Skip to main content

B-177165, JAN 31, 1973

B-177165 Jan 31, 1973
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

OR OTHERWISE DEFICIENT SPECIFICATIONS IS NOT. SINCE SUCH IS NOT THE CASE IN THIS INSTANCE. SECRETARY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 2. C. THIS PROCUREMENT WAS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO TWO-STEP FORMALLY ADVERTISED PROCEDURES. THREE PROPOSALS WERE ULTIMATELY CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE AND THE REFERENCED IFB WAS ISSUED CARRYING A BID OPENING DATE OF AUGUST 29. IT IS REPORTED THAT ON AUGUST 25. IS REPORTED THAT THROUGH INADVERTENCE NO REPLY WAS MADE TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED AND THAT RFC'S BID WAS THE ONLY TIMELY BID RECEIVED. RADIONICS' BID WAS RECEIVED LATE BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE BID TO THE CORRECT NAVY INSTALLATION. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY RADIONICS WERE OF SUFFICIENT SUBSTANCE TO WARRANT CANCELLATION OF THE INVITATION.

View Decision

B-177165, JAN 31, 1973

BID PROTEST - CANCELLATION OF IFB - COMPELLING REASON - MATERIAL SPECIFICATION DEFICIENCIES DECISION ALLOWING THE PROTEST OF R. F. COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (RFC), AGAINST THE CANCELLATION OF AN IFB ISSUED BY THE NAVAL ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS COMMAND FOR AN ANTENNA COUPLER GROUP. AN IFB MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE REQUIREMENT READVERTISED ONLY FOR A "COMPELLING REASON." ASPR 2-404.1. THE MERE UTILIZATION IN THE IFB OF INADEQUATE, AMBIGUOUS, OR OTHERWISE DEFICIENT SPECIFICATIONS IS NOT, IN ITSELF SUCH A COMPELLING REASON. 52 COMP. GEN. , B-176647, NOVEMBER 21, 1972. THE DEFICIENCIES OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE MATERIAL IN ORDER TO WARRANT CANCELLATION OF AN IFB. SINCE SUCH IS NOT THE CASE IN THIS INSTANCE, THE COMP. GEN. RECOMMENDS THAT THE IFB BE REINSTATED AND AWARD MADE TO R.F.C.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 2, 1972, REFERENCE ELEX OOC/ER:CMC, SER 301-OOC, FROM THE DIRECTOR OF CONTRACTS, NAVAL ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS COMMAND (NAVELEX), AND A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 5, 1972, REFERENCE SER 332-OOC, FROM COUNSEL FOR NAVELEX, REPORTING ON THE BID PROTEST BY R. F. COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (RFC), AGAINST THE CANCELLATION OF IFB N00039-72-B -0232, ISSUED BY NAVELEX, WASHINGTON, D. C.

THIS PROCUREMENT WAS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO TWO-STEP FORMALLY ADVERTISED PROCEDURES. THE FIRST STEP CALLED FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSALS FOR ANTENNA COUPLER GROUP AN/URA-38( ). THREE PROPOSALS WERE ULTIMATELY CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE AND THE REFERENCED IFB WAS ISSUED CARRYING A BID OPENING DATE OF AUGUST 29, 1972. IT IS REPORTED THAT ON AUGUST 25, NAVELEX RECEIVED A TELEGRAM DATED AUGUST 18 FROM RADIONICS, INC., ONE OF THE FIRMS WHICH SUBMITTED AN ACCEPTABLE PROPOSAL UNDER STEP ONE, WHICH RAISED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ADEQUACY AND CLARITY OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. IS REPORTED THAT THROUGH INADVERTENCE NO REPLY WAS MADE TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED AND THAT RFC'S BID WAS THE ONLY TIMELY BID RECEIVED. RADIONICS' BID WAS RECEIVED LATE BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE BID TO THE CORRECT NAVY INSTALLATION. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY RADIONICS WERE OF SUFFICIENT SUBSTANCE TO WARRANT CANCELLATION OF THE INVITATION. IT IS STATED THAT CERTAIN CORRECTIONS AND REVISIONS ARE CLEARLY REQUIRED TO AVOID AMBIGUITY IN THE INVITATION AND THAT SUCH AMBIGUITY IS A COGENT REASON FOR CANCELLATION. NAVELEX IS PRESENTLY DRAFTING THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS DEEMED NECESSARY FOR READVERTISEMENT.

COUNSEL FOR RFC HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT NAVELEX IS ABLE TO ENTER INTO A VALID, ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT WITH RFC ON THE BASIS OF THE RFC BID. IT IS ARGUED THAT ALL SUBSTANTIAL AMBIGUITIES WERE RESOLVED DURING THE FIRST STEP OF THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENT.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS IDENTIFY THREE AREAS IN THE INVITATION AS AMBIGUOUS AND ALLEGE THAT SUCH AMBIGUITIES PROVIDE COGENT REASONS FOR REQUIRING CANCELLATION OF THE INVITATION.

THE FIRST AREA AT ISSUE INVOLVES A QUESTION OF WHICH REVISION OF MILITARY TECHNICAL MANUAL SPECIFICATION MIL-M-15071 IS APPLICABLE HERE. TECHNICAL MANUAL DATA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBIT B, IS CALLED FOR BY ITEM 0011 OF THE IFB. THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT OF NOVEMBER 2 POINTS OUT THAT PAGE 29 OF THE SCHEDULE MAKES MENTION OF MIL-M-15071F, WHICH IS AN OUTDATED REVISION OF THE SPECIFICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DATA ITEMS RELATING TO THE TECHNICAL MANUALS LISTED ON DD FORMS 1423 (EXHIBIT B), CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENT LIST, ARE REQUIRED BY THE SUPPORTING DATA ITEM DESCRIPTIONS, DD FORM 1664, TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVISION OF MIL-M -15071 IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THE INVITATION, WHICH WAS REVISION G. IT IS THE COMMAND'S POSITION THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE INVITATION'S "ORDER OF PRECEDENCE" CLAUSE REQUIRES THAT THE SCHEDULE (WHICH REFERS TO OUTDATED REVISION F) MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE EVENT OF INCONSISTENCY. THE REPORT CONCLUDES THAT THE SCHEDULE MUST BE REVISED SO AS TO SPECIFY THE APPLICABILITY OF REVISION G.

THE REFERENCE TO REVISION F IN THE SCHEDULE OF THE INVITATION READS AS FOLLOWS:

"FOR THOSE PUBLICATIONS BEING PREPARED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF MIL-M 15071F (SHIPS), THE PAGE AND IMAGE SIZES LISTED FOR THE 4 3/8 BY 6 3/4 INCH SIZE SHALL NOT BE USED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED ON THE DD FORM 1423."

THIS PROVISION REQUIRED THAT SPECIFIC PAGE AND IMAGE SIZES NOT BE USED WHERE REVISION F IS FOR APPLICATION. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS PROVISION CAN REASONABLY BE CONSTRUED AS ESTABLISHING A REQUIREMENT FOR THE USE OF REVISION F OF THE REFERENCED MILITARY SPECIFICATION FOR THE TECHNICAL MANUAL DATA CALLED FOR UNDER ITEM 0011. IN THIS CONNECTION THE SCHEDULE ITSELF PROVIDES (PAGE 27 OF THE INVITATION) THAT ITEM 0011 SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE DD FORMS 1423 AND DD FORMS 1664. EXPLAINED ABOVE, THE DD FORMS 1664 REFERRED TO IN THE SCHEDULE CLEARLY ESTABLISH A REQUIREMENT FOR THE USE OF REVISION G OF MIL-M-15071. THEREFORE FIND NO AMBIGUITY OR CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SCHEDULE AND OTHER PORTIONS OF THE SOLICITATION SINCE NOWHERE IN THE INVITATION IS THERE ESTABLISHED A REQUIREMENT FOR THE USE OF REVISION F OF MIL-M-15071 IN SUPPLYING THE TECHNICAL MANUAL DATA.

THE SECOND AREA IN THE INVITATION ALLEGED TO BE AMBIGUOUS RELATES TO THE NUMBER OF EFFICIENCY TESTS TO BE CONDUCTED. THAT IS, WHETHER RFC'S PROPOSAL CONTEMPLATES THAT SUCH TESTING WILL BE PERFORMED ON THE TWO FIRST ARTICLES UNDER THE FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION PROVISIONS, AND ON TWO PRODUCTION UNITS UNDER THE QUALITY CONFORMANCE INSPECTION PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR PRODUCTION ITEMS DELIVERED UNDER THE CONTRACT.

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROVISIONS ARE CONTAINED IN PART 4 OF THE APPLICABLE SPECIFICATION, ELEX-A-100A. THE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS ARE SET OUT IN PARAGRAPH 4.2 UNDER THREE CLASSIFICATIONS, AS FOLLOWS:

"4.2 CLASSIFICATION OF INSPECTION. THE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED HEREIN ARE CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

(A) FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION (SEE 4.3).

(B) QUALITY CONFORMANCE INSPECTION (SEE 4.4).

(1) INSPECTION OF COUPLER OUTPUT INSULATOR, MOTORS, AND ELECTROMECHANICAL SWITCHES.

(2) PRODUCTION INSPECTION (SEE 4.4.2).

(3) PRODUCTION CONTROL INSPECTION (4.4.3).

(4) ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION (SEE 4.4.4).

(5) INSPECTION OF PREPARATION FOR DELIVERY (SEE 4.4.5).

(C) RELIABILITY TESTING (SEE 4.6)."

IN PARAGRAPH 4.3, THE FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION CLASSIFICATION, THE INSPECTIONS REQUIRED FOR THE SPECIFIED TWO FIRST ARTICLES ARE LISTED IN TABLE II, AND INCLUDE THE PRODUCTION CONTROL INSPECTION SHOWN UNDER PARAGRAPH 4.4.3 (TABLE V) WHICH INCLUDES EFFICIENCY TESTS. AS SHOWN ABOVE, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCTION CONTROL INSPECTION ARE STATED UNDER THE MAIN CLASSIFICATION OF QUALITY CONFORMANCE INSPECTION WHICH PERTAINS TO THE INSPECTION OF PRODUCTION UNITS. THE PRODUCTION CONTROL INSPECTION PROCEDURES (MIL-STD-105) INCLUDE THE SAMPLING OF LOTS AND ARE SPECIFIED AT THE S-3 LEVEL WHICH, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMALLY ADVISED, REQUIRES INSPECTION OF A MINIMUM OF SIX PRODUCTION UNITS. THE UNITS MUST SATISFACTORILY PASS THE PRODUCTION CONTROL INSPECTION PRIOR TO RELEASE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE LOTS FOR SHIPMENT. THE NUMBER OF THESE UNITS TO RECEIVE THE EFFICIENCY TESTS IS SPECIFIED UNDER THE PRODUCTION CONTROL INSPECTION PROVISIONS, AS FOLLOWS:

"4.4.3.4 EFFICIENCY TESTS. *** THE TEST SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON 2 EQUIPMENTS, AND SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY ONCE."

THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT STATES THAT IN SO SPECIFYING IT WAS THE INTENT THAT EFFICIENCY TESTS BE PERFORMED FOR BOTH FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION CONTROL INSPECTION. THIS WOULD INVOLVE TWO SEPARATE EFFICIENCY TESTS BEING PERFORMED, ONE ON TWO PRODUCTION UNITS AND ONE ON THE TWO FIRST ARTICLES, FOUR UNITS IN ALL.

IN OUR REVIEW OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT RFC'S PROPOSAL SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION WILL INCLUDE THE INSPECTIONS LISTED IN TABLE II. TABLE II INCORPORATES PRODUCTION CONTROL INSPECTION (TABLE V) WHICH, IN TURN, INCORPORATES THE EFFICIENCY TESTS. WE SEE NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT RFC CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE EFFICIENCY TESTS ON THE TWO FIRST ARTICLES. WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCTION CONTROL INSPECTION TO BE PERFORMED AS A PART OF THE QUALITY CONFORMANCE INSPECTION FOR PRODUCTION UNITS, RFC'S PROPOSAL STATES THAT THE FORMER "WILL CONSIST OF THE INSPECTIONS LISTED IN TABLE V EXCEPT THAT EFFICIENCY TESTS WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY ON TWO (2) UNITS OF THE FIRST LOT." WE BELIEVE THIS STATEMENT CLEARLY SHOWS RFC'S INTENTION TO PERFORM EFFICIENCY TESTS ON TWO PRODUCTION UNITS OF ITS FIRST PRODUCTION LOT. MOREOVER, WE DO NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LOGICAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE SPECIFIED A REQUIREMENT FOR EFFICIENCY TESTS AS A PART OF THE PRODUCTION CONTROL INSPECTION UNLESS SUCH TESTS ARE TO BE PERFORMED ON PRODUCTION UNITS. THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO CONSTRUE THIS REQUIREMENT AS BEING NULLIFIED BECAUSE AN EFFICIENCY TEST IS ALSO INCLUDED AS AN INSPECTION REQUIREMENT FOR FIRST ARTICLES UNDER A DIFFERENT INSPECTION CLASSIFICATION. IN OUR OPINION THE STATEMENTS IN PARAGRAPH 4.4.3.4 THAT THE EFFICIENCY TEST "SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY ONCE" CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS PERTAINING TO THE TESTING OF PRODUCTION UNITS UNDER THE PROCEDURES SET OUT FOR PRODUCTION CONTROL INSPECTION. THUS, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT RFC'S PROPOSAL COMMITS THAT FIRM, UPON AWARD, TO CONDUCTING EFFICIENCY TESTS ON TWO PRODUCTION UNITS AND THE TWO FIRST ARTICLES, FOUR UNITS IN ALL, AS INTENDED AND REQUIRED BY THE IFB.

THE FINAL AREA OF ALLEGED AMBIGUITY IS EXPLAINED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT OF NOVEMBER 2 AS FOLLOWS:

"(3) RELIABILITY TESTING. AS NOW SPECIFIED THE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR IS TO SUBMIT A TEST PLAN FOR RELIABILITY TESTING WITH THE FREQUENCIES TO BE TESTED LEFT TO THE CHOICE OF THE TESTER WITHIN THE FREQUENCY RANGE OF 2.0 TO 30.0 SUBJECT ONLY TO THE APPROVAL OF A TEST PLAN. IN ITS UNANSWERED TELEGRAM, RADIONICS, INC. INQUIRED WHETHER, IF THAT ENTIRE FREQUENCY RANGE WERE TO BE USED FOR RELIABILITY TESTING, ADDITIONAL TRANSMITTERS WOULD BE FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT THE STIPULATED RELIABILITY TESTING. PAGE 40 OF ENCLOSURE (3) SHOWS THAT ONLY ONE TRANSMITTER WOULD BE FURNISHED AND IT WAS INTENDED TO FURNISH ONLY ONE TRANSMITTER. HOWEVER, SINCE RELIABILITY TESTING TIME WOULD VARY AS A FUNCTION OF THE NUMBER OF TRANSMITTERS AVAILABLE FOR TESTING OVER THE ENTIRE FREQUENCY RANGE, IT IS PROPOSED TO CLARIFY THAT ADDITIONAL TRANSMITTERS WILL BE FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT SINCE IT APPEARS THE CHOICE OF FREQUENCIES TO BE TESTED SO REQUIRES."

AS STATED IN THE ABOVE REPORT THE SCHEDULE PROVIDES UNDER THE GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY PROVISIONS, THAT ONE TRANSMITTER WOULD BE FURNISHED FOR TEST PURPOSES UPON REQUEST BY THE CONTRACTOR. WE FIND THIS PROVISION TO BE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. IT APPEARS, HOWEVER, THAT NAVELEX BELIEVES THE PROVISION SHOULD BE REVISED SINCE IT IS WILLING TO FURNISH ADDITIONAL TRANSMITTERS TO PERFORM THE RELIABILITY TESTING IF THE CONTRACTOR'S CHOICE OF FREQUENCIES TO BE TESTED SO REQUIRES. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SUCH WILLINGNESS TO FURNISH ADDITIONAL TRANSMITTERS FOR TEST PURPOSES CONSTITUTES SUCH A MATERIAL FACTOR UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED SO AS TO REQUIRE A RESOLICITATION.

IT IS CLEAR THAT RFC HAS AGREED TO MEET THE SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS FOR RELIABILITY TESTING WITHOUT TAKING EXCEPTION TO THE GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY PROVISIONS OF THE IFB. ALTHOUGH RFC HAS INDICATED THAT IT DOES NOT NEED A GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED TRANSMITTER TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT, IF THE CONTRACT IS AWARDED TO RFC ON THE BASIS OF ITS PROPOSAL AND BID, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION AS TO THE GOVERNMENT BEING OBLIGATED TO FURNISH ONLY ONE TRANSMITTER UPON WRITTEN REQUEST BY THE CONTRACTOR. ADDITIONALLY, SINCE THE BID OF RADIONICS (THE ONLY OTHER BIDDER) WAS NOT CONSIDERED BECAUSE OF ITS LATE ARRIVAL AT THE DESIGNATED OFFICE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT OTHER BIDDERS WERE PREJUDICED IN ANY MANNER BY THE LIMITATION IN THE GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY CLAUSE TO PROVIDE THE CONTRACTOR WITH ONLY ONE TRANSMITTER.

THE AUTHORITY TO CANCEL AN INVITATION AFTER BIDS ARE OPENED IS CONTAINED IN ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) 2-404.1, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"(A) THE PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMPETITIVE BID SYSTEM DICTATES THAT AFTER BIDS HAVE BEEN OPENED, AWARD MUST BE MADE TO THAT RESPONSIBLE BIDDER WHO SUBMITTED THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BID, UNLESS THERE IS A COMPELLING REASON TO REJECT ALL BIDS AND CANCEL THE INVITATION. ***

(B) *** INVITATIONS FOR BIDS MAY BE CANCELED AFTER OPENING BUT PRIOR TO AWARD WHEN SUCH ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH (A) ABOVE AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINES IN WRITING THAT -

(I) INADEQUATE OR AMBIGUOUS SPECIFICATIONS WERE CITED IN THE INVITATION."

WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IS AFFORDED BROAD AUTHORITY TO REJECT ALL BIDS AND READVERTISE, AND ORDINARILY WE WILL NOT QUESTION SUCH ACTION, WE DO NOT BELIEVE CANCELLATION OF THE IFB AND READVERTISEMENT IN THIS INSTANCE ARE BASED UPON A "COMPELLING REASON."

WE HAVE HELD THAT THE MERE UTILIZATION IN THE IFB OF INADEQUATE, AMBIGUOUS OR OTHERWISE DEFICIENT SPECIFICATIONS IS NOT, ITSELF, A "COMPELLING REASON" TO CANCEL AN IFB AND READVERTISE. 52 COMP. GEN. (B- 176647, NOVEMBER 21, 1972). AS STATED IN THAT DECISION, THE REJECTION OF ALL BIDS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN OPENED TENDS TO DISCOURAGE COMPETITION SINCE EXPOSURE OF BID PRICES IS CONTRARY TO THE INTERESTS OF THE LOW BIDDER, AND SINCE ALL BIDDERS HAVE EXPENDED MANPOWER AND MONEY IN PREPARATION OF THEIR BIDS WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ACCEPTANCE. ALSO SEE 41 COMP. GEN. 536 (1962). IT IS OUR VIEW THAT CANCELLATION AFTER BIDS ARE OPENED IS INAPPROPRIATE IF AN AWARD UNDER A SOLICITATION WOULD SERVE THE ACTUAL NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT. 49 COMP. GEN. 211 (1969) AND 48 COMP. GEN. 731 (1969). FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, IT IS OUR OPINION THE IFB SHOULD BE REINSTATED AND AN AWARD BE MADE TO RFC, THE LOW RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, IF OTHERWISE APPROPRIATE.

AS THIS DECISION CONTAINS A RECOMMENDATION FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN, IT IS BEING TRANSMITTED BY LETTERS OF TODAY TO THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES NAMED IN SECTION 232 OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1970, PUBLIC LAW 91-510, 84 STAT. 1170, 31 U.S.C. 1172. IN VIEW THEREOF, YOUR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO SECTION 236 OF THE ACT (31 U.S.C. 1176) WHICH REQUIRES THAT YOU SUBMIT WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO THE RECOMMENDATION. THE STATEMENTS ARE TO BE SENT TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS NOT LATER THAN 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THIS LETTER AND TO THE COMMITTEES ON APPROPRIATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIRST REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY YOUR AGENCY MORE THAN 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THIS LETTER.

WE WOULD APPRECIATE RECEIVING ADVICE OF WHATEVER ACTION IS TAKEN ON OUR RECOMMENDATION.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs