B-154973, OCT. 14, 1964

B-154973, OCT. 14, 1964

TO MR. G. ROSEKILLY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 15, 1964, WITH ENCLOSURES, PROTESTING THE AWARD TO ANOTHER BIDDER OF BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS CONTRACT NBY-59389, TESTING AND CRATING THREE DIESEL ENGINE GENERATOR SETS FOR NHA TRANG, SAIGON, VIETNAM.

IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT INVITATION FOR BID UNDER NBY-59389 WAS ISSUED ON AUGUST 7, 964; THAT BIDS WERE OPENED ON AUGUST 12, 1964, AND THERE WERE THREE BIDDERS, WITH YOUR BID BEING THE LOWEST; THE LOW BID INDICATED A LUMP-SUM AMOUNT, BUT CONTAINED THE NOTATION "ATTACHED LETTER IS PART OF OUR BID; " IN THE LETTER IT IS STATED THAT YOUR MINIMUM TIME CHARGE WAS 100 HOURS AND ANYTHING ADDITIONAL WOULD BE AT $8.50 PER MAN- HOUR; THAT IN ADDITION, A MINIMUM CHARGE IS STATED FOR CRATING, WITH THE STATEMENT THAT CRATING OVER THE ESTIMATED CUBIC FOOTAGE WOULD BE 70 CENTS A CUBIC FOOT ADDITIONAL. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT INASMUCH AS THE INVITATION FOR BID REQUIRED A LUMP-SUM PRICE FOR THE WORK COMPLETE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION, YOUR BID WAS FOUND TO BE A QUALIFIED BID AND NONRESPONSIVE.

IN YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 15, 1964, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE LOOSELY DRAWN; THAT THE ENGINES, ON WHICH THE WORK WAS TO BE PERFORMED WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION; AND THAT NO DRAWINGS OR DIMENSIONS WERE SUPPLIED FOR ESTIMATING THE COST OF BOXING OR CRATING.

THE INVITATION FOR BIDS CLEARLY REQUIRED THE SUBMISSION OF A FIRM OFFER OF A STATED PRICE TO PERFORM THE WORK REQUIRED--- TESTING AND CRATING ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS, WHICH GAVE THE MANUFACTURER AND MODEL NUMBERS OF THE EQUIPMENT TO BE TESTED AND CRATED. IN YOUR LETTER ACCOMPANYING YOUR BID, IT IS STATED THAT THE MECHANICS YOU PROPOSED TO USE FOR TESTING THE EQUIPMENT WERE FAMILIAR WITH AND EXPERIENCED IN TESTING THE EQUIPMENT CONCERNED. HENCE, IT MUST BE CONSIDERED THAT YOU WERE REASONABLY AWARE OF THE GENERAL CHARACTER AND DIMENSIONS OF THE EQUIPMENT.

AS TO THE BID ITSELF, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBLEM OF INTERPRETING THE BID AS SUBMITTED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM. EACH BID TO BE CONSIDERED RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION HAD TO BE UNQUALIFIED--- WITHOUT RESERVATIONS--- AND CAPABLE OF BEING EVALUATED FROM THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN THE BID WOULD RECOURSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OUTSIDE THE BID DOCUMENTS.

SINCE SPECIFIC REFERENCE WAS MADE ON THE BID FORM TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 12, 1964, THE LETTER BECAME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BID. THE LETTER QUALIFIED YOUR BID BY PROVIDING THAT THE BID PRICE STATED WAS A BID BASED ON 100 MAN-HOURS LABOR MINIMUM AND 1643 CUBIC FEET OF BOXING, AND ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL MAN-HOURS AND BOXING IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM. HENCE, NO LUMP SUM PRICE WAS OFFERED, AND ACCEPTANCE THEREOF WOULD NOT BE THE SAME CONTRACT OFFERED TO OTHER BIDDERS.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE WAS ADEQUATE BASIS FOR REJECTION OF YOUR BID AS QUALIFIED AND NONRESPONSIVE. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PROTEST ON THE MATTER MUST BE DENIED.