B-168629: Jun 19, 1970

THAT STIPULATED TECHNICAL PROPOSALS WOULD BE ACCEPTED ONLY FROM "THOSE CONTRACTORS WHO HAVE MANUFACTURED AND CAN DEMONSTRATE AT AN OPERATING AIRFIELD A SOLID STATE CONVENTIONAL INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM" DUE TO THE UNIQUE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN ADAPTING A TWO-FREQUENCY LOCALIZER TO THE SYSTEM. WAS NOT RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITION BECAUSE ONE BIDDER COULD NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROCUR...

B-168629: Oct 16, 1970

THAT NO FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 3. INCORPORATED: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM DATED SEPTEMBER 4. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE FILED SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. WE MUST ADVISE THAT NO FURTHER ACTION IS CONTEMPLATED BY OUR OFFICE ON YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION...

B-168629: Sep 3, 1970

WHICH CONTAINED A "BIDDER'S TECHNICAL QUALIFICATION CLAUSE" STATING TECHNICAL PROPOSALS WOULD BE ACCEPTED ONLY FROM THOSE CONTRACTORS WHO HAVE MANUFACTURED AND CAN DEMONSTRATE AT AN OPERATING AIRFIELD A SOLID STATE CONVENTIONAL INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM. WAS CONTRARY TO THE INTENT OF THE CLAUSE. THE PROPOSAL PREMISED ON THE SUBCONTRACTOR'S SYSTEM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. 1970: REFERENCE IS...

B-168629: Nov 18, 1970

PROVIDED THE DECISION IS FREE OF ERROR OF FACT OR LAW. WILL NOT ACT IN THE MATTER BEFORE PROTESTANT ASKS FOR A VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AND WHERE COURT WOULD DECIDE ON THE SAME ISSUES AS THOSE PRESENTED FOR DECISION. INCORPORATED: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 28. WHEREIN WE ADVISED THAT NO FURTHER ACTION WAS CONTEMPLATED BY OUR OFFICE ON YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF O...