HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobaacap0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DOCUMENT RESUME
01119 - (A07512601
[Review of Contracts Awarded to Raycomm, Inc., Freehold, New
Jersey, by the Army Electronics Comand, Fort Bonmouth, New
Jersey]. PSAD-77-64; B-173487. F'.bruary 16, 1977. 8 pp,
Report to Sen. Edward I. Kennedy; Sen. Edward V. Brooke; by
Robert F. Keller, Deputy Comptroller General.
Issue Area: Federal Procurement of Goods and Services (1900).
Contact: Procurement and Systems Acquisition Div.
Budget Function: National Defense: Department of Defense -
Procurement & Contracts (058).
Organization Concerned: Department of the Army: Army Electronics
Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ; TEE-HAR, Inc., Peabody, NA;
Rayconm Industries, Inc., Freehold, NJ.
Congressional Relevance: Sen. Edward a. Kennedy; Sen. Edward V.
Lrooke.
Authority: 49 Coop. Gen. 330. 55 Coop. Gen. 231. B-186657
(176)
The validity of allegations that there were
irregularities in awarding three Army contracts to Raycoam,
Inc., was investigated. Requests for the proposals for the
contracts awarded in 1971, 1973, and 1975 listed the type of
software products and technical services required and contained
estimates of the number of hours of labor by category required
to provide these products and services during the period of the
contracts. The best and final offers from each of the competing
firms were evaluated and preaward surveys were made at several
companies that submitted the lowest offers to ascertain their
competency to perform the required work. In each case, Raycoma
Industries, Inc., made the lowest final offer and was awarded
the contract. Findings/Conclusions: Review of the procedures
followed in awarding the three contracts did not disclose any
inconsistencies with the Armed Services Procurement Regulation.
The contracts were awarded to the lowest offeror in accordance
with criteria specified in the requests for proposals. Although
it is true that due to the labor mix and related pricing of the
orders actually placed subsequent to contract award, the total
work ordered would have cost less based on the price quotations
of the unsuccessful bidders, the contract was based o the
lowest dollar value for the total estimated hours for all
categories of labor to be provided, as shown in the
solicitations. (SC)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaacap0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)