Skip to main content

B-178914, FEB 22, 1974

B-178914 Feb 22, 1974
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

GAO FINDS NO BASIS TO MODIFY PRIOR DECISION BY RETRACTING QUOTED PARAGRAPH FROM ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT EXPLAINING AGENCY'S REASON FOR SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT AS AGENCY INSISTS PARAGRAPH IS FACTUALLY CORRECT AND ADHERES TO VIEWS EXPRESSED THEREIN. THE PARAGRAPH IN QUESTION WAS A VERBATIM QUOTE FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (A COPY OF WHICH WAS FURNISHED TO RBC PRIOR TO OUR DECISION) RESPONDING TO THE PROTEST BY RBC THAT THE INCLUSION IN THE SOLICITATION OF A TRACEABILITY SPECIFICATION WAS ARBITRARY AND UNDULY RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITION. TEST FIXTURES WERE INDEPENDENTLY DEVELOPED BY VERTOL AND RBC TO SIMULATE INSTALLED CONDITIONS BUT THESE PRE INSTALLATION TESTS WERE INEFFECTIVE IN DECIDING WHICH BEARINGS WOULD BIND UPON INSTALLATION.

View Decision

B-178914, FEB 22, 1974

GAO FINDS NO BASIS TO MODIFY PRIOR DECISION BY RETRACTING QUOTED PARAGRAPH FROM ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT EXPLAINING AGENCY'S REASON FOR SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT AS AGENCY INSISTS PARAGRAPH IS FACTUALLY CORRECT AND ADHERES TO VIEWS EXPRESSED THEREIN.

TO ROLLER BEARING COMPANY OF AMERICA:

THE ROLLER BEARING COMPANY OF AMERICA (RBC) REQUESTS THAT A CERTAIN PARAGRAPH IN OUR DECISION B-178914, NOVEMBER 9, 1973, BE RETRACTED THROUGH AN AMENDED DECISION.

THE PARAGRAPH IN QUESTION WAS A VERBATIM QUOTE FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (A COPY OF WHICH WAS FURNISHED TO RBC PRIOR TO OUR DECISION) RESPONDING TO THE PROTEST BY RBC THAT THE INCLUSION IN THE SOLICITATION OF A TRACEABILITY SPECIFICATION WAS ARBITRARY AND UNDULY RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITION. THE PARAGRAPH STATED AS FOLLOWS:

"4. SINCE AUGUST 1971, AVSCOM HAS RECEIVED EIRS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT RBC MANUFACTURED BEARINGS WHICH WOULD NOT ROTATE WHEN INSTALLED IN PITCH CHANGE HOUSINGS. TEST FIXTURES WERE INDEPENDENTLY DEVELOPED BY VERTOL AND RBC TO SIMULATE INSTALLED CONDITIONS BUT THESE PRE INSTALLATION TESTS WERE INEFFECTIVE IN DECIDING WHICH BEARINGS WOULD BIND UPON INSTALLATION. OVERSIZE OR OUT OF TOLERANCE PARTS WERE SUSPECTED BUT THIS WAS NOT PROVEN."

RBC CONTENDS THAT INASMUCH AS THE SUBJECT PARAGRAPH IS BASED UPON CONJECTURE, AND SINCE IT HAS SUPPLIED THE ARMY WITH SIMILAR BEARINGS FOR A PROTRACTED PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT A FAILURE, THE LANGUAGE SET FORTH THEREIN "IMPUGNED" RBC'S REPUTATION.

IN INSTANCES OF ALLEGATIONS THAT A SPECIFICATION IS RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITION, IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THIS OFFICE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE AGENCY HAS SET FORTH A REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUIREMENT. ACCORDINGLY, OUR DECISIONS MUST DOCUMENT WITH SPECIFICITY THE JUSTIFICATION OFFERED BY THE CONTRACTING AGENCY FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE REQUIREMENT.

THE SUBJECT PARAGRAPH WAS BUT A SEGMENT OF AN EXTENSIVE QUOTATION FROM THE AGENCY REPORT WHICH EXPLAINS THAT DUE TO THE CRITICAL NATURE OF THE BEARINGS TO AIRCRAFT SAFETY A HEAT TRACEABILITY REQUIREMENT WAS CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL BY THE ARMY AVIATION SYSTEMS COMMAND. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS POINTED OUT IN THE REFERENCED PARAGRAPH THAT BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN INSTANCES WHEN RBC BEARINGS DID NOT ROTATE AFTER INSTALLATION, PRE- INSTALLATION TESTING WAS ATTEMPTED IN AN EFFORT TO DETERMINE WHICH BEARINGS WOULD BIND UPON INSTALLATION. HOWEVER, THIS EFFORT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL AND THE TRACEABILITY REQUIREMENT WAS DECIDED UPON. FINALLY, THE PARAGRAPH CONCLUDES WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THE CAUSE OF THE BINDING WAS NOT ESTABLISHED.

THE ARMY WAS REQUESTED TO REVIEW THE SUBJECT PARAGRAPH IN LIGHT OF RBC'S OBJECTION. THE ARMY ADVISES THAT THE CONTENT OF THE PARAGRAPH IS FACTUALLY CORRECT AND IT ADHERES TO THE VIEWS EXPRESSED THEREIN. FURTHER, THE ARMY STATES THAT IT WAS NOT ITS INTENTION TO IMPUGN THE REPUTATION OF ANYONE AND DOES NOT VIEW THE PARAGRAPH AS SO DOING.

IN VIEW THEREOF, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT EITHER NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO MODIFY OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 9, 1973.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs