B-152034, DEC. 12, 1963

B-152034, DEC. 12, 1963

TO LIECO, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 11, 1963, AND SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO RUOFF AND SONS, INC., UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 1260 ISSUED BY THE U.S. NAVAL ORDNANCE PLANT, FOREST PARK, ILLINOIS.

THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SOLICITED PROPOSALS FOR FURNISHING CERTAIN QUANTITIES OF RECEPTACLE ASSEMBLIES CONFORMING TO CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS. PROPOSALS WERE SOLICITED FROM TWO FIRMS ONLY, NAMELY, RUOFF AND SONS, INC., AND YOUR FIRM. AFTER QUOTATIONS WERE RECEIVED, NEGOTIATIONS RESULTED IN A FINAL PRICE OF $52.22 EACH FROM YOUR FIRM AND A FINAL PRICE OF $51.75 EACH FROM RUOFF. RUOFF'S PROPOSAL WAS ACCEPTED ON APRIL 22, 1963, RESULTING IN CONTRACT NO. M419-8998 (X).

YOU PROTEST THE REMOVAL OF YOUR NAME AS THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY FOR THE MOLDING COMPOUND TO BE USED IN MANUFACTURE OF THE ASSEMBLIES INVOLVED AND THAT ANY OTHER MOLDING COMPOUND OFFERED BY RUOFF WILL NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS.

DRAWING NO. 2319051 MADE A PART OF THE INVITATION HAD CONTAINED, PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 5, 1963, THE FOLLOWING NOTATIONS:

"SOURCE OF SUPPLY: LIECO, INC. (MOLDED ASSEMBLY)

130 EILEEN WAY

SYOSSET, L.I., N.Y.

COMPOUND NO. 194 (CONSISTING OF

G.E. COMP. NO. 12494)"

ON FEBRUARY 5, 1963, DEVIATION 3 TO THIS DRAWING WAS ISSUED, REMOVING THIS NOTATION FROM THE DRAWING AND THE REASON ASSIGNED FOR THE CHANGE WAS THAT "THE DRAWING NOTES SPECIFY PART REQUIREMENTS VENDORS MUST MEET" AND THAT "THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY THEREFORE IS NOT LIMITED TO LIECO NOR TO LIECO'S COMPOUND.' IT IS STATED FURTHER THAT IT WAS FELT THAT THE PROCUREMENT SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO THE USE OF YOUR PRODUCT (MOLDING COMPONENT) AND THAT THE TYPE OF MATERIAL USED WAS NOT RELEVANT IF THE ITEM MET ALL DRAWING AND SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE REMOVAL FROM THE DRAWING OF THE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS WAS TO ESTABLISH PRICE COMPETITION WITHOUT SACRIFICING ITEM CHARACTERISTICS NECESSARY TO MEET THE ESSENTIAL MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

AS REGARDS TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE MATERIALS USED BY RUOFF IN FULFILLING THE CONTRACT WOULD RESULT IN A PRODUCT THAT WOULD NOT MEET THE STORAGE LIFE REQUIREMENT, THIS STATEMENT WAS PREDICATED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT RUOFF WOULD USE A "GENERAL PURPOSE 300 PHENOLIC" FOR THE FABRICATION OF THE INVOLVED SUPPLIES AS INDICATED IN YOUR TELEGRAM OF OCTOBER 7, 1963, TO OUR OFFICE. HOWEVER, THE COMMANDING OFFICER, U.S. NAVAL ORDNANCE PLANT, FOREST PARK, ILLINOIS, STATES INA REPORT DATED OCTOBER 28, 1963, THAT RUOFF IS USING A "RUBBER BASE ASBESTOS FILLED PHENOLIC" WHICH YOU INDICATED IN YOUR TELEGRAM AS THE MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR MANUFACTURE OF THE SUPPLIES.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT IN THIS CASE.