B-168205(2), JUN. 30, 1970

B-168205(2), JUN. 30, 1970

PURCHASES--PURCHASE ORDERS--DELAY IN ISSUANCE--PRICE DIFFERENTIALS WHILE GAO HAS DENIED PROTEST TO AWARD, DECISION NOTED GOVERNMENT'S APPARENT PROBLEMS IN ISSUING PURCHASE ORDERS--OF FIRST 10 ORAL ORDERS THERE WERE 5 DELAY PERIODS AFTER ISSUANCE OF ORAL ORDERS, WITH ALL DELAYS ATTRIBUTED TO RESOLUTION OF PRICE DIFFERENTIALS WITH CONTRACTOR- AND IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE FOR NAVY TO EXAMINE ANY FUTURE SIMILAR INVITATIONS TO INSURE THAT PRICING PROVISIONS ARE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS SO THAT ISSUING ACTIVITY WILL NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSULT CONTRACTOR FOR PRICING AGREEMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PURCHASE ORDERS (DD 1155'S).

TO MR. SECRETARY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORTS RECEIVED FROM THE NAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS COMMAND ON DECEMBER 2, 1969, MARCH 18 AND APRIL 29, 1970, RELATIVE TO THE PROTEST OF MICRO-SERVICES, INC; NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO COOPER-TRENT DIVISION, KUEFFEL & ESSER COMPANY, UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS N00189-70-B-0036, ISSUED SEPTEMBER 23, 1969, BY THE NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA.

ALTHOUGH BY LETTER OF TODAY, COPY ENCLOSED, WE HAVE DENIED THE PROTEST, WE NOTED IN OUR DECISION THE GOVERNMENT'S APPARENT PROBLEMS IN ISSUING PURCHASE ORDERS UNDER THE CONTRACT. THUS, OF THE FIRST TEN ORAL ORDERS ISSUED UNDER THIS CONTRACT, THERE WERE FIVE SIGNIFICANT DELAY PERIODS BETWEEN ISSUANCE OF THE ORAL ORDERS AND ISSUANCE OF THE DD 1155'S (11/7/69 - 12/16/69; 12/5/69 - 2/26/70; 12/5/69 - 2/26/70; 12/5/69 - 2/26/70; 12/31/69 - 2/27/70), WITH ALL DELAYS BEING ATTRIBUTED TO THE RESOLUTION OF PRICE DIFFERENTIALS WITH THE CONTRACTOR. UNDER THE FIRST ORDER AN ENTIRELY NEW DD 1147 HAD TO BE PREPARED REFLECTING A PRICE CHANGE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION OF PRICING DIFFICULTIES WITH THE CONTRACTOR. THE RECORD ALSO INDICATES A COMPLAINT BY COOPER-TRENT THAT, AS A RESULT OF MICRO-SERVICES' PROTEST, ALREADY PREPARED DD 1155'S WERE CANCELLED RESULTING IN THAT FIRM BEING UNABLE TO INVOICE ON A TIMELY BASIS. ALTHOUGH WE DENIED THE PROTESTANT'S COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY CONTAINED IN THE SOLICITATION, OUR DENIAL WAS BASED UPON HIS FAILURE TO PROTEST PRIOR TO BID OPENING. WE THEREFORE FEEL IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT TO EXAMINE ANY SIMILAR IFB'S ISSUED IN THE FUTURE TO INSURE THAT THE PRICING PROVISIONS ARE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS SO THAT THE ISSUING ACTIVITY WILL NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSULT THE CONTRACTOR FOR PRICING AGREEMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PURCHASE ORDERS (DD 1155'S).

THE FILE FORWARDED WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IS RETURNED.