B-150952, MAY 13, 1963
Highlights
INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 28. WE HAVE ASCERTAINED THAT THE BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS. DETERMINED THAT INVITATION NO. 146-41X-63 WAS DEFECTIVE AND. THE CONTRACT WHICH WAS AWARDED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE INVITATION TO THE RACK ENGINEERING COMPANY WAS CANCELED ON MARCH 14. IT APPEARS THAT THE BASIC REASON INVITATION NO. 146-41X-63 WAS DETERMINED TO BE DEFECTIVE WAS THAT WHILE THE STANDARD "BRAND NAME OR EQUAL" CLAUSE WAS INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE AND WHILE THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INDICATED THE BRAND NAME TO BE THE VIDMAR MODULAR CABINET. ALTHOUGH NO SPECIFIC MODEL OR CATALOG NUMBER WAS REFERRED TO AS IS USUALLY REQUIRED IN THE USE OF "BRAND NAME OR EQUAL" CLAUSES.
B-150952, MAY 13, 1963
TO VIDMAR, INC.:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 28, 1963, WITH ENCLOSURES, IN REGARD TO YOUR PROTEST UNDER INVITATION NO. 146-41X 63, COVERING THE PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN TYPES OF CABINETS FOR THE MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA.
WE HAVE ASCERTAINED THAT THE BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, UPON A REVIEW OF THE PROCUREMENT FOR THE TYPES OF CABINETS SPECIFIED, DETERMINED THAT INVITATION NO. 146-41X-63 WAS DEFECTIVE AND, THEREFORE, THAT A PROPER EVALUATION OF THE BIDS RECEIVED THEREUNDER COULD NOT BE MADE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CONTRACT WHICH WAS AWARDED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE INVITATION TO THE RACK ENGINEERING COMPANY WAS CANCELED ON MARCH 14, 1963.
IT APPEARS THAT THE BASIC REASON INVITATION NO. 146-41X-63 WAS DETERMINED TO BE DEFECTIVE WAS THAT WHILE THE STANDARD "BRAND NAME OR EQUAL" CLAUSE WAS INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE AND WHILE THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INDICATED THE BRAND NAME TO BE THE VIDMAR MODULAR CABINET, ALTHOUGH NO SPECIFIC MODEL OR CATALOG NUMBER WAS REFERRED TO AS IS USUALLY REQUIRED IN THE USE OF "BRAND NAME OR EQUAL" CLAUSES, IT WAS LEARNED LATER THAT THERE WAS NO VIDMAR MODULAR CABINET OF ANY KIND, NOR WAS THERE ANY EQUIVALENT THEREOF, CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING THE DYNAMIC FORCE OF THE 2-G STURDINESS REQUIREMENT, WHICH WAS INTENDED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE OVER-ALL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT. MOREOVER, EVEN HAD THE INVITATION BEEN IN PROPER FORM THERE STILL WAS NO WAY OF DETERMINING FROM ANY LITERATURE FURNISHED BY THE RACK ENGINEERING COMPANY, OR OTHERWISE, WHETHER THAT COMPANY'S BID, UPON WHICH THE AWARD HAD BEEN MADE, CONTEMPLATED FURNISHING MODULAR CABINETS THAT WOULD MEET THE 2-G REQUIREMENT. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE AWARD OF CONTRACT WAS DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY MADE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE BID WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY YOU IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION NO. 146-41X-63, SINCE IT APPEARS THAT THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE OF 98 DAYS OFFERED BY YOU FOR CABINETS MODIFIED TO MEET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE DELIVERY TIME OF 60 DAYS SET FORTH IN THE INVITATION, YOUR BID WAS NONRESPONSIVE.
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ADVISES THAT AS SOON AS THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE REVISED TO CLEARLY INDICATE THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS THE PROCUREMENT WILL BE READVERTISED.