Skip to Highlights
Highlights

TO KRAUSE-AIRCO: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS DATED JUNE 20. IT WAS ALLEGED IN YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 20. THE QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO WHETHER THE DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY HAS COMPLIED WITH SECTION 301-4. 879 UNITS OF A JOINT ASSEMBLY TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST REVISION TO DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT DRAWING NO. 2104308 AND THAT EACH OFFEROR WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW THE DATE AND REVISION NUMBER. OF THE DRAWING UPON WHICH THE OFFEROR'S QUOTATION WAS BASED. IT WAS PROVIDED THAT SURPLUS MATERIAL WOULD BE CONSIDERED UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. OFFERORS WERE REQUIRED TO SET FORTH PERTINENT DATA WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUPERSEDED PART NUMBER IF THE NUMBER SHOWN IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS OBSOLETE.

View Decision

B-151839, SEP. 10, 1963

TO KRAUSE-AIRCO:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS DATED JUNE 20, AND JULY 15, 1963, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC., UNDER NAVY AVIATION SUPPLY OFFICE REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS NO. 383/224173/630, ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 4, 1963.

IT WAS ALLEGED IN YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 20, 1963, THAT THE REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS DID NOT INCORPORATE THE LATEST EXISTING REVISION TO A SPECIFIED DRAWING; THAT THIS OMISSION FAVORED THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER; THAT THE COST INVOLVED IN REQUIRING THE LATEST REVISION HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EVALUATED; AND THAT THE BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS HAD RECENTLY EVALUATED AND APPROVED SAMPLES OF KRAUSE-AIRCO "K" REVISION PARTS. ALSO, THE QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO WHETHER THE DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY HAS COMPLIED WITH SECTION 301-4, PAGE 7 OF THE REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS, INDICATED AS COVERING SUPERSEDING ITEMS.

THE RECORD NOW SHOWS THAT THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS INVOLVED A REQUIREMENT FOR 2,879 UNITS OF A JOINT ASSEMBLY TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST REVISION TO DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT DRAWING NO. 2104308 AND THAT EACH OFFEROR WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW THE DATE AND REVISION NUMBER, IF ANY, OF THE DRAWING UPON WHICH THE OFFEROR'S QUOTATION WAS BASED. IT WAS PROVIDED THAT SURPLUS MATERIAL WOULD BE CONSIDERED UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. ALSO, UNDER THE HEADING OF SUPERSEDING ITEMS, OFFERORS WERE REQUIRED TO SET FORTH PERTINENT DATA WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUPERSEDED PART NUMBER IF THE NUMBER SHOWN IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS OBSOLETE, HAD BEEN CHANGED, OR WAS CONSIDERED BY THE MANUFACTURER TO BE INCOMPLETE FOR ANY REASON.

THREE PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED, ONE FROM YOUR COMPANY WHICH QUOTED UNIT PRICES OF $5.25 AND $5.90; ANOTHER FROM DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC., QUOTING A UNIT PRICE OF $11.45; AND ANOTHER FROM THE RYAN AERONAUTICAL COMPANY, QUOTING A UNIT PRICE OF $11.62. YOUR QUOTATIONS WERE BASED ON THE FURNISHING OF NEW, UNUSED SURPLUS MATERIAL,"AS IS," ORIGINALLY MANUFACTURED BY THE RYAN AERONAUTICAL COMPANY FOR DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "J" REVISION TO DRAWING NO. 2104308, DATED MAY 23, 1945. YOUR $5.25 PRICE WAS BASED ON FURNISHING THE MATERIAL IN ITS PRESENTLY PACKAGED CONDITION, AND YOUR $5.90 PRICE APPLIED IF THE PACKAGES WERE TO BE OPENED FOR INSPECTION AND REPACKAGING WAS NECESSARY.

IT WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED THAT THE MATERIAL MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "J" REVISION TO THE DRAWING WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR NAVY USE AND THE CONTRACT AWARD WAS THEREFORE MADE TO DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC., THE LOWEST OFFEROR FOR THE FURNISHING OF PARTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH REVISION "L," THE LATEST REVISION TO DRAWING NO. 2104308 WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 19, 1956. WE ARE ADVISED THAT THE LATEST REVISION WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING SEIZURE OF THE BALL JOINT, THUS IMPROVING SERVICE LIFE AND REDUCING THE POSSIBILITY OF EXHAUST SYSTEM FAILURE AND RESULTANT NACELLE FIRES. DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC., DID NOT LIST ANY SUPERSEDING PART NUMBER SINCE ITS OFFER DID NOT INVOLVE A SUPERSEDED ITEM.

THE LATEST REVISION TO DRAWING NO. 2104308 WAS UNKNOWN TO THE NAVY AVIATION SUPPLY OFFICE AT THE TIME THE REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS WAS REQUESTED. NORMALLY SUCH INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE IN CONNECTION WITH PARTS USED ON DOUGLAS COMMERCIAL TYPE AIRCRAFT, SUCH AS WERE BEING PROCURED. THE OMISSION OF THIS REFERENCE DID NOT, HOWEVER, FAVOR THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER SINCE IT IS REPORTED THAT DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC., HAS ORDERED THE PARTS INVOLVED FROM THE WILPAK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, AFTER HAVING SOLICITED BIDS FROM THAT FIRM AND THE RYAN AERONAUTICAL COMPANY.

WITH RESPECT TO EVALUATION OF THE COST OF REQUIRING THE LATEST REVISION, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD HOW THIS IS MATERIAL IF, AS REPORTED, THE REVISION WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF SAFETY. IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED THAT THE PRICE QUOTED BY DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC., WAS SUBJECTED TO A COST REVIEW BY THE NAVY AVIATION SUPPLY OFFICE AND THE BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS OFFICE IN LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA, WHICH RESULTED IN A DETERMINATION THAT THE DOUGLAS PRICE OF $11.45 PER UNIT WAS REASONABLE AND COMPARED FAVORABLY WITH PRICES PAID FOR A SIMILAR ITEM.

THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A MISUNDERSTANDING IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED APPROVAL OF YOUR "K" REVISION PARTS. THE NAVY AVIATION SUPPLY OFFICE HAS BEEN ADVISED BY PERSONNEL OF THE BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS THAT THE BUREAU DID NOT TERM THE PARTS AS ADEQUATE BUT SIMPLY COMPARED THE SAMPLE PARTS AND DRAWINGS PRESENTED BY YOU AND FOUND THEM TO BE IN AGREEMENT. EVALUATION REPORTEDLY WAS MADE SINCE THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED INSTALLATION ON AN ENGINE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A TEST PROGRAM. THE BUREAU OF NAVAL WEAPONS CONCLUDED THAT THE SAMPLE PARTS APPARENTLY WERE AS REPRESENTED BUT DID NOT MEET THE STATED NAVY AVIATION SUPPLY OFFICE REQUIREMENT FOR A PART MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST REVISION TO DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT DRAWING NO. 2104308.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC., WAS PROPER. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PROTEST IN THE MATTER MUST BE DENIED.

GAO Contacts