Skip to Highlights
Highlights

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 14. YOUR PROPOSAL ON THE DRAGLINE BUCKET DESCRIBED IN THE INVITATION REFERRED TO WAS NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE TERMS THEREOF IN THAT IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE FORM ENTITLED "EXCEPTIONS TO SPECIFICATIONS. " IN WHICH YOU WERE REQUIRED TO INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR PROPOSAL COMPLIED WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF THE ADVERTISEMENT AND WHETHER THE EQUIPMENT YOU PROPOSED TO FURNISH COMPLIED "IN EVERY PARTICULAR" WITH THE PERTINENT SPECIFICATIONS. THE EXECUTION OF THIS FORM WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY CONSIDERED TO BE AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE ELIGIBILITY OF A BIDDER TO RECEIVE AN AWARD UPON THE BASIS OF THE ADVERTISED NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

View Decision

B-118405, MAR. 6, 1956

TO MANHATTAN LIGHTING EQUIPMENT CO., INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 14, 1956, AND TO YOUR PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE WHEREIN YOU PROTEST THE ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILD LIFE SERVICE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, IN HAVING FAILED TO AWARD YOU THE CONTRACT WHICH RESULTED FROM INVITATION NO. FW4 1932.

ACCORDING TO THE RECORD, YOUR PROPOSAL ON THE DRAGLINE BUCKET DESCRIBED IN THE INVITATION REFERRED TO WAS NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE TERMS THEREOF IN THAT IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE FORM ENTITLED "EXCEPTIONS TO SPECIFICATIONS," IN WHICH YOU WERE REQUIRED TO INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR PROPOSAL COMPLIED WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF THE ADVERTISEMENT AND WHETHER THE EQUIPMENT YOU PROPOSED TO FURNISH COMPLIED "IN EVERY PARTICULAR" WITH THE PERTINENT SPECIFICATIONS. THE EXECUTION OF THIS FORM WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY CONSIDERED TO BE AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE ELIGIBILITY OF A BIDDER TO RECEIVE AN AWARD UPON THE BASIS OF THE ADVERTISED NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND HENCE, YOUR FAILURE TO COMPLETE THE SAID FORM AND TRANSMIT IT WITH YOUR PROPOSAL RENDERED IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CONTRACTING AGENCY TO DETERMINE AT THE TIME WHETHER OR NOT YOU PROPOSED TO FURNISH AN ARTICLE WHICH COMPLIED FULLY WITH THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

CONCERNING YOUR SUGGESTION THAT THE REPORTED DEFICIENCY IN YOUR BID COULD HAVE BEEN REMEDIED BY CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PURCHASING AGENCY PRIOR TO THE AWARD, IT HAS BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED THAT THE URGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED FOR THIS EQUIPMENT PRECLUDED THE ADOPTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. IT SHOULD BE ADDED THAT SUCH PROCEDURE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEGALLY PROPER IN ANY EVENT AS IT WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED NEGOTIATING WITH A BIDDER AFTER OPENING FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRECTING A DEFECTIVE BID WHICH IS CONTRARY TO ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING. SEE 17 COMP. GEN. 554. CONSIDERING THE ELEMENT OF FINALITY WHICH MUST BE ACCORDED BY US TO ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS ON QUESTIONS OF FACT, SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE, WE WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN QUESTIONING THE AWARD AS MADE IN THIS CASE.

GAO Contacts