIFICATIONS WAS ISSUED IN ORDER TO DELETE THE CASE REQUIREMENT. STATING THAT INDIVIDUAL ASSEMBLY CASES WERE NOT REQUIRED. ALLEGING THAT "IF THE MONTRONICS UNIT WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMEND.

View Decision

B-155358, SEP. 23, 1965

TO FUTURONICS CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 1, 1965, WITH ENCLOSURES, AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, CONCERNING YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO MONTRONICS, INCORPORATED, UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 600- 873-64, ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. THIS MATTER HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF TWO PRIOR DECISIONS, DATED JANUARY 4, 1965, AND FEBRUARY 16, 1965, RESPECTIVELY, B-155358. WE HAVE DELAYED REPLYING TO YOUR RECENT LETTERS IN VIEW OF YOUR STATEMENT OF AUGUST 9, 1965, THAT YOU "WILL CALL FOR AN APPOINTMENT IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.' SINCE WE HAVE RECEIVED NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION, WE NOW REPLY TO YOUR PRESENT CONTENTIONS IN ORDER TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER, AND CLOSE OUR FILE.

IN YOUR EARLIER PROTESTATIONS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT YOUR PRODUCT AND BID SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED, AND THAT DISQUALIFICATION WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR TWO PRIOR DECISIONS.

YOUR PRESENT LETTERS PROTEST THAT THE MONTRONICS PRODUCT DOES NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE INVITATION. IN PARTICULAR, IT IS YOUR VIEW THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL CASES FOR EACH MODULE, AND THAT AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE SPECIFICATIONS WAS ISSUED IN ORDER TO DELETE THE CASE REQUIREMENT, AND TO OTHERWISE ADJUST THE SPECIFICATIONS TO CONFORM TO THE MONTRONICS PRODUCT, SPECIFICALLY, THE OVERALL DIMENSIONS.

IN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 16, 1965, WE QUOTED FROM A BUREAU OF SHIPS REPORT, STATING THAT INDIVIDUAL ASSEMBLY CASES WERE NOT REQUIRED, AND WE ADVISED YOU THAT "WE FIND NO BASIS TO QUESTION THE * * * ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AS TO THE USE OF INDIVIDUAL ASSEMBLY CASES.'

YOU ALSO QUESTIONED THE SIZE OF THE MONTRONICS UNIT, ALLEGING THAT "IF THE MONTRONICS UNIT WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMEND. NO. 3 TO THE SUBJECT IFB, IT MUST COMPLY WITH THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED; * * *.' IN OUR OFFICE LETTER DATED AUGUST 3, 1965, YOU WERE ADVISED OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE MONTRONICS UNIT, WHICH WERE WELL WITHIN THE MAXIMUM LIMITS OF THE BASIC UNAMENDED SPECIFICATIONS.

YOUR PRESENT PROTEST APPEARS TO CONTAIN NO ALLEGATIONS NOT HERETOFORE CONSIDERED, NOR IS IT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OR PROBATIVE DATA, BUT ONLY BY STATEMENTS MADE ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF.

ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR DISTURBING THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN OUR DECISIONS OF JANUARY 4, 1965, AND FEBRUARY 16, 1965, AND THEY HEREBY ARE SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs