B-157046, OCT. 12, 1965

B-157046, OCT. 12, 1965

TO INTERCONTINENTAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 17, 1965, FORWARDING COPIES OF LETTERS TO THE DIRECTORATE OF PROCUREMENT AND PRODUCTION, SAN ANTONIO AIR MATERIEL AREA, KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, AND OF LETTERS TO THE PROCUREMENT DIVISION, AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, DAYTON, OHIO, IN WHICH YOU PROTEST AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PERMITTING GARRETT MANUFACTURING LIMITED OF CANADA, THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. SA-4-91270, TO DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFICATION MIL-T-38191A.

THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS REQUESTED TECHNICAL AND PRICE PROPOSALS FOR FURNISHING 142 TTU-205E PRESSURE-TEMPERATURE TEST SETS TO BE MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION MIL-T-38191A, TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING DATA. THIRTEEN PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED, THREE OF WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE. YOUR FIRM'S PROPOSAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,336,700, WAS DETERMINED TO BE TECHNICALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND WAS REJECTED. GARRETT MANUFACTURING LIMITED, ACTING THROUGH CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, SUBMITTED THE LOWEST PRICED PROPOSAL THAT WAS TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE. CONTRACT NO. AF41/608/-30982 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,252.265 WAS AWARDED TO GARRETT MANUFACTURING LIMITED, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS GARRETT, ON AUGUST 24, 1964.

THE RECORD INDICATES THAT YOUR FIRM LODGED A PROTEST WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE EVENT YOUR FIRM'S TECHNICAL PROPOSAL WAS DECLARED NONRESPONSIVE. BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 24, 1964, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED YOUR FIRM THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT AND THAT YOUR PROTEST WAS DISALLOWED. SPECIFICALLY, YOUR PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED AS TECHNICALLY UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF FOUR MAJOR DESIGN APPROACHES WHICH WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION, YOUR PROPOSAL COMPLETELY OMITTED ANY DISCUSSION AS TO HOW THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT AS TO DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING WOULD BE SATISFIED, AND NO DATA WAS FURNISHED BY YOUR FIRM TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT WOULD BE MET.

YOU CONTEND THAT GARRETT CANNOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFICATION MIL-T-38191A, AND ALLEGE THAT GARRETT HAS RECEIVED OR WILL RECEIVE A WAIVER ON PERTINENT POINTS OF THE SPECIFICATION, SPECIFICALLY THE ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS. YOU STATE THAT IF THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION IS RELAXED AND WAIVERS OR DEVIATIONS ARE GIVEN TO GARRETT, SUCH ACTION WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO YOUR FIRM'S BID.

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE REPORTS THAT IN ORDER TO ACCELERATE DELIVERY OF THE END ITEMS, SOME DEVIATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO GARRETT; THAT THESE DEVIATIONS RELATE TO THE STABILITY, MINIMUM WEIGHT AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS; THAT SOUND ENGINEERING JUDGMENT WAS EXERCISED IN GRANTING THE DEVIATIONS AND THAT THE RESULTING EFFECT ON THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE TTU-205/E TEST SET IS MINIMAL. IT ALSO IS REPORTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVED CONSIDERATION FOR THE DEVIATIONS AND THAT THE CONTRACT CHANGE WAS MADE IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE DEPARTMENT SPECIFICALLY ADVISES THAT NONE OF THE DEVIATIONS GRANTED HAVE CHANGED THE ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, AND IT IS NOT ANTICIPATED THAT SUCH REQUIREMENTS WILL BE WAIVED.

IN REGARD TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE DEVIATIONS GRANTED TO GARRETT ARE PREJUDICIAL TO YOUR BID, SINCE, AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN WAIVED OR RELAXED DO NOT RELATE IN ANY WAY TO THE TECHNICAL REASONS FOR THE REJECTION OF YOUR FIRM'S TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, IT IS NOT APPARENT HOW THE GRANTING OF THESE DEVIATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED PREJUDICIAL TO YOUR BID.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE SEE NO BASIS FOR OBJECTION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN.