B-156324, JUN. 7, 1965

B-156324, JUN. 7, 1965

TO THE HARWALD COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM AND LETTER OF MARCH 12 AND 16, 1965, RESPECTIVELY, PROTESTING AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF A FILM INSPECTION MACHINE FROM ANOTHER COMPANY UNDER REQUISITION NO. CPO 5034 8220, ISSUED BY THE PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING OFFICER FORT JACKSON, SOUTH CAROLINA.

THE REQUEST FOR QUOTATION, ISSUED FEBRUARY 16, 1965, CALLED FOR PROPOSALS FOR FURNISHING A FILM INSPECTION MACHINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PURCHASE DESCRIPTION:

"FILM INSPECTION MACHINE, INSPECTO-O-FILM MODEL "U" MARK III, OR INSPECTION MACHINE, PAULMAR, MODEL 60 OR EQUAL.'

IT APPEARS THAT YOU ARE THE MANFACTURER OF THE FIRST BRAND NAME SPECIFIED AND PAULMAR IS THE MANUFACTURER OF THE SECOND (MODEL 60 IS NOW DESIGNATED AS MODEL 90). THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED, EXCLUSIVE OF DISCOUNTS WERE AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE

1. THE HARWALD COMPANY

MODEL 76 $1,697.00

INSPECT-O-FILM

MODEL "U" MARK III $1,997.50

2. PAULMAR, INC.

MODEL 501 $1,525.70

MODEL 90 $1,905.50

THE THIRD COMPANY SOLICITED DID NOT SUBMIT A PROPOSAL.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE SUBMITTED ON ALL FOUR ITEMS OFFERED RESULTED IN THE DETERMINATION THAT NEITHER THE HARWALD MODEL 76 NOR THE PAULMAR MODEL 501 MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE USING ACTIVITY, BUT THAT YOUR MODEL "U" MARK III AND PAULMAR'S MODEL 90 WERE AS DESIGNATED IN THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION AND THEREFORE ADEQUATE. SINCE THE PAULMAR BID ON ITS MODEL 90 WAS $92 LESS THAN THE BID ON YOUR MODEL "U" MARK III, AN ORDER WAS PLACED WITH PAULMAR. APPARENTLY DELIVERY HAS BEEN SUSPENDED PENDING OUR DECISION ON YOUR PROTEST.

YOU CONTEND THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE ORDER BECAUSE THE FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE LIST PRICE FOR YOUR EQUIPMENT IS LOWER THAN LIST PRICE FOR THE PAULMAR EQUIPMENT, AND BECAUSE MR. JOHN TATE, DIRECTOR, AUDIO-VISUAL COMMUNICATION CENTER, REQUESTED AND WANTED YOUR EQUIPMENT RATHER THAN PAULMAR-S. AS TO THE PRICE OF THE EQUIPMENT, IT APPEARS THAT THE QUOTED PRICES, REFERRED TO HERETOFORE, FOR BOTH MODELS OF EACH COMPANY ARE IN FACT THE FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE LIST PRICES. IT IS THEREFORE APPARENT THAT ONLY YOUR MODEL 76 IS LOWER IN PRICE WHEN COMPARED TO PAULMAR'S MODEL 90. HOWEVER, AS STATED ABOVE, ONLY YOUR MODEL MARK "U" III MET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND IT IS THEREFORE THE PRICE OF THAT MODEL WHICH MUST BE COMPARED WITH PAULMAR'S MODEL 90 PRICE.

MR. TATE HAS SUBMITTED A STATEMENT DENYING THAT HE EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE FOR YOUR EQUIPMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS REPORTED THAT HEINITIALLY REQUISITIONED YOUR MODEL "U" MARK III, AFTER WHICH HE ALSO RECOMMENDED THE PAULMAR MODEL 90 UPON BEING INFORMED BY THE PURCHASING ACTIVITY THAT REGULATIONS WOULD NOT PERMIT SOLICITATION OR PROPOSALS ON THE BASIS OF ONLY ONE BRAND NAME OR EQUAL WITHOUT APPROVAL OF HIGHER AUTHORITY.

APPARENTLY YOU ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ARMY WAS OBLIGATED TO PURCHASE YOUR EQUIPMENT UNDER YOUR CONTRACT GS-OOS NO. 47358 WITH THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION. THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SINCE THE CONTRACTS ESTABLISHED BY GSA PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, 40 U.S.C. 471, ET SEQ., ARE NOT MANDATORY ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENTS UNLESS THEY ARE FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES DESIGNATED IN ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION 5-102.3. THE EQUIPMENT BEING PROCURED IN THIS CASE IS NOT LISTED THEREIN, AND THE PROCURING ACTIVITY THEREFORE PROPERLY SOLICITED PROPOSALS FROM THREE SUPPLIERS OF THE ITEM REQUIRED. SINCE BOTH YOUR MODEL "U" MARK III AND PAULMAR'S MODEL 90 WERE RESPONSIVE TO THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER PROPERLY MADE AWARD TO PAULMAR AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE OFFEROR.

ON THE RECORD PRESENTED, THERE IS NO BASIS UPON WHICH WE MAY PROPERLY OBJECT TO THE AWARD IN THIS CASE, AND YOUR PROTEST IS THEREFORE DENIED.