B-139874, NOV. 10, 1959
Highlights
TO ASCO PRODUCTS CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 9. YOU STATE THAT YOU DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE ACTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN DETERMINING THAT YOU WERE NOT A RESPONSIBLE PROSPECTIVE SUPPLIER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN SECTION 1-307 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION BECAUSE ONLY SEGMENTS OF THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL WERE USED TO JUSTIFY THE ACTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WHEREAS THE INTENT OF THE ENTIRE REPORT WAS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR CORPORATION. YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH OF THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL DATED MARCH 2. IS UNABLE TO DELIVER WITHIN 21 DAYS AS OFFERED "C.
B-139874, NOV. 10, 1959
TO ASCO PRODUCTS CORPORATION:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 9, 1959, IN WHICH YOU REFER TO OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 19, 1959, B-139874, TO YOU, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL BASIS EXISTED FOR QUESTIONING THE REJECTION OF YOUR BID AND THE AWARD MADE TO JOE BRASHEARS STEEL, INC., UNDER INVITATION NO. 67004-35-59, ISSUED BY THE CENTER PURCHASING OFFICE, MARINE CORPS SUPPLY CENTER, ALBANY GEORGIA.
YOU STATE THAT YOU DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE ACTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN DETERMINING THAT YOU WERE NOT A RESPONSIBLE PROSPECTIVE SUPPLIER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN SECTION 1-307 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION BECAUSE ONLY SEGMENTS OF THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL WERE USED TO JUSTIFY THE ACTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WHEREAS THE INTENT OF THE ENTIRE REPORT WAS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR CORPORATION. IN THAT CONNECTION, YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH OF THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF NAVAL MATERIAL DATED MARCH 2, 1959, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:
"5. IN CONCLUSION, IT CAN BE STATED THAT THE BIDDER:
"A. HAS INADEQUATE PRODUCTION AND EQUALITY CONTROLS
"B. IS UNABLE TO DELIVER WITHIN 21 DAYS AS OFFERED
"C. IS RELUCTANT TO COMPLY WITH INSPECTION REQUIREMENT AS NOTED IN PARAGRAPH 4 (D) 7 OF THIS REPORT.
"FOR REASONS STATED ABOVE, ASCO PRODUCTS CORP., NIXON, N. J., IS NOT CONSIDERED A SUITABLE SOURCE OF SUPPLY.'
IN REGARD TO YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS EXPENDED FOR RAW MATERIALS AND ANTICIPATORY PROFITS WHICH YOU ALLEGE THAT YOU DID NOT REALIZE DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOU FAILED TO GET THE AWARD, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT SUCH CLAIM MAY NOT BE ALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT STATUTES WHICH REQUIRE PURCHASES TO BE MADE AFTER ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WERE ENACTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOT FOR THE BIDDERS, AND THE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT BIDDERS HAVE NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS IN THE EVENT THEIR BIDS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. SEE PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL COMPANY, 310 U.S. 113; COLORADO PAVING COMPANY V. MURPHY, 78 F. 28; AND HEYER PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 135 C.CLS. 63. COMPARE STATE EX REL., HRON BROS.INC. V. CITY OF PORT WASHINGTON, 62 N.W. 2D 1; AND ROYAL SUNDRIES CORPORATION V. UNITED STATES, 112 F.SUPP. 244. ..END :