B-177962, MAR 28, 1973
Highlights
TO HIGH POWER HARDWARE CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEFAX DATED FEBRUARY 6. THE IFB WAS FOR INSPECTION OF HIGH COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND WAS SENT TO A TOTAL OF 99 FIRMS ON JANUARY 8. A SYNOPSIS OF THE IFB WAS SENT TO THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY (CBD) ON JANUARY 5. WAS PUBLISHED IN THAT PERIODICAL ON JANUARY 18. A COPY WAS MAILED ON JANUARY 26. SINCE THE BIDS WERE TO BE OPENED ON FEBRUARY 6. THIS REQUEST WAS REFUSED ON FEBRUARY 2. BY THE PROCURING ACTIVITY AND BIDS WERE OPENED AS SCHEDULED. A TOTAL OF 10 BIDS WAS RECEIVED. YOU CONTEND THAT YOUR FIRM WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO SUBMIT A BID. THE PROCURING ACTIVITY NOTES THAT THE IFB WAS ADVERTISED IN THE CBD AND COPIES OF THE IFB WERE SENT TO A LARGE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL BIDDERS WHICH RESULTED IN THE RECEIPT OF COMPETITIVELY PRICED BIDS.
B-177962, MAR 28, 1973
BID PROTEST - POSTPONEMENT OF BID OPENING - EVIDENCE OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING DECISION DENYING A PROTEST BY HIGH POWER HARDWARE CORPORATION AGAINST AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER OFFEROR UNDER AN IFB ISSUED BY THE NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA. IN VIEW OF THE PUBLICATION OF A SYNOPSIS OF THE IFB IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY AS WELL AS THE RECEIPT AND CONSIDERATION OF 10 COMPETITIVELY PRICED BIDS, THE COMP. GEN. CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PROCURING ACTIVITY ACTED ARBITRARILY IN REFUSING TO POSTPONE THE BID OPENING DATE UPON PROTESTANT'S REQUEST. B-161595, AUGUST 17, 1967.
TO HIGH POWER HARDWARE CORPORATION:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEFAX DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1973, PROTESTING AGAINST AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANOTHER FIRM UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. N62470-73-B-1249 ISSUED JANUARY 8, 1973, BY THE NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA.
THE IFB WAS FOR INSPECTION OF HIGH COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND WAS SENT TO A TOTAL OF 99 FIRMS ON JANUARY 8, 1973. A SYNOPSIS OF THE IFB WAS SENT TO THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY (CBD) ON JANUARY 5, 1973, AND WAS PUBLISHED IN THAT PERIODICAL ON JANUARY 18, 1973. BY LETTER DATED JANUARY 23, 1973, HIGH POWER HARDWARE CORPORATION (HIGH POWER) REQUESTED A COPY OF THE SUBJECT SOLICITATION. A COPY WAS MAILED ON JANUARY 26, 1973, BY AIRMAIL, SPECIAL DELIVERY. SINCE THE BIDS WERE TO BE OPENED ON FEBRUARY 6, 1973, HIGH POWER ON FEBRUARY 2, 1973, REQUESTED AN EXTENSION OF THE BID OPENING DATE TO FEBRUARY 13, 1973. THIS REQUEST WAS REFUSED ON FEBRUARY 2, 1973, BY THE PROCURING ACTIVITY AND BIDS WERE OPENED AS SCHEDULED. A TOTAL OF 10 BIDS WAS RECEIVED. YOUR PROTEST TO THIS OFFICE FOLLOWED.
YOU CONTEND THAT YOUR FIRM WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO SUBMIT A BID. IN REBUTTAL, THE PROCURING ACTIVITY NOTES THAT THE IFB WAS ADVERTISED IN THE CBD AND COPIES OF THE IFB WERE SENT TO A LARGE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL BIDDERS WHICH RESULTED IN THE RECEIPT OF COMPETITIVELY PRICED BIDS.
IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A DELIBERATE INTENTION TO EXCLUDE YOUR FIRM FROM BIDDING ON THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENT. CONSIDERING THE LARGE NUMBER OF FIRMS THAT WAS SOLICITED BY THE PROCURING ACTIVITY AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO SUPPLY HIGH POWER A COPY OF THE IFB IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO SUBMIT A BID, WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PROCURING ACTIVITY ACTED ARBITRARILY IN REFUSING TO POSTPONE THE BID OPENING UPON YOUR REQUEST. B-161595, AUGUST 17, 1967. CONSEQUENTLY, YOUR PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.