B-161002, MAY 31, 1967

B-161002, MAY 31, 1967

TO HARTMAN-HUYCK SYSTEMS CO., INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO A TELEGRAM AND A LETTER DATED MARCH 6 AND 7, 1967, RESPECTIVELY, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD OF ANY CONTRACT UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. N00600-67-B-0441'S ISSUED ON JANUARY 23, 1967, BY THE UNITED STATES NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE, WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, WASHINGTON, D.C.

THE SUBJECT INVITATION, AS MODIFIED BY AMENDMENT 0001 ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 13, 1967, SOLICITED BIDS FOR 88 DEAD RECKONING ANALYZER INDICATORS (DRAI) AND ASSOCIATED PARTS AND SERVICES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION MIL-A- 22523C/SHIPS) DATED OCTOBER 15, 1965, AND AMENDMENT NO. 1 DATED FEBRUARY 16, 1966, EXCEPT AS MODIFIED IN THE INVITATION. EIGHT BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND OPENED ON FEBRUARY 23, 1967, AND YOUR FIRM WAS FIFTH LOW.

YOU MAINTAIN THAT ANY CONTRACT AWARDED UNDER THE INVITATION WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO PERFORM SINCE ERRORS IN SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WOULD PRECLUDE ANY CONTRACTOR FROM FURNISHING FUNCTIONAL EQUIPMENT. SPECIFICALLY, YOU DRAW ATTENTION TO PARAGRAPH 3.7.9.1 OF THE SPECIFICATION WHICH CONTAINS A FORMULA FOR COMPUTING THE ERROR OF THE EQUIPMENT OUTPUT AND POINT OUT THAT APPLICATION OF THIS FORMULA WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PRODUCE FUNCTIONAL EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD OF PARAGRAPH 3.7.11, AS AMENDED IN THE INVITATION, WHICH LIMITS THE PERMISSIBLE RESULTANT ERROR TO .25 PERCENT.

ALTHOUGH THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY ACKNOWLEDGES THE VALIDITY OF YOUR OBJECTION AS TO APPLICATION OF THE FORMULA, WE ARE FURTHER ADVISED THAT:

"* * * THE FORMULA CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 3.7.9.1 IS IN ERROR. HOWEVER, WE SUBMIT THAT THE ERROR IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, AND IS SO OBVIOUS THAT NO REASONABLE PERSON COULD BE MISLED BY IT.

"THUS THE ERROR IS IN THE PLACING OF "D-" IN FRONT OF THE CORRECT FORMULA. THIS ERROR HAS THE EFFECT OF MAKING THE RESULTANT FIGURE THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT DESIRED, THE PERCENTAGE OF ACCURACY RATHER THAN THE PERCENTAGE OF ERROR. * * *"

GIVEN THE FACT OF THIS ERROR, WE CANNOT AGREE, AS YOU APPARENTLY CONTEND, THAT IT MUST BE PERPETUATED. IN THIS RESPECT, THE QUESTION FOR RESOLUTION IS WHETHER THIS DEFICIENCY IS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO MISLEAD BIDDERS TO THEIR PREJUDICE. SEE B-149749, B-149825, OCTOBER 17, 1962, COPY HEREWITH. CF. B-157297, SEPTEMBER 17, 1965. HERE, WE NOTE THAT NO OTHER BIDDER RESPONDING TO THE INVITATION HAS RAISED THE QUESTION OF THE ERROR IN THE FORMULA. THE RECORD FURTHER INDICATES THAT BY TELEGRAM DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1967, YOUR FIRM REQUESTED CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE SPECIFICATION, RESULTING IN CERTAIN SPECIFICATION CHANGES BY AMENDMENT 0001, WITHOUT DRAWING ATTENTION TO YOUR PRESENT CONCLUSION THAT THE SPECIFICATION REQUESTED NONFUNCTIONAL EQUIPMENT. MOREOVER, THE PROCURING ACTIVITY ADVISES THAT YOUR FIRM HAS AN EXISTING CONTRACT FOR DRAI EQUIPMENT BASED ON SPECIFICATIONS WHICH CONTAIN REQUIREMENTS IDENTICAL TO THE OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS IN ISSUE HERE, EXCEPT THAT THE FORMULA FOR COMPUTING THE ERROR IS CORRECTLY STATED.

THEREFORE, WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT YOUR FIRM OR ANY OTHER BIDDER WAS MISLED BY THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.