B-124587, DEC. 5, 1955
Highlights
E. GURLEY: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD MADE BY REGION 3. ALTHOUGH THE ITEMS WERE LISTED AS MANUFACTURERS' CATALOG NUMBERS. THEY WERE FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY AND WERE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED RESTRICTED. YOUR BID FOR THE ITEM WAS $727 EACH. THE BID OF EUGENE DIETZGEN COMPANY AS TO ITEM 20 AND OTHER ITEMS WAS ACCEPTED ON JUNE 30. YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD IS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT THE TRANSIT OFFERED BY EUGENE DIETZGEN COMPANY IS NOT EQUAL TO THE TRANSIT SPECIFIED FOR SEVERAL REASONS. IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED THAT IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE VARIABLE EYEPIECE OR THE HAZE FILTER WERE NOT STANDARD EQUIPMENT ON THE MODEL SPECIFIED IN THE INVITATION.
B-124587, DEC. 5, 1955
TO W. AND L. E. GURLEY:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD MADE BY REGION 3, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, UNDER ITEM 20 OF INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 1K-50433/1/-N-5-26-55.
ITEM 20 OF THE INVITATION REQUESTED BIDS ON 20 "GURLEY STANDARD PRECISE TRANSIT, WITH SOLAR RETICULE AND DIAGONAL PRISM ATTACHMENT FOR EYEPIECE; ENGINEER'S MODEL 132-HR-30-, OR EQUAL.' THE INVITATION PROVIDED THAT, ALTHOUGH THE ITEMS WERE LISTED AS MANUFACTURERS' CATALOG NUMBERS, THEY WERE FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY AND WERE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED RESTRICTED.
IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION, EUGENE DIETZGEN COMPANY SUBMITTED A BID OFFERING TO FURNISH UNDER ITEM 20 ITS NO. 6166 TRANSIT WITH NO. 6461-50 SOLAR RETICLE AND PRISMATIC EYEPIECE AND ADDED THE WORDS "IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECS., " FOR A UNIT PRICE OF $557.90. YOUR BID FOR THE ITEM WAS $727 EACH. THE BID OF EUGENE DIETZGEN COMPANY AS TO ITEM 20 AND OTHER ITEMS WAS ACCEPTED ON JUNE 30, 1955.
YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD IS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT THE TRANSIT OFFERED BY EUGENE DIETZGEN COMPANY IS NOT EQUAL TO THE TRANSIT SPECIFIED FOR SEVERAL REASONS, THE PRINCIPAL ONE BEING THE LACK OF YOUR "VARIABLE POWER EYEPIECE.'
IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED THAT IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE VARIABLE EYEPIECE OR THE HAZE FILTER WERE NOT STANDARD EQUIPMENT ON THE MODEL SPECIFIED IN THE INVITATION, AND ARE NOT SHOWN AS SUCH IN YOUR CATALOG; ALSO THAT IF THEY HAD BEEN REQUIRED, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED. IS FURTHER REPORTED THAT THE OTHER POINTS MENTIONED WERE NOT CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT EITHER AS TO USE OR RESULTS OBTAINED.
WHEN AN ITEM IS DESCRIBED IN AN INVITATION AS THE PRODUCT OF A PARTICULAR MANUFACTURER, OR EQUAL, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT AN ALTERNATE ITEM BE AN EXACT DUPLICATE OF THE PRODUCT SPECIFIED--- IN FACT, SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD ORDINARILY BE REGARDED AS SO RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITION AS TO PRECLUDE A LAWFUL AWARD.
ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR OBJECTION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN IN THE MATTER.