B-152915, FEB. 19, 1964
Highlights
INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 15. WAS CONTRARY TO THE CONDITIONS ADVERTISED. STATING THAT: "NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT AVAILABLE DATA CONSISTS OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SUPPLIES SET FORTH BELOW AND THERE ARE NO APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS. STANDARD PROVISIONS FOR BIDDING ON THE BASIS OF BRAND NAME OR EQUAL WERE INCLUDED IN THE INVITATION. WE HELD THAT THE OFFER OF SUCH ITEMS WAS NOT RESPONSIVE AND MIGHT NOT PROPERLY BE ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. A COPY WAS FURNISHED TO IT. THE ITEMS TO BE PROCURED WERE NOT SUBJECT TO SUCH MANUFACTURING CONDITIONS OR TESTING REQUIREMENTS. THAT OF YOUR FIRM WAS THE HIGHEST AND THE PRICE QUOTED BY SOON "AIR" WAS THE LOWEST. AWARD THEREFORE PROPERLY WAS MADE TO IT AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER.
B-152915, FEB. 19, 1964
TO ATLANTIC AVIATION, DIVISION OF AERO INDUSTRIES, INC.:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 15, 1963, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO OTHER THAN YOUR FIRM UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) 01-601-64-1057, ISSUED AUGUST 6, 1963, BY HEADQUARTERS, MOBILE AIR MATERIEL AREA, DIRECTORATE OF PROCUREMENT AND PRODUCTION, BROOKLEY AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA.
YOUR PROTEST APPEARS TO BE PREDICATED UPON BELIEF THAT AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANOTHER BIDDER, THE SOON "AIR" COMPANY, A DEALER IN SURPLUS ITEMS, WAS CONTRARY TO THE CONDITIONS ADVERTISED. IN THIS RESPECT, YOU CONTEND THAT THE BID OF A SURPLUS DEALER CANNOT BE RESPONSIVE TO THE SPECIFICATIONS, CITING OUR DECISION B-150893, DATED NOVEMBER 4, 1963, INVOLVING AN INVITATION UNDER WHICH YOUR FIRM COMPETED WITH THE SOON "AIR" COMPANY FOR AWARD OF A DIFFERENT PROCUREMENT.
THE OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE POINTS OUT THAT THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SOLICITED OFFERS FOR FURNISHING ROCKER ASSY- INTAKE ASSEMBLIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART NUMBERS OF ANDOVER MOTORS CORPORATION OR SOON "AIR" COMPANY, STATING THAT:
"NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT AVAILABLE DATA CONSISTS OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SUPPLIES SET FORTH BELOW AND THERE ARE NO APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, OR DRAWINGS AVAILABLE PROVIDING ALL NECESSARY MANUFACTURING AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILS.'
THAT BEING THE CASE, STANDARD PROVISIONS FOR BIDDING ON THE BASIS OF BRAND NAME OR EQUAL WERE INCLUDED IN THE INVITATION.
THE TERMS OF PROCUREMENT THUS DIFFERED SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INVOLVED IN THE CASE CONSIDERED UNDER B-150893. THEREIN WE CONSIDERED THE PROPRIETY OF ACCEPTING THE LOW BID OF A FIRM OFFERING TO FURNISH SURPLUS SHELF ITEMS WHERE THE SOLICITATION CALLED FOR ITEMS MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IDENTIFIED DRAWINGS AND SPECIFIC PROCEDURES AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN TESTING REQUIREMENTS, AND WE HELD THAT THE OFFER OF SUCH ITEMS WAS NOT RESPONSIVE AND MIGHT NOT PROPERLY BE ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SINCE THE DECISION INVOLVED BOTH THE SOON "AIR" COMPANY AND YOUR FIRM, AND A COPY WAS FURNISHED TO IT, IT APPEARS UNNECESSARY TO REPEAT HERE THE FACTS CONSIDERED IN ANY GREATER DETAIL.
IN THE INSTANCE OF RFP 01-601-64-1057, THE ITEMS TO BE PROCURED WERE NOT SUBJECT TO SUCH MANUFACTURING CONDITIONS OR TESTING REQUIREMENTS. ALREADY MANUFACTURED ITEMS, WHETHER SURPLUS OR NOT, COULD BE OFFERED IN COMPETITION ON A COMMON BASIS AND AWARD COULD BE BASED UPON AN EXACT COMPARISON OF BIDS. OF THE THREE BIDS RECEIVED, THAT OF YOUR FIRM WAS THE HIGHEST AND THE PRICE QUOTED BY SOON "AIR" WAS THE LOWEST. AWARD THEREFORE PROPERLY WAS MADE TO IT AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT YOUR PROTEST IN THIS CASE IS WITHOUT ADEQUATE BASIS TO WARRANT DISTURBING THE AWARD SO MADE.