Skip to main content

B-143299, APR. 7, 1961

B-143299 Apr 07, 1961
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

WE HAVE REVIEWED THE PROCUREMENT OF AIRBORNE TRACTORS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS TO OFFER. USED IN THIS PROCUREMENT WILL NOT MEET THE MINIMUM MILITARY USER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TRACTORS. THE ARMY'S REQUIREMENT FOR A LIGHT-DUTY TRACTOR WAS ESTABLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 5. IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS THAT THE LIGHT TRACTOR SHOULD BE DIESEL-ENGINE-DRIVEN AND BE A SUITABLE PRIME MOVER FOR A 6- TO 8-CUBIC YARD SCRAPER. THREE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS WERE AWARDED PRIOR TO 1954 TO THE M-R'S MANUFACTURING COMPANY FOR THEIR MODELS 72 AND 125. THEY WERE OPERATIONAL AND WERE AIR DROPPED IN MANEUVERS. DEVELOPMENTAL CONTRACTS WERE AWARDED TO THE AMERICAN COLEMEN COMPANY.

View Decision

B-143299, APR. 7, 1961

TO MR. JAMES J. HANKS, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, WESTFALL EQUIPMENT COMPANY:

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF OUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1960, TO YOU, WE HAVE REVIEWED THE PROCUREMENT OF AIRBORNE TRACTORS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DA-ENG-11-184 60-A- 688, AND WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS TO OFFER.

OUR REVIEW CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY YOU IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROCUREMENT:

1. THE SPECIFICATIONS, MIL-T-5213 (CE), USED IN THIS PROCUREMENT WILL NOT MEET THE MINIMUM MILITARY USER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TRACTORS; AND

2. THE INVITATION FOR BIDS DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE TEST OF PREPRODUCTION MODELS.

THE ARMY'S REQUIREMENT FOR A LIGHT-DUTY TRACTOR WAS ESTABLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1947. IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS THAT THE LIGHT TRACTOR SHOULD BE DIESEL-ENGINE-DRIVEN AND BE A SUITABLE PRIME MOVER FOR A 6- TO 8-CUBIC YARD SCRAPER.

THREE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS WERE AWARDED PRIOR TO 1954 TO THE M-R'S MANUFACTURING COMPANY FOR THEIR MODELS 72 AND 125, 2 WHEEL DRIVE, AIRBORNE TRACTORS. THEY WERE OPERATIONAL AND WERE AIR DROPPED IN MANEUVERS. IN MAY 1954, AFTER REQUESTING PROPOSALS FROM ABOUT 25 PRODUCERS, DEVELOPMENTAL CONTRACTS WERE AWARDED TO THE AMERICAN COLEMEN COMPANY, LE TOURNEAU WESTINGHOUSE, AND AGAIN TO M-R'S FOR IMPROVED 4-WHEEL DRIVE TRACTORS. THE CONTRACT WITH M-R'S PROVIDED PRIMARILY FOR THE CONVERSION OF A GOVERNMENT-OWNED M-R'S MODEL 125 FROM 2-WHEEL TO 4-WHEEL DRIVE AND DID NOT INCLUDE PROVISION FOR MOUNTING A DOZER BLADE. THE OTHER CONTRACTS PROVIDED FOR THE MANUFACTURERS' NEW AND IMPROVED MODELS WITH PROVISION FOR DOZER BLADES. TESTS OF THESE VEHICLES DURING 1955 AND 1956 CONCLUDED THAT TO OBTAIN THE HIGHEST POTENTIAL IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO CHANGE THE CONFIGURATION FROM A FULL-TOWING TRACTOR TO THAT OF A TRACTOR CAPABLE OF DRAWING A SCRAPER AS A SEMITRAILER UNIT. IN THIS CONNECTION, IN 1956, THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS OBTAINED A WESTFALL MODIFIED COMMERCIAL TRACTOR, MODEL 100, AND AN ADAPTED COMMERCIAL SCRAPER. TESTS CONFIRMED THE DESIRED INCREASE IN CAPABILITIES, BUT DUE TO DEFICIENCIES, PRIMARILY IN THE STEERING ASSEMBLY, THE TRACTOR WAS CONSIDERED UNSATISFACTORY. TWO WESTFALL MODEL 100H COMMERCIAL TRACTORS, ADAPTED FOR MILITARY USE, WERE OBTAINED IN JANUARY 1957. THESE PROVED UNSATISFACTORY DUE TO DEFICIENCIES PRIMARILY IN THE POWER TRAIN. TWO ADDITIONAL MODEL 100H TRACTORS WERE ORDERED IN APRIL 1959 AND, UPON DELIVERY, WERE AGAIN PLACED ON TEST. IMPROVEMENTS IN THE UNITS OVER THE PREVIOUS PROCUREMENT INCLUDED A LARGER CLUTCH AND TRANSMISSION, A 24- INSTEAD OF 12-VOLT ELECTRICAL SYSTEM, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE STEERING CLUTCH AND STEERING BRAKE ASSEMBLIES. THE CONCLUSION OF TESTS OF THESE UNITS IN APRIL 1960 BY THE UNITED STATES ARMOR BOARD AT FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY, THE TRACTOR WAS DETERMINED TO BE ACCEPTABLE FOR THE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ARMY. THIS TYPE TRACTOR WAS THEN CLASSIFIED AS A STANDARD A AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WAS CONSIDERED COMPLETE. THE STANDARD A CLASSIFICATION INDICATES APPROVAL OF THE ITEM BY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TECHNICAL AND OPERATING ACTIVITIES AND CHARACTERIZES IT AS BEING OF FIRST PREFERENCE.

THE ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORIES (ERDL) THEN PREPARED THE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS USED IN THE RECENT PROCUREMENT OF 45 AIRBORNE TRACTORS. UNDER THE PREVIOUS WESTFALL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS, RIGHTS TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS WERE NOT OBTAINED SINCE THE ITEMS OBTAINED WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ARMY TO BE AN ADAPTED VERSION OF THE COMPANY'S COMMERCIAL TRACTOR TO WHICH IT HAD PROPRIETY RIGHTS. THIS PRACTICE IS FOLLOWED WHERE COMMERCIAL ITEMS ARE AVAILABLE TO MEET MILITARY REQUIREMENTS. THE EXPENSE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND PREPARING DETAILED DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS WAS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE WARRANTED BY THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS WHERE INDUSTRY HAS FINANCED DEVELOPMENT OF A BASICALLY SATISFACTORY ITEM AND IS CONTINUING TO REVISE AND DEVELOP THE PRODUCT. THE SPECIFICATIONS DEVELOPED BY ERDL WERE THUS OF A PERFORMANCE TYPE RATHER THAN DETAILED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS.

WE REVIEWED THE SPECIFICATION MIL-T-5213 (CE) WITH OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND ERDL TECHNICAL PERSONNEL. AS A RESULT OF OUR REVIEW, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR QUESTIONING WHETHER THE PERFORMANCE TYPE SPECIFICATIONS WILL MEET THE MINIMUM MILITARY USER REQUIREMENTS.

WE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO EVALUATE THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE SPECIFICATION. HOWEVER, WE DID REVIEW THE AREAS OF DEFICIENCY DISCLOSED IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTFALL TRACTOR AND IT APPEARS THAT THESE FACTORS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION.

WE FOUND THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS STATE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, LEAVING THE DETAILED DESIGN AND DRAWINGS TO THE CONTRACTOR. FOR EXAMPLE, THE HORSEPOWER OF THE ENGINE WAS NOT SPECIFIED, BUT THE WEIGHT OF THE VEHICLE AND PERFORMANCE REQUIRED LIMITS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE HORSEPOWER ACCORDING TO ERDL ENGINEERS. IN ADDITION, SOME OF THE MAJOR TRACTOR COMPONENTS, SUCH AS THE ENGINE AND GENERATOR, ARE REQUIRED TO BE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS. THIS MEANS THAT THE PRODUCT MUST BE ONE THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY TESTED AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS MEETING ITS SPECIFICATION FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM OR COMPONENT.

ERDL OBTAINED COMMENTS ON THE SPECIFICATIONS FROM SEVERAL TRACTOR MANUFACTURERS AS WELL AS VARIOUS MILITARY ACTIVITIES, AND WE WERE ADVISED THAT THESE COMMENTS WERE CONSIDERED BEFORE THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE APPROVED BY THE ERDL SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW AND APPROVAL BOARD.

THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT CONTRACT CHANGES WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE OR WERE CONTEMPLATED AS OF JANUARY 30, 1961, ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE INVITATION FOR BIDS ISSUED MAY 14, 1960, PROVIDED FOR THE PURCHASE OF A WHEELED TRACTOR CONFORMING TO MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS MIL-T-52103 (CE). INADVERTENTLY WHILE A WHEELED TRACTOR WAS ORDERED, A CRAWLER TRACTOR BULLDOZER BLADE SPECIFICATION (MIL-D-17076B) WAS CITED IN THE INVITATION AS THE APPLICABLE DOZER ATTACHMENT SPECIFICATION. THE SITUATION WAS FURTHER COMPLICATED IN THAT M-R'S CLAIMED IN A JULY 20, 1960, POST AWARD CONFERENCE, THAT DOZER SPECIFICATION D-17076A WAS THE SPECIFICATION ACTUALLY FURNISHED TO HIM AND WHICH HE USED IN DEVELOPING HIS BID. IT WAS AGREED AT THE CONFERENCE THAT THE CONTRACTOR WOULD (1) EXAMINE MILITARY SPECIFICATION (MIL-D-17076B) AND DETERMINE IF THE DOZER INCLUDED IN HIS BID CONFORMED TO THE SPECIFICATION, (2) FORWARD A LETTER TO THE CORPS EXPLAINING WHAT HE PLANNED AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, AND (3) IF NOT, HIS LETTER WOULD CONTAIN ESTIMATED COSTS AND SUPPORTING DATA FOR COMPONENTS WHICH WOULD SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS.

IN HIS LETTER TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DATED JULY 28, 1960, THE CONTRACTOR POINTED OUT THAT BOTH SPECIFICATIONS MIL-D-17076A AND MIL-D 17076B WERE WRITTEN FOR CRAWLER TRACTORS AND WOULD REQUIRE INTERPRETATION FOR APPLICATION TO A WHEELED TRACTOR. THIS APPARENTLY WAS THE FIRST TIME THE SPECIFICATIONS DEFICIENCY WAS NOTED.

CHANGES TO THE DOZER SPECIFICATION WERE DIRECTED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON OCTOBER 7, 1960, TO EFFECT COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE BULLDOZER BLADE AND THE WHEELED TRACTOR. SUBSEQUENTLY, WE WERE ADVISED THAT THE CONTRACTOR WAS REQUESTING A PRICE INCREASE OF $20,300 FOR THE CHANGES INVOLVED.

2. A CHANGE TO THE ENGINE HOUSING WAS DIRECTED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1960, BUT HAS NOT BEEN INCORPORATED INTO A CONTRACT MODIFICATION. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS ADVISED THAT IT EXPECTS THE CONTRACT PRICE WILL BE REDUCED $49.60 PER UNIT AS A RESULT OF THIS CHANGE.

3. THE CONTRACT DATE FOR DELIVERY OF THE PREPRODUCTION MODEL FOR TESTING HAS PASSED. A RECENT PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION REVEALED THAT THE UNIT WAS 600 POUNDS OVERWEIGHT. THE CONTRACTOR IS ATTEMPTING TO EFFECT A WEIGHT REDUCTION BY DESIGN CHANGE AND MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAS ADVISED US FURTHER THAT:

"THE CONTRACTOR IS COMPLYING WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT EXCEPT FOR THE SLIPPAGE IN DELIVERY WHICH HE ATTRIBUTES TO THE DOZER CHANGE. IT IS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S OPINION THAT THE UNIT WILL MEET ALL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WHEN FINALLY ACCEPTED.'

WE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO EVALUATE THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE PREPRODUCTION AND ACCEPTANCE TESTS PROVIDED FOR. HOWEVER, WE NOTED THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS DO PROVIDE FOR DETAILED EXAMINATION AND PERFORMANCE TESTING OF THE PREPRODUCTION MODELS OF THE TRACTOR AND APPROVAL BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF VOLUME PRODUCTION OF THE CONTRACTED UNITS. THESE TESTS ARE TO BE MADE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S PLANT, EXCEPT THAT SIMULATED DROP TESTS OF A PREPRODUCTION MODEL WILL BE PERFORMED AT FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA, WHERE GOVERNMENT FACILITIES WILL BE USED. THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL BELIEVE THAT THE SIMULATED DROP TEST IS ADEQUATE TO TEST THE ITEM FOR ITS AIR-DROPPABLE QUALITIES.

IN ADDITION TO THE TESTS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONTRACT, THE FIRST PRODUCTION MODELS, AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT, WILL BE SHIPPED TO THE U.S. ARMY ARMOR BOARD AND THE U.S. ARMY AIRBORNE AND ELECTRONICS BOARD FOR TESTS, TO COMPLY WITH A REQUEST BY THE CONTINENTAL ARMY COMMAND, THE MAJOR USER, THAT CONFIRMATORY TESTS BE MADE TO ASSURE THAT THE EQUIPMENT WILL MEET ITS REQUIREMENTS. IT IS PLANNED THAT THE ARMOR BOARD WILL MAKE AND REPORT IN DETAIL ON EXTENSIVE PERFORMANCE TESTS OF THE EQUIPMENT UNDER SIMULATED TACTICAL CONDITIONS AND THE AIRBORNE AND ELECTRONICS BOARD WILL AIRDROP THE EQUIPMENT FOR TESTING.

IN SUMMARY, THE ESSENTIAL PROBLEM INVOLVED IS WHETHER THE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS ARE ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE A VEHICLE WHICH WILL MEET ALL MILITARY USER REQUIREMENTS. THE SPECIFICATIONS, IN ADDITION TO SETTING OUT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, ESTABLISH VARIOUS PREPRODUCTION AND ACCEPTANCE TESTS. IN THIS RESPECT, IT HAS BEEN HELD IN 17 COMP. GEN. 554, THAT THE DRAFTING OF PROPER SPECIFICATIONS TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE DETERMINATION FACTUALLY AS TO WHETHER THE ARTICLES OFFERED MEET SUCH SPECIFICATIONS, ARE WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE PROCUREMENT OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT. SEE, ALSO, 38 COMP. GEN. 71, 75; ID. 190; 39 ID. 86; ID. 101, 107.

ON THE BASIS OF OUR REVIEW, WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILL NOT OBTAIN EQUIPMENT WHICH WILL MEET ALL MILITARY USE REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE COMMENTS IN YOUR LETTERS OF DECEMBER 22, 1960, FEBRUARY 3 AND MARCH 3, 1961, AND WE FIND NOTHING THEREIN WHICH WOULD AFFECT THIS CONCLUSION.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs