B-159971, NOV. 21, 1966

B-159971, NOV. 21, 1966

TO MACPHEE INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, LIMITED:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF AUGUST 30, 1966, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF AIR FORCE CONTRACT NO. AF 26 (431) 516 TO UNIVERSAL AMERICAN ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. F62431-67-R-0005, ISSUED ON AUGUST 8, 1966, BY THE TAIPEI AREA PROCUREMENT OFFICE, TAIPEI AIR STATION, TAIWAN.

YOU WERE ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT WITH THE AIR FORCE FOR REPAIR, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THREE 600 KILOWATT POWER GENERATORS AT THE SHU LIN KOU AIR STATION WHEN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS ISSUED. THAT CONTRACT WAS TO EXPIRE ON AUGUST 31, 1966, AND IT WAS PROPOSED TO MAKE ANOTHER AWARD FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1966, INCLUSIVE. THOSE SERVICES WERE INCLUDED AS SUBITEM 1A OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, AND OFFERORS WERE ALSO REQUESTED UNDER SUBITEM 1B TO QUOTE UNIT AND TOTAL PRICES FOR ANNUAL OR 3,000-HOUR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 3 12, APPENDIX "A" OF AN ATTACHED WORK SPECIFICATION.

YOU SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL BY TELEGRAM WHICH WAS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED TIME FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS (4:00 P.M., AUGUST 26, 1966). THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED THAT YOUR TELEGRAPHIC PROPOSAL COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED SINCE TELEGRAPHIC OFFERS WERE NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE REQUEST. YOU HAD ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN THE TELEGRAM THAT A WRITTEN BID WOULD FOLLOW, AND A "WRITTEN BID" WAS RECEIVED ON AUGUST 31, 1966, AFTER THE CONTRACT AWARD HAD BEEN MADE TO UNIVERSAL AMERICAN ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED.

YOUR PROTEST WAS BASED PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT ALLOWED FOR THE SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS ON OR PRIOR TO AUGUST 26, 1966. YOU ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBITEM 1B WERE IMPRACTICAL FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT BECAUSE, IN YOUR OPINION, THE EQUIPMENT WAS NOT IN GOOD CONDITION.

IT IS TRUE THAT THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ALLOWED A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST AND TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE 18-DAY PERIOD ALLOWED WAS REASONABLY SUFFICIENT AND, ALTHOUGH YOU ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON AUGUST 15, 1966, THAT YOU HAD NOT RECEIVED A REQUEST TO QUOTE ON THE SERVICES TO BE RENDERED AFTER AUGUST 31, 1966, IT IS REPORTED THAT A REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR COMPANY WAS FURNISHED A COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ON AUGUST 8, 1966, AT THE TAIPEI AREA PROCUREMENT OFFICE.

AN ANALYSIS OF YOUR TELEGRAPHIC PROPOSAL SHOWS THAT YOU WERE QUOTING A PRICE OF $7,532 FOR SUBITEM 1A AND A PRICE OF $15,000 FOR SUBITEM 1B. THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR QUOTED A PRICE OF $6,112.56 FOR SUBITEM 1A AND A PRICE OF $720 FOR SUBITEM 1B. THEREFORE AND REGARDLESS OF YOUR COMPLAINT WITH RESPECT TO SUBITEM 1B, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE MADE AN AWARD TO YOUR COMPANY BECAUSE YOUR TELEGRAPHIC PROPOSAL ON SUBITEM 1A EXCEEDED THE TOTAL PRICE OF THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR ON BOTH SUBITEMS OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. YOUR PROPOSAL RECEIVED AFTER AWARD OF THE CONTRACT CONFIRMED THE QUOTATIONS SET FORTH IN YOUR TELEGRAPHIC PROPOSAL AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT YOU WOULD HAVE QUOTED LOWER PRICES IF YOU HAD BEEN ALLOWED MORE TIME FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSAL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.

ACCORDINGLY, THE PROTEST MADE TO OUR OFFICE IN THE MATTER MUST BE, AND IS, HEREBY DENIED.