B-166594, MAY 12, 1969, 48 COMP. GEN. 731

B-166594: May 12, 1969

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

LACKING THE CANCELLATION OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS ON LIGHT AND HEAVY DIESEL ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES UNDER A DEVELOPMENT LOAN TO PAKISTAN AND THE RESOLICITATION OF THE PROCUREMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHERE THE SAME LOCOMOTIVES WOULD BE OFFERED AND ONLY PRICE COMPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO BIDDERS WOULD RESULT AND. AS THE HEAVY LOCOMOTIVES TENDERED ARE ACCEPTABLE AS TO EXPERIENCE AND CONSTRUCTION. THE INVITATION FOR TENDER WAS ISSUED BY PWR. THE TRACTION MOTOR SPECIFICATION APPLICABLE TO BOTH LOCOMOTIVES PROVIDED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 18.1 TRACTION MOTORS SHALL BE OF ROBUST AND STURDY CONSTRUCTION EITHER FULLY SUSPENDED OR NOSE SUSPENDED (PREFERABLY THE FORMER) AND SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF RUNNING AT HIGH SPEED IN DUST CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN PAKISTAN AND HAVE PROVED SATISFACTORY IN CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO PAKISTAN.

B-166594, MAY 12, 1969, 48 COMP. GEN. 731

BIDS--DISCARDING ALL BIDS--READVERTISEMENT JUSTIFICATION--LACKING THE CANCELLATION OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS ON LIGHT AND HEAVY DIESEL ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES UNDER A DEVELOPMENT LOAN TO PAKISTAN AND THE RESOLICITATION OF THE PROCUREMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHERE THE SAME LOCOMOTIVES WOULD BE OFFERED AND ONLY PRICE COMPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO BIDDERS WOULD RESULT AND, THEREFORE, AN AWARD SHOULD BE MADE UNDER THE INVITATION. ONE BIDDER DETERMINED TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD OF THE LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES, AWARD ON THE HEAVY LOCOMOTIVES SHOULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS THE PRICE CLAUSE IN ONE OF THE BIDS TO COVER THE EVENTUALITY OF DELIVERY DELAY DOES NOT AFFECT BID RESPONSIVENESS, CERTAIN TECHNICAL DEVIATIONS MAY BE WAIVED AND POST-OPENING SPECIFICATION CHANGES CONSIDERED, BUT NOT A POST-AWARD OFFER TO EXTEND WARRANTY TERMS, AND AS THE HEAVY LOCOMOTIVES TENDERED ARE ACCEPTABLE AS TO EXPERIENCE AND CONSTRUCTION, THERE REMAINS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THE QUESTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE OTHER SPECIFICATIONS.

TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, MAY 12,

1969:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER DATED APRIL 1, 1969, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING OUR ADVICE WITH REGARD TO A PROCUREMENT OF 65 DIESEL ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES BY THE PAKISTAN WESTERN RAILWAY (PWR) UNDER A DEVELOPMENT LOAN TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN. UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT, AID MUST APPROVE THE AWARD.

THE INVITATION FOR TENDER WAS ISSUED BY PWR, AN AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, IN THE SPRING OF 1968 FOR 42 LOCOMOTIVES IN A 2000-2200 HORSEPOWER RANGE (HEAVY DIESELS) AND 23 LOCOMOTIVES IN A 1500-1600 HORSEPOWER RANGE (LIGHT DIESELS), OR A TOTAL OF 65 DIESEL ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES. THE TRACTION MOTOR SPECIFICATION APPLICABLE TO BOTH LOCOMOTIVES PROVIDED IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

18.1 TRACTION MOTORS SHALL BE OF ROBUST AND STURDY CONSTRUCTION EITHER FULLY SUSPENDED OR NOSE SUSPENDED (PREFERABLY THE FORMER) AND SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF RUNNING AT HIGH SPEED IN DUST CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN PAKISTAN AND HAVE PROVED SATISFACTORY IN CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO PAKISTAN. GREAT CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PREVENT THE ENTRY INTO TRACTION MOTORS OF DUST, SAND, WATER OR WINDBORNE PARTICLES AND MIGRATION OF CRATER COMPOUND INTO THE PINION AND BEARINGS. THE SUSPENSION BEARING SHALL INCORPORATE SUFFICIENTLY LARGE OIL RESERVOIRS TO ENABLE THE LOCOMOTIVES TO RUN AT LEAST 5000 MILES WITHOUT REPLACEMENT.

18.2 THE MAXIMUM SAFE SPEED SHOULD NOT BE LESS THAN 75 M.P.H. BASED ON WHEEL DIAMETER WITH FULLY WORN TIRES. * * *

18.3 THE TRACTION MOTORS SHOULD BE AMPLY RATED AND CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING THEIR MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS TRACTIVE EFFORT FOR 48 HOURS CONTINUOUSLY UNDER THE MAXIMUM AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS. * * *

18.4 THE TRACTION MOTORS OFFERED SHALL BE THOSE WHICH HAVE PROVED SUCCESSFUL WORKING LOCOMOTIVES IN ACTUAL SERVICE AT SPEEDS AT 75 MILES PER HOUR OR HIGHER AND AT THE OPTIMUM LOAD SPECIFIED IN THESE SPECIFICATIONS IN TROPICAL COUNTRIES WITH CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE PREVAILING IN PAKISTAN. THE NAMES OF THE RAILWAYS AND THE NUMBER OF LOCOMOTIVES WORKING SHOULD BE GIVEN.

BIDS WERE OPENED ON JUNE 4, 1968, AND THREE (3) FIRMS RESPONDED: ALCO, GENERAL ELECTRIC AND GENERAL MOTORS. IN SEPTEMBER 1968 PWR COMPLETED ITS EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED TO AID THAT THE 42 HEAVY LOCOMOTIVES BE AWARDED TO GM AND THE 23 LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES TO ALCO. ALTHOUGH PWR HAD FOUND THAT ALCO WAS THE LOW BIDDER FOR BOTH ITEMS, IT RULED AGAINST ALCO ON THE GROUND THAT IT OFFERED TO USE A GE 761A-5 TRACTION MOTOR WHICH PWR CONCLUDED WAS NOT TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE FOR THE HEAVY LOCOMOTIVES. WAS THE SECOND LOW BIDDER ALSO ON THE BASIS OF THE 761A-5 MOTOR, AND THEREFORE WAS ALSO CONSIDERED NOT ACCEPTABLE.

YOU REPORT THAT PWR'S CONCLUSION WAS BASED ON ITS OWN EXPERIENCE WITH GE 761A-1 AND A-3 TRACTION MOTORS ON 1800 AND 2000 HORSEPOWER LOCOMOTIVES USED IN HIGH SPEED SERVICE IN WEST PAKISTAN SINCE 1958, INDICATING MANY FAILURES WITH THESE MODELS. IT WAS PWR'S OPINION THAT THE CHANGES INCORPORATED IN THE 761A-5 MODEL WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO CORRECT THE PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED WITH THE 761A-1 AND A-3 MOTORS.

YOUR AGENCY, HOWEVER, DECIDED TO CONDUCT A TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF ITS OWN PRIOR TO APPROVING THE PWR AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS. AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT (MR. WILLIAM S. GARRETT) WAS SELECTED BY YOUR AGENCY TO REVIEW THE EVALUATION OF THE HEAVY DIESEL BIDS. HE REPORTED BACK ON NOVEMBER 6, 1968, AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE ALCO BID FOR THE HEAVY LOCOMOTIVE IS NOT RESPONSIVE BECAUSE THE GE 761-A-5 TRACTION MOTOR IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ROBUST AND STURDY AND THE ARMATURE BEARINGS ARE INADEQUATE TO GIVE SATISFACTORY SERVICE WITH REASONABLE MAINTENANCE COST ON A LOCOMOTIVE OF THIS SIZE WITH THE CLIMATIC, LOAD AND SPEED CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

2. BOTH ALCO AND GE, THROUGH THEIR SERVICE PERSONNEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF CONDITIONS EXISTING IN WEST PAKISTAN AND SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE CONTINUED DISSATISFACTION OF THE PWR THROUGH THE VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS OF THE 761 MOTOR FROM THE A-1 TO THE A-5. GE MAY HAVE ACTED ON THIS INFORMATION WHEN THEY QUOTED THE GE 752 MOTOR AS AN ALTERNATE, ALTHOUGH THEY CLAIM OTHERWISE.

3. THE PWR HAS FOLLOWED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GE 761 MOTOR THROUGH ITS VARIOUS STAGES OF MODIFICATION FROM THE GE 761-A-1 TO THE GE 761-A-5. THEIR OWNERSHIP OF EACH CLASS OF MOTOR; GE 761-A-1, GE 761-A-3 AND GE 761- A-5 IS ADEQUATE TO ENABLE THEM TO FORM A SOUND OPINION AS TO THE MERITS OF THE VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS. THEIR TOP MECHANICAL OFFICIALS HAVE FOLLOWED THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND THEY HAVE ADEQUATE ENGINEERING JUDGMENT TO ENABLE THEM TO COME TO LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS.

4. BECAUSE OF THEIR OCEAN TRANSPORTATION AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE PROBLEMS IT SEEMS IMPORTANT THAT THE PWR BE FURNISHED ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT OF HIGH QUALITY.

IT CAN BE NOTED FROM CONCLUSION 2, ABOVE, THAT GE, IN ADDITION TO BIDDING ON ITS GE 761-A MOTOR, OFFERED AN ALTERNATE BID ON ITS HEAVIER GE 752 MOTOR, AT A HIGHER PRICE (A PRICE SOMEWHAT HIGHER THAN THE GM BID PRICE). MR. GARRETT ALSO RECOMMENDED AGAINST AWARD ON THE GM 761 A-5 MOTOR FOR THE 1500 HORSEPOWER LOCOMOTIVES AS WELL. HE REASONED AS FOLLOWS:

IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE OF THE PWR TO PURCHASE LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES FOR SERVICE ON BRANCH LINES AND TO SET UP MANY SMALL WORKSHOPS AT ISOLATED LOCATIONS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE LIGHT UNITS. THEY SPECIFY A TOP SPEED OF 75 MILES PER HOUR BUT IT IS PLAIN THAT THEY DO NOT INTEND TO OPERATE THESE UNITS AT MORE THAN 40 MILES PER HOUR.

WE HAVE TRIED TO ENCOURAGE THE PWR TO SET UP ONE OR TWO WELL EQUIPPED WORKSHOPS TO MAINTAIN ALL LOCOMOTIVES OF 1000 HP AND ABOVE, AND TO SO POOL THESE UNITS ON A SYSTEM WIDE BASIS AS TO PERIODICALLY BRING ALL UNITS INTO CENTRALIZED WORKSHOPS FOR MAINTENANCE AT ONE MONTH INTERVALS. IT IS REALIZED THAT THE HEAVY LOCOMOTIVES CANNOT AT PRESENT BE OPERATED ON SOME BRANCH LINES BECAUSE OF LOAD LIMITATIONS BUT EVENTUALLY THESE LINES MUST BE IMPROVED TO RAISE THE LOAD LIMITS AND THIS SHOULD BE DONE WITHIN THE EXPECTED LIFE OF THE LOCOMOTIVES NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION.

THE DATA HEREIN PRESENTED STRONGLY INDICATES THAT THE 761 MOTOR IS NOT SUITABLE FOR HIGH SPEED OPERATION AND THE PURCHASE OF 1500 HP UNITS WITH THIS MOTOR WILL NOT PERMIT THE REGULAR OPERATION OF THESE UNITS ON THE MAIN LINE IN POOLED SERVICE FULLY LOADED AND AT HIGH SPEED. THEREFORE, IF THE PWR PURCHASES THESE UNITS WITH 761 MOTORS THEY WILL BE IGNORING PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EVENTUAL SYSTEM WIDE POOLING.

IF IT IS CLAIMED THAT 1000 HP AND 1500 HP UNITS ARE TOO LIGHT FOR MAIN LINE OPERATION THIS CAN BE READILY OVERCOME BY MULTIPLE UNIT OPERATION ON THE MAIN LINE.

IN LATE OCTOBER 1968, BEFORE MR. GARRETT'S REPORT WAS FILED, ALCO WITHDREW FROM THE AWARD COMPETITION BY ALLOWING ITS BID ON THE HEAVY AND LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES TO EXPIRE.

GE ARGUED TO YOUR AGENCY THAT PWR'S EXPERIENCE WAS SOLELY WITH THE GE 761 MOTOR ON ALCO TRUCKS; AND THAT DIFFERENCES IN SUSPENSION AND IN VENTILATION OF THE TRACTOR MOTOR AND IN THE STURDINESS OF THE GE LOCOMOTIVE TRUCK (THE COMPONENT WHICH HOLD THE AXLES, WHEELS, AND TRACTION MOTOR) WOULD ELIMINATE THE INDICATED PROBLEMS. BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. GARRETT, YOUR AGENCY CONCLUDED (SOMETIME IN DECEMBER 1968) THAT PWR'S DIFFICULTIES WITH THE 761 COULD BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ALCO TRUCKS AND THAT THE GE IMPROVEMENTS MIGHT ELIMINATE THE INDICATED PROBLEMS. SHORT, YOUR AGENCY ADVISED PWR THAT THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT A REJECTION OF THE LOW GE BID AND AN AWARD ON THE HIGHER GM BID. IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PWR BID TENDER INCORPORATED SCHEDULES WHICH SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE 761 MODEL TRACTION MOTOR. AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE BID SCHEDULES LISTED THE GE 752 (WHICH BRINGS ITS LOCOMOTIVE OVER AXLELOAD LIMITATIONS) AND THE GM D-19, WHICH PWR DID NOT WANT, INSTEAD OF THE D-75, WHICH GM BID. IN ANY EVENT, YOUR AGENCY DID NOT WISH TO RECOMMEND AN AWARD BASED ON A LOCOMOTIVE WHICH THE USER DID NOT CONSIDER TOTALLY ADEQUATE FOR THE JOB.

APPARENTLY, PWR BECAME PURSUADED THAT THE AWARDS COULD BE MADE TO GE BASED ON THE 761 MOTOR; BUT BEFORE ANY ACTION WAS TAKEN GM ENTERED A PROTEST THAT THE 761 WAS NOT A SUITABLE MOTOR FOR THE REQUIRED JOB.

IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS, YOUR AGENCY CALLED ON ANOTHER INDEPENDENT EXPERT, MR. FRANK H. MOORE, TO OFFER HIS OPINION ON THE 761 MOTOR AND THE PWR TENDER. HE REPORTED ON MARCH 19, 1969, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE WAY TO DETERMINE IF THE GE 761-A-5 MOTOR WOULD PROVE SATISFACTORY FOR THE INTENDED USE WAS TO APPLY A SET OF THESE MOTORS TO A LOCOMOTIVE AND TO TEST THE OPERATION OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL YEARS.

QUESTION HAS ALSO ARISEN AS TO THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE GM BID. THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE LIGHT DIESELS CALLED FOR CLASP BRAKES. GM DID NOT OFFER THESE BRAKES, WHILE GE DID. ALTHOUGH PWR WAS PREPARED TO WAIVE THE GM DEVIATION IN THIS RESPECT, YOUR AGENCY HAS CONCLUDED THAT IT MAY NOT BE WAIVED BECAUSE IT AFFECTS BOTH PRICE AND QUALITY. ON THE HEAVY DIESELS GM OFFERED ITS D-75 TRACTION MOTOR, WHICH IS A COMBINATION OF THE ARMATURE FROM THE GM D-75 MOTOR AND THE STATOR FROM THE GM D-77 TRACTION MOTOR. BOTH THE D-57 AND THE D-77 HAVE BEEN PROVEN SUCCESSFUL IN MAINLINE SERVICE AT 75 MILES PER HOUR AND OVER IN THE SOUTHWESTERN PART OF THE UNITED STATES. YOUR EXPERTS HAVE ADVISED THAT THE COMBINATION PROPOSED BY GM IS TECHNICALLY SOUND AND THE SUCCESSFUL EXPERIENCE WITH THE ARMATURE AND THE STATOR COULD REASONABLY BE APPLIED. YOUR AGENCY NEVERTHELESS QUESTIONS WHETHER THIS IS AN ADEQUATE SHOWING OF ACTUAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE D-75.

THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL MATTERS ARE REPORTED:

THE GE BID INCLUDED A PRINTED "PRICE ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE," WHICH SETS A FORMULA FOR PRICE ESCALATION BASED ON INCREASES IN LABOR AND MATERIAL PRICE INDICES. THE INVITATION DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ESCALATION ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASES IN LABOR AND MATERIALS COSTS, AND THE GM BID DOES NOT INCLUDE A SIMILAR PROVISION. NO REFERENCE TO THE GE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE WAS MADE IN THE PWR EVALUATION. A.I.D. ASKED GE ABOUT IT, AND WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT IT IS TO BE READ ONLY AS SETTING A FORMULA FOR ADJUSTMENT IN CASE OF DELAYS CAUSED BY A FORCE MAJEURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONTRACT. OTHER QUESTIONS OF RESPONSIVENESS AND PWR REQUIREMENTS.

(B) OERLIKON SAFETY DEVICE

THE SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRED THAT THE HEAVY AND LIGHT DIESELS BE DELIVERED EQUIPPED WITH AN OERLIKON SAFETY DEVICE. GE OFFERED TO INSTALL THE DEVICE ONLY AFTER DELIVERY OF THE LOCOMOTIVES. WHILE GE'S EXCEPTION WOULD NORMALLY BE CONSIDERED A MATERIAL DEVIATION, A.I.D. CONCURRED IN PWR'S WILLINGNESS TO PERMIT IT BECAUSE THERE APPEARED TO BE PRECEDENT FOR IT UNDER PREVIOUS A.I.D.-FINANCED PROCUREMENTS BY PWR AND THERE WOULD BE NO EFFECT ON QUALITY.

(C) OVERHAUL

THE SPECIFICATIONS CALLED FOR TRACTION MOTORS THAT WOULD RUN A MINIMUM OF 750,000 MILES BEFORE OVERHAUL. THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT THIS WAS AN UNREALISTIC REQUIREMENT AND THAT 450,000 MILES WAS REASONABLE. BOTH GM AND GE SAID THAT THEIR ENGINES WOULD MEET THE 450,000 MILES REQUIREMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES A.I.D. AGREED WITH THE PWR THAT THE BIDS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS NONRESPONSIVE ON THIS POINT. GE POST OPENING OFFERS

AS NOTED ABOVE, GE HAS OFFERED TO CHANGE THE GEAR RATIO OFFERED IN ITS BID SO AS TO REDUCE THE ARMATURE SPEEDS OF ITS TRACTION MOTOR. GE HAS ALSO OFFERED TO MAKE VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TRACTION MOTOR, WHICH IT BELIEVES WILL REMEDY THE DIFFICULTIES PREVIOUSLY ENCOUNTERED BY PWR. MANY OF THESE IDEAS WERE DEVELOPED AS A RESULT OF GE'S BECOMING AWARE OF THE RESULTS OF TESTS RUN IN PAKISTAN DURING A PERIOD FROM 1966 TO 1968. (GE ADVISES US THAT IT FIRST GOT THIS INFORMATION IN JUNE 1968, AFTER ITS BID HAD BEEN PREPARED.) IN ADDITION, GE HAS OFFERED TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE WARRANTIES CALLED FOR IN THE TENDER. WITHOUT TAKING A POSITION ON THE TECHNICAL MERIT OF THE PROPOSED POST OPENING CHANGES, A.I.D. HAS NOT CONSIDERED THEM AS PART OF THE GE BID FOR PURPOSES OF BID EVALUATION. DEFICIENCIES IN THE INVITATION AND SPECFICATIONS

THE INVITATION AND THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE DISCUSSED WITH THE BIDDERS AND APPROVED BY A.I.D. BEFORE THEY WERE ISSUED. IT IS NOW CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT THEY LEFT A GREAT DEAL TO BE DESIRED. THEY DID NOT SATISFACTORILY DESCRIBE PWR'S REAL NEEDS NOR DID THEY GIVE A CLEAR BASIS FOR EVALUATION. BECAUSE OF ITS RELUCTANCE TO CALL FOR CANCELLATION OF INVITATIONS AND REPROCUREMENTS AFTER BIDS HAVE BEEN OPENED, A.I.D. WAS PREPARED TO WAIVE DEVIATIONS AND WHAT MIGHT APPEAR TO BE TECHNICALITIES TO THE EXTENT THAT COULD BE DONE CONSISTENT WITH FAIRNESS AND THE NEEDS OF PWR. BECAUSE OF THE PAST RECORD OF PERFORMANCE ON THE PWR, HOWEVER, AND THE GE ARGUMENT THAT THAT EXPERIENCE IS NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE LOCOMOTIVE ACTUALLY OFFERED, SECTION 18.4 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, WHICH WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PRODUCT OFFERED IN SIMILAR CONDITIONS, BECAME VERY IMPORTANT. GE DID NOT MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. CONSTRUING THE SPECIFICATION STRICTLY, AS URGED BY GM (GM LETTER, 7 MAR. 69), IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT GM MET THE STATED REQUIREMENT EITHER. UNLIKE THE 750,000 MILE OVERHAUL REQUIREMENT, WHERE THERE WAS APPARENT AGREEMENT AS TO ITS IMPOSSIBILITY AND AS TO A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION FOR IT, THERE IS NO AGREEMENT ON AN ALTERNATE INTERPRETATION WHICH WILL SHOW THAT THE LOCOMOTIVE IS SATISFACTORY. A.I.D. CONCLUSION THE GE BID DOES NOT SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 18.4 OF THE TRACTION MOTOR OFFERED FOR THE HEAVY AND LIGHT DIESELS. THIS FAILURE (GIVEN THE PWR EXPERIENCE WITH THE SAME MODEL SERIES, THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH GM AND GE BOTH SUGGEST WITH REGARD TO MOTORS THAT RUN AT HIGH OPERATING SPEEDS, AND THE ACTUAL OPERATING SPEEDS OF THE MOTOR AT THE GEAR RATIO OFFERED) LEAVES DOUBT AS TO COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 18.1, ALSO.

THE GM BID FOR THE LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES DID NOT SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLASP BRAKES (SECTION 23.4), AND A.I.D. CONSIDERS THIS DEVIATION TO BE A MATERIAL ONE. WITH REGARD TO TRACTION MOTORS, GM OFFERED DIFFERENT MODELS FOR THE LIGHT AND FOR THE HEAVY DIESELS. BECAUSE THE BID WAS OTHERWISE NONRESPONSIVE A.I.D. DID NOT REVIEW THE QUESTION OF GM CONFORMITY TO SECTION 18.4 FOR THE LIGHT DIESELS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TRACTION MOTOR OFFERED BY GM FOR THE HEAVY DIESELS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 18.4.

BASED ON THE FOREGOING, YOU QUESTION WHETHER EITHER OF THE BIDS MAY BE CONSIDERED RESPONSIVE TO EITHER 18.1 OR 18.4 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. YOU SUGGEST A CANCELLATION OF THE INVITATION IN ORDER "TO PERMIT PWR TO REPROCURE UNDER DOCUMENTS WHICH WILL MORE CLEARLY STATE THE USER'S REAL NEEDS AND WILL PERMIT A FAIR AND PROPER COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT." OUR VIEWS ARE REQUESTED.

THE REPORTED FACTS SIMPLY DO NOT ALLOW US TO RESPOND TO YOUR REQUEST FOR ADVICE WITH A DEFINITE ANSWER. A REPROCUREMENT WOULD ORDINARILY BE APPROPRIATE IF THE USER INTENDED TO REVISE HIS STATED NEEDS, EITHER IN TERMS OF QUANTITY OR QUALITY. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THAT THE LOCOMOTIVE OFFERED BY GM AND THE TWO LOCOMOTIVES OFFERED BY GE CONSTITUTE THE ONLY LOCOMOTIVES WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE DESIRED PURPOSE. (WE UNDERSTAND THAT, AT LEAST FOR THE PRESENT, ALCO HAS DISCONTINUED MANUFACTURING LOCOMOTIVES.) BIDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, THEREFORE, ON EVERYTHING WHICH WOULD BE OFFERED UNDER A RESOLICITATION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONLY EFFECT A RESOLICITATION WOULD HAVE WOULD BE TO PERMIT GE AND GM TO ENGAGE IN A SECOND PRICE COMPETITION ON THE SAME ITEMS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPETED. FURTHERMORE, BOTH GE AND GM, WHILE STRONGLY URGING AWARD ON THEIR RESPECTIVE TENDERS, HAVE ALSO ARGUED AGAINST A RESOLICITATION. IF OUR UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT THAT ANY RESOLICITATION WOULD NECESSARILY RESULT IN TENDERS ON THE SAME LOCOMOTIVES WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN TENDERED, WE BELIEVE NEW TENDERS WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED AND THAT AWARD SHOULD BE MADE UNDER THE PRESENT INVITATION FOR BIDS. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS.

WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE GE "PRICE ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE" AFFECTS THE RESPONSIVENESS OF ITS BID. GE IN ITS BID DATED JUNE 1, 1968, MADE ITS PRICE ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE APPLICABLE FOR EQUIPMENT DELIVERED ON OR AFTER JUNE 30, 1969, OR WELL BEYOND THE 8 MONTHS DELIVERY PERIOD SPECIFIED FOR THE GE EQUIPMENT. THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE JUNE 30, 1969, DATE HAS BEEN EXTENDED ALONG WITH THE GE BID EXTENSIONS. IT IS STATED BY GE THAT THIS IS THE CASE, SINCE THE CLAUSE IS TO BE READ ONLY AS SETTING A FORMULA FOR ADJUSTMENT IN CASE OF DELAYS IN DELIVERY BEYOND 5 MONTHS (13 MONTHS LESS 8 MONTHS SPECIFIED DELIVERY). ON THIS BASIS WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE SPECIFIED JUNE 1969 DATE HAS BEEN EXTENDED ALONG WITH THE GE BID EXTENSIONS. THEREFORE, THE GE BID PRICES REMAIN FIRM FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 13 MONTHS AFTER AN AWARD.

WE ALSO ACCEPT YOUR ANALYSIS WITH REGARD TO THE CLASP BRAKES, THE OERLIKON SAFETY DEVICE AND THE MOTOR OVERHAUL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GE AND GM DEVIATIONS ON THE MOTOR OVERHAUL MAY BE WAIVED; ALSO THE GE BID DEVIATION ON THE SAFETY DEVICE, BUT THE GM DEVIATION ON THE CLASP BRAKES MAY NOT BE WAIVED. THIS MEANS THAT GM IS NONRESPONSIVE ON THE LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES BECAUSE IT FAILED TO OFFER CLASP BRAKES AS SPECIFIED.

ON THE GE POST-OPENING OFFERS, WE BELIEVE THAT GE'S OFFER TO CHANGE THE GEAR RATIO OR TO MAKE VARIOUS OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN ITS TRACTION MOTOR, MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THE EVALUATION. THE BID TENDER DOCUMENTS DID NOT SPECIFY ANY PARTICULAR GEAR RATIO. HOWEVER, GE'S POST-BID OFFER TO EXTEND THE TERMS OF ITS WARRANTIES BEYOND THE TIME PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE INVITATION TERMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN AN EVALUATION OF ITS BID.

THE REMAINING QUESTIONS ON WHICH OUR ADVICE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED CONCERN THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE GE AND GM BIDS TO SECTIONS 18.1 AND 18.4 OF THE SPECIFICATION. WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ON THESE TWO SECTIONS. COMPLIANCE OF BOTH TENDERS WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE SPECIFICATION IS, OF COURSE, A MATTER FOR YOUR DETERMINATION.

YOU QUESTION THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE GE AND GM TENDERS TO SECTION 18.4 OF THE SPECIFICATION, EXPRESSING SOME DOUBT WHETHER EITHER THE GE 761A-5 OR THE GM D-75 TRACTION MOTOR MEETS THE EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENT OF THAT SECTION. GE AND GM VIGOROUSLY CONTEND THAT THEIR RESPECTIVE MOTORS DO IN FACT MEET THE STATED EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENT. ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS SUFFICIENT BASIS TO JUSTIFY REJECTION OF EITHER BID FOR FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 18.4.

THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 18.1 THAT THE TRACTION MOTORS BE OF "ROBUST AND STURDY CONSTRUCTION" IS, IN OUR OPINION, INDEFINITE LANGUAGE OF GENERAL DESCRIPTION WHICH IS OF DOUBTFUL VALIDITY AS AN EVALUATION STANDARD. IT IS EVIDENT THAT SECTION 18.1 CONTEMPLATED THE SUBMISSION OF TENDERS ON THE 761 MOTOR IN VIEW OF THE FURTHER ADMONITION IN THE SECTION THAT "GREAT CARE" BE TAKEN TO PREVENT MIGRATION OF CRATER COMPOUND INTO THE PINION AND BEARINGS. IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, THEREFORE, THAT THE 761 MOTOR WAS "ROBUST AND STURDY" ENOUGH TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH THE LIGHT AND HEAVY LOCOMOTIVES IF SUFFICIENT CARE WERE TAKEN TO SOLVE THE CRATER COMPOUND MIGRATION PROBLEM. IF IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED THAT THE PRESENT VERSION OF THE 761 MOTOR WILL ELIMINATE THIS PROBLEM, WE BELIEVE THE MOTOR SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED LACKING IN ROBUSTNESS AND STURDINESS ON THAT ACCOUNT.

IN SUMMARY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT GM IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AWARD OF THE LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES AND THAT AWARD SHOULD BE MADE FOR THE HEAVY LOCOMOTIVES ON THE BASIS OF THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED HEREIN AND ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE TENDERS UNDER CONSIDERATION MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION NOT SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED. THIS CONNECTION, WE ARE ENCLOSING COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE WE RECEIVED FROM GE AND GM CONCERNING THE VARIOUS MATTERS DISCUSSED. WE ARE ALSO RETURNING THE ADMINISTRATIVE FILE UNDER SEPARATE COVER.

Oct 23, 2020

Oct 22, 2020

Oct 20, 2020

Oct 16, 2020

Oct 15, 2020

Oct 14, 2020

Looking for more? Browse all our products here