About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-179914 1 (1974-07-16)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadcdc0001 and id is 1 raw text is: DIECISION FILE: B-179914 MATTER O DIGEST: * ~ .~jOF THE UNiTE-D VBTATEES WASHINGTON. D.C. 2054L8 n4 a 9 3 9' DATE: July l3, 1K AMF, Inc. Protester's contention that prior decision treated Phase IV price controls as other factors considered is dismissed since IFB Drovided for evaluation on basis of Phase III regulations and Phase TV controls were not, therefore, a matter properly for consideration. By letter of May 22, 1974, counsel for AMF, Inc., requested reconsideration of our decision B-179914, March 26, 1974, which denied AMF's protest against the making of an award to the Bendix Corporation under invitation for bids (IFB) F41608-73-B- 1861, issued by the United States Air Force, San Antonio Air Materiel Area, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas. AMF's request for reconsideration is premised upon the theory that the March 26 decision is an incorrect interpretation of 10 U.S.C. 2305(c) which provides in part: Awards shall be made * * * to the responsible bidder whose bid conforms to the invitation and will be the most advantageous to the United States, price and other factors considered. Counsel for AMF contends that our March 26 decision treated the Phase IV price controls as coming within the other factors considered criterion of section 2305(c), when in fact Phase IV price controls should have been considered under the price criterion. Counsel further contends that since the price the Government would be required to pay under any resultant contract would be limited by the Phase IV controls, AMT's bid price should be evaluated at the resultant Phase IV ceiling price. The referenced decision held, inter alia, that since Phase IV price controls did not come into existence until after bid opening and the IFB specifically provided that bid prices were to be in compliance with Phase III regulations, it would not have been proper to use Phase IV controls in evaluating bids. We do not interpret the decision as does counsel. In our opinion, the controlling of prices was not intended to disrupt the orderly process of Government procurement. This appears evident from the language in section B-25 of the IFB which specifically required - 1 - , 5a F:

What Is HeinOnline?

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.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most