B-152167, OCT. 7, 1963
Highlights
INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 29. TWENTY-SIX SOURCES WERE LISTED. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS THAT OF THE FIVE COMPLETE BIDS EVALUATED YOUR BID IS THE SECOND LOW BID RECEIVED AND THAT THE LOW BID WAS SUBMITTED BY MANEY AIRCRAFT PARTS. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REPORTS THAT NEW SHIPPING CONTAINERS WERE ADDED AS A SEPARATE LINE ON THE INVITATION FOR BIDS THIS YEAR BECAUSE THE COST OF NEW SHIPPING CONTAINERS REPRESENTS A CONSIDERABLE SUM OF MONEY AND HAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE OVER-ALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON FOR READVERTISING. IT IS NOTED. THAT EVEN IF THE REPAIR AND OVERHAUL WORK WAS CONSIDERED SEPARATELY YOU ARE NOT THE LOW BIDDER ON THIS ITEM.
B-152167, OCT. 7, 1963
TO MACON AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC.:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 29, 1963, PROTESTING THE POSSIBLE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANOTHER BIDDER UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 09-603-63-981 ISSUED ON MAY 3, 1963, BY WARNER ROBINS AIR MATERIEL AREA, DIRECTORATE OF PROCUREMENT AND PRODUCTION, ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA.
THE INVITATION SOLICITED BIDS (1) FOR FURNISHING SERVICES AND MATERIAL FOR THE REPAIR AND OVERHAUL OF FABRIC COVERED CONTROL SURFACES OF FOUR TYPES OF AIRCRAFT AND (2) FOR FURNISHING NEW SHIPPING CONTAINERS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK. TWENTY-SIX SOURCES WERE LISTED. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS THAT OF THE FIVE COMPLETE BIDS EVALUATED YOUR BID IS THE SECOND LOW BID RECEIVED AND THAT THE LOW BID WAS SUBMITTED BY MANEY AIRCRAFT PARTS.
IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 29, 1963, YOU PROTEST THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS COMBINED THE REPAIR WORK AND THE FURNISHING OF CONTAINERS OR PACKAGING WORK IN ONE INVITATION BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SAVE MONEY BY ISSUING ONE INVITATION FOR THE REPAIR WORK AND ANOTHER INVITATION FOR THE FURNISHING OF CONTAINERS OR PACKAGING WORK.
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REPORTS THAT NEW SHIPPING CONTAINERS WERE ADDED AS A SEPARATE LINE ON THE INVITATION FOR BIDS THIS YEAR BECAUSE THE COST OF NEW SHIPPING CONTAINERS REPRESENTS A CONSIDERABLE SUM OF MONEY AND HAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE OVER-ALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. ALSO, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES THAT WHILE THE PRICES FOR SHIPPING CONTAINERS DO VARY WITH EACH BIDDER THE DEGREE OF VARIANCE CANNOT NECESSARILY BE ATTRIBUTED TO A "BUYING IN" AS YOU ALLEGE. SUCH VARIANCES COULD BE THE RESULT OF SOME BIDDERS HAVING THE CAPABILITY OF FABRICATING THEIR OWN CONTAINERS IN LIEU OF SUBCONTRACTING TO A PACKAGING CONTRACTOR.
YOUR SUGGESTION THAT AWARD BE MADE TO THE LOWEST REPAIR AND OVERHAUL BIDDER AND THEN ALLOW PACKAGING CONTRACTORS TO BID ON CRATES MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE LOWEST OVER-ALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE ONLY PACKAGING CONTRACTORS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE OVERHAUL CONTRACTORS COULD BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION COSTS AND TIMELY DELIVERY. IN ADDITION, SUCH A METHOD OF EVALUATION WOULD REQUIRE CANCELLATION OF THE INSTANT INVITATION AND READVERTISEMENT WITH REVISED EVALUATION CRITERIA. FOR REASONS STATED, THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON FOR READVERTISING. IT IS NOTED, FROM THE EVALUATION OF THE BIDS RECEIVED, THAT EVEN IF THE REPAIR AND OVERHAUL WORK WAS CONSIDERED SEPARATELY YOU ARE NOT THE LOW BIDDER ON THIS ITEM. LIKEWISE, YOUR BID ON THE CONTAINER AND PACKAGING WORK WAS NOT THE LOWEST BID RECEIVED ON THIS ITEM.
WITH REGARD TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT THREE BIDDERS SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING SUBMITTED RESPONSIVE BIDS BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE STATES THAT NONE OF THE THREE FIRMS WHICH YOU MENTIONED IS IN LINE FOR AWARD.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING WE DO NOT FIND ANY BASIS FOR NOT PROCEEDING WITH AWARD TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER IN THIS CASE AND YOUR PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.