B-168069, AUG. 27, 1970

B-168069, AUG. 27, 1970

BID PROTEST -- NEGOTIATION DENIAL OF PROTEST OF GLOBE INDUSTRIES AGAINST AWARD OF NEGOTIATED CONTRACT BY NAVY ELECTRONICS SUPPLY OFFICE TO SINGER COMPANY, DIEHL DIVISION FOR FURNISHING SPEED GEAR ASSEMBLIES. WHERE THERE IS CONFLICTING EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE TECHNICAL MERITS OF A PROPOSAL FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS SHOULD BE HELD TO CLARIFY THE MATTER AND TO SEE WHETHER PROPOSAL COULD BE UPGRADED. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 U.S.C. 2304(G) BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF CONTRACTING OFFICERS TO ASSURE THAT FURTHER AWARDS CONFORM WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS. FAILURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO GIVE COMP. GEN. FULL FACTS AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL REPORT HAS PREVENTED GAO FROM GRANTING ANY PRACTICAL RELIEF TO THE PROTESTANT. SINCE, DELIVERIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED NO POSSIBILITY OF CANCELLATION EXISTS. REPORTS SHOULD BE FULLY INFORMATIVE SO THAT DECISIONS MAY BE RENDERED IN TIMELY FASHION.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTERS DATED NOVEMBER 17, 1969, FEBRUARY 4, 1970, AND JUNE 26, 1970, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE DEPUTY COMMANDER, PURCHASING, NAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS COMMAND, REFERENCE: SUP 0232A, REPORTING ON GLOBE INDUSTRIES' PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A NEGOTIATED CONTRACT, NO. N00126 -70-C-0387 (RFP NO. N-00126-69-R 9H0378), BY THE NAVY ELECTRONICS SUPPLY OFFICE (ESO), GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS, TO SINGER COMPANY, DIEHL DIVISION (SINGER-DIEHL).

THE SUBJECT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS ISSUED BY ESO ON MAY 27, 1969, WITH AN INITIAL CLOSING DATE OF JUNE 17, 1969. THIS CLOSING DATE WAS EXTENDED BY TELEGRAPHIC AMENDMENT UNTIL JUNE 27, 1969, AND WHEN THE TELEGRAM WAS CONFIRMED BY AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE RFP, THE CLOSING DATE WAS EXTENDED AGAIN UNTIL JULY 11, 1969. ITEM 1 OF THE SOLICITATION CALLED FOR A PRIMARY QUANTITY OF 2400 UNITS AND VARIOUS ALTERNATE QUANTITIES OF SPEED GEAR ASSEMBLIES; ITEM 2 CALLED FOR A PRIMARY QUANTITY OF 1808 UNITS AND VARIOUS ALTERNATE QUANTITIES OF CENTRIFUGAL FAN ASSEMBLIES. BOTH ITEMS WERE IDENTIFIED BY SINGER-DIEHL PART NUMBERS.

INITIALLY, SINGER-DIEHL WAS THE ONLY FIRM SOLICITED. SIXTEEN OTHER SUPPLIERS REQUESTED AND RECEIVED PROPOSAL SETS. THREE PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED BY THE EXTENDED OPENING DATE OF JULY 11, 1969. GLOBE SUBMITTED AN ALTERNATE PROPOSAL FOR ITEM 1 AND ITEM 2 AND IN ADDITION SUBMITTED A SECOND ALTERNATE PROPOSAL IN LIEU OF BOTH ITEMS. WITH REGARD TO THE OFFERED PRICES OF THE PROPOSALS, WE QUOTE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:

ROTATING GLOBE

COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES

SINGER CO. DIV OF INSTR DIV OF "ITEM

DIEHL DIV SYS CORP TRW INC

NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE

1 GEAR ASSEMBLY, PRIMARY QTY 2400 $45.52 $19.65 $23.59

SPEED SINGER CO., ALT QTY (1) 2600 45.52 19.65 23.59

DIEHL DIV ALT QTY (2) 2800 44.39 19.65 23.59

REF #83-633506-04 ALT QTY (3) 3000 43.25 19.65 23.59

2 CENTRIFUGAL FAN PRIMARY QTY 1808 139.17 69.70 124.75

ASSEMBLY, SINGER ALT QTY (1) 1900 139.17 69.70 124.75

CO. DIEHL DIV ALT QTY (2) 2000 135.70 69.70 124.75

P/N EL321-302 ALT QTY (3) 2200 132.22 69.70 124.75

"THE PRICES SET FORTH ABOVE FOR SINGER-DIEHL EXCLUDED UNNECESSARY FIRST ARTICLE TESTING. HOWEVER, IN THE EVENT FIRST ARTICLE SAMPLES AND TESTING WERE DETERMINED TO BE REQUIRED, SINGER-DIEHL OFFERED TO SUPPLY THEM AT A TOTAL PRICE INCREASE OF ONLY $1,336.00. ROTATING COMPONENTS, DIVISION OF INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS CORP. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ROTATING COMPONENTS), BID WAS SUBMITTED ON AN 'ALL OR NONE' BASIS FOR ITEMS 1 AND 2. *** " IN ADDITION TO THE PRICES IN THEIR FIRST ALTERNATE PROPOSAL SET FORTH ABOVE. GLOBE'S SECOND ALTERNATE PROPOSAL CONTAINED PRICES FOR ITEM 2 RANGING FROM $221.60 PER UNIT FOR THE PRIMARY QUANTITY OF 1808 UNITS TO $218.50 PER UNIT FOR THE HIGH ALTERNATE QUANTITY OF 2200 UNITS.

IT IS STATED IN THE REPORT FROM ESO, DATED NOVEMBER 7, 1969, THAT SUBSEQUENT TO A DETERMINATION THAT THE UNITS OFFERED BY GLOBE AND ROTATING COMPONENTS WERE NOT EQUAL TO THE ITEMS DESCRIBED IN THE SOLICITATION, AND WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH GLOBE, AWARD WAS MADE TO SINGER-DIEHL ON OCTOBER 3, 1969, COVERING 2400 UNITS OF ITEM 1 AT $43 PER UNIT AND 1808 UNITS OF ITEM 2 AT $130 PER UNIT. ITEM 3 OF THE CONTRACT COVERED ONE SET OF CATEGORY "F", FORM 1, PROCUREMENT TYPE DRAWINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MIL- D-1000 WITH UNLIMITED RIGHTS OF USE TO THE GOVERNMENT AT A TOTAL PRICE OF $500.

THE PRIMARY ISSUES PRESENTED ARE (1) WHETHER THE UNIT OFFERED BY GLOBE WAS EQUAL TO THE SINGER-DIEHL UNIT AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE RESULTS OF THE NAVY'S OWN TESTS COMPLETED LAST JULY, AND (2) IF THE NAVY WAS NOT SATISFIED AS TO THE EQUALITY OF THE GLOBE UNIT, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS REQUIRED TO HOLD DISCUSSIONS WITH GLOBE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE GLOBE UNIT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING UPGRADED.

SECTION 2304(G) OF 10 U.S.C. PROVIDES:

"IN ALL NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS IN EXCESS OF $2,500 IN WHICH RATES OR PRICES ARE NOT FIXED BY LAW OR REGULATION AND IN WHICH TIME OF DELIVERY WILL PERMIT, PROPOSALS, INCLUDING PRICE, SHALL BE SOLICITED FROM THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF QUALIFIED SOURCES CONSISTENT WITH THE NATURE AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUPPLIES OR SERVICES TO BE PROCURED, AND WRITTEN OR ORAL DISCUSSIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED WITH ALL RESPONSIBLE OFFERORS WHO SUBMIT PROPOSALS WITHIN A COMPETITIVE RANGE, PRICE, AND OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION WITH RESPECT TO WRITTEN OR ORAL DISCUSSIONS NEED NOT BE APPLIED TO PROCUREMENTS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTHORIZED SET-ASIDE PROGRAMS OR TO PROCUREMENTS WHERE IT CAN BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED FROM THE EXISTENCE OF ADEQUATE COMPETITION OR ACCURATE PRIOR COST EXPERIENCE WITH THE PRODUCT, THAT ACCEPTANCE OF AN INITIAL PROPOSAL WITHOUT DISCUSSION WOULD RESULT IN FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICES AND WHERE THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NOTIFIES ALL OFFERORS OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT AWARD MAY BE MADE WITHOUT DISCUSSION." PART 8 OF PARAGRAPH III, ASPR, "PRICE NEGOTIATION POLICIES AND TECHNIQUES," SPELLS OUT THE REQUIREMENTS IN GREATER DETAIL. HOWEVER, NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR THE REGULATION DEFINES "COMPETITIVE RANGE." IN B- 158042, MARCH 30, 1966, IT WAS STATED:

" *** WE ARE FULLY AWARE OF AND SYMPATHETIC TO THE VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM A CONTRACTING OFFICIAL MAY FACE IN DETERMINING WHICH FIRMS ARE IN A COMPETITIVE RANGE *** . HOWEVER, WE THINK THAT CONTRACTING AGENCIES SHOULD EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION IN THIS AREA IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO EXCLUDE FROM NEGOTIATIONS ONLY THOSE FIRMS WITH WHICH NEGOTIATIONS WOULD BE MEANINGLESS." SEE, ALSO, 47 COMP. GEN. 29 (1967). THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT INDICATES THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE ITEM OFFERED BY GLOBE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING UPGRADED OR IMPROVED TO MEET THE BENCHMARK REQUIREMENT AS SUGGESTED IN 47 COMP. GEN. 29 (1967). SINCE GLOBE'S PROPOSAL WAS NOT CONSIDERED WITHIN A "TECHNICAL RANGE," IT IS STATED THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUTILE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH GLOBE.

AS STATED ABOVE, GLOBE'S INITIAL PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT GLOBE'S BLOWER WAS INFERIOR TO THAT OF SINGER- DIEHL. THE INITIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 7, 1969, RELIED IN LARGE MEASURE ON AN INTERIM TEST REPORT OF MAY 22, 1969, FROM THE NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT (NAD), CRANE, INDIANA. IN THIS REGARD WE QUOTE FROM PAGE 4 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:

" *** AT THE CONCLUSION OF 520 HOURS OF TESTING, 33% OF THE GLOBE UNITS FAILED AND ONLY 17% OF THE SINGER-DIEHL UNITS FAILED; THEREFORE, IT CAN ALMOST BE CONSIDERED A STATISTICAL CERTAINTY *** THERE WOULD BE FEWER GLOBE MOTORS THAN SINGER-DIEHL MOTORS COMPLETING THE TEST. THE INFERIORITY OF THE GLOBE UNIT IS FURTHER PROVEN BY PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL OPINION SUBMITTED TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FROM MAVSECNORDIV ENGINEERS RESULTING FROM CONTINUING ANALYSIS OF THE TESTS WHICH WERE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED IN JULY, 1969. *** " ON PAGE 6 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IT IS STATED THAT "THE INFERIORITY OF THE GLOBE UNIT REVEALED BY THE INTERIM TEST REPORTS WAS FURTHER DEMONSTRATED AND VERIFIED BY PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF THE YET UNPUBLISHED BUT FORTHCOMING FINAL TEST REPORT."

THE FINAL TEST REPORT REFERRED TO ABOVE ENTITLED TEST EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF MECHANICAL SPEED INCREASER BLOWERS, PREPARED BY THE QUALITY EVALUATION LABORATORY DEPARTMENT, NAD, CRANE, INDIANA, WAS PUBLISHED ON OCTOBER 31, 1969. THIS FINAL REPORT CONCLUDES THAT THE BLOWERS MANUFACTURED BY GLOBE INDUSTRIES ARE EQUALLY SUITABLE FOR AN/SRC-20, AN/SRC-21, AND AN/URC-9 COOLING PURPOSES AS THE BLOWERS MANUFACTURED BY SINGER-DIEHL. IT IS STATED AT PAGE 2 OF THE FINAL TEST REPORT THAT AFTER 528 HOURS OF TESTING ONE OF SIX SINGER-DIEHL SAMPLES HAD FAILED AND ALL THREE GLOBE SAMPLES WERE OPERATING SATISFACTORILY. THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE STATEMENT FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT QUOTED ABOVE. IT IS STATED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT, DATED JANUARY 30, 1970, THAT THE MIDPOINT FAILURE RATE PERCENTAGES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE FINAL TEST REPORT. IN A TELEGRAM DATED AUGUST 11, 1969, TO ESO, GLOBE STATED THAT TEST RESULTS AT NAD, CRANE, INDIANA, SUBSTANTIATED THE FACT THAT THEIR UNIT WAS EQUAL TO THE SINGER-DIEHL UNIT. IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT FORWARDED BY THE NAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS COMMAND BY LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 1970, ESO STATED THAT "CONTINUING ANALYSIS" OF THE TEST DID NOT SUPPORT THE EQUALITY OF THE UNITS AND SERVED TO CAST MORE DOUBT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE FINAL TEST REPORT.

IT IS STATED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT DATED JUNE 19, 1970, FORWARDED TO THIS OFFICE BY THE NAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS COMMAND BY LETTER DATED JUNE 26, 1970, THAT, AS A RESULT OF THE GLOBE TELEGRAM DATED AUGUST 11, 1969, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER CALLED THE COGNIZANT ENGINEER AT NAVSECNORDIV WHO HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE TESTING AT NAD, CRANE, IN THE LATTER PART OF SEPTEMBER, 1969. ESO STATES THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY NAD, CRANE. ESO CONCLUDES THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED ESTABLISHES THE ABSOLUTE INEQUALITY OF THE GLOBE UNIT TO THAT OF SINGER DIEHL AND THAT THE UNITS COULD NOT BE UPGRADED WITHIN THE STANDARDS SET FORTH AT 47 COMP. GEN. 29 (1967) AND, THEREFORE, FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH GLOBE WOULD HAVE BEEN FRUITLESS.

WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT DISCUSSIONS WITH GLOBE WOULD HAVE BEEN FRUITLESS. THERE WAS CONFLICTING EVIDENCE PRESENTED AS TO THE TECHNICAL FITNESS OF GLOBE'S BLOWER. ESO ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY REJECTING GLOBE'S PROPOSAL BECAUSE OF THE DOUBTS WHICH EXISTED AS TO THE TECHNICAL MERIT OF GLOBE'S PROPOSAL. IT APPEARS TO US THAT SUCH DOUBT, CREATED BY CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, REQUIRED THAT FURTHER DISCUSSION BE HELD WITH GLOBE TO CLARIFY THEIR PROPOSAL. ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD BEFORE US, WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH GLOBE WOULD HAVE BEEN MEANINGLESS. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE FINAL TEST REPORT IS NOT CORRECT IN ITS ULTIMATE CONCLUSION, WE BELIEVE THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF 10 U.S.C. 2304(G) WOULD NOT BE SERVED WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH GLOBE TO DETERMINE IF ITS PROPOSAL COULD HAVE BEEN UPGRADED.

FURTHERMORE, ESO ADVANCES A NEW ARGUMENT IN ITS THIRD AND FINAL REPORT DATED JUNE 19, 1970 IN RESPONSE TO OUR INQUIRY OF MAY 11, 1970. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE LANGUAGE OF 10 U.S.C. 2304(G) (QUOTED ABOVE) REQUIRES WRITTEN OR ORAL DISCUSSIONS WITH ALL RESPONSIBLE OFFERORS WHEN "TIME OF DELIVERY WILL PERMIT". THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES THAT AT THE TIME OF THE SOLICITATION, DELIVERY EXIGENCIES EXISTED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PROCUREMENT WAS NEGOTIATED UNDER THE PUBLIC EXIGENCY EXCEPTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT ACT. IT IS ARGUED THAT REQUIRED TIME OF DELIVERY FOR A CRITICAL ITEM OF SUPPLY ELIMINATED THE NEED FOR DISCUSSIONS WITH GLOBE. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES IN THIS REGARD "THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT GLOBE INDUSTRIES PROPOSAL COULD BE TECHNICALLY UPGRADED BY DISCUSSIONS APPEARS TO BE ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT". WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S INTERPRETATION OF 10 U.S.C. 2304(G). THAT SECTION PROVIDES THAT WHEN TIME OF DELIVERY WILL PERMIT, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SOURCES WILL BE SOLICITED. HOWEVER, ONCE THE SOURCES ARE SOLICITED, IF NEGOTIATIONS ARE CONDUCTED WITH ONE OF THE OFFERORS, IT IS REQUIRED THAT WRITTEN OR ORAL DISCUSSIONS SHALL BE HELD WITH ALL RESPONSIBLE OFFERORS WHO SUBMIT PROPOSALS WITHIN A COMPETITIVE RANGE, PRICE, AND OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED. 46 COMP. GEN. 191, 192 (1966). ADDITIONALLY, WE REJECT THIS ARGUMENT IN VIEW OF THE SUBSTANTIAL LENGTH OF TIME THAT PASSED AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS UNTIL THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED ON OCTOBER 3, 1969. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ESO'S INITIAL REPORT AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT DATED JANUARY 30, 1970 ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY THE FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE ON THE BASIS OF TECHNICAL DEFICIENCIES IN GLOBE'S PROPOSAL, WE CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT IN THE MOST RECENT REPORT THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROPOSAL COULD BE UPGRADED IS "ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT".

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE BLOWER HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO REQUIRE A "CHINESE COPY" OF THE BLOWER CURRENTLY BEING SUPPLIED BY SINGER- DIEHL, AND THAT GLOBE RECENTLY RECEIVED AN AWARD FOR 1,850 BLOWERS ON THIS BASIS. THUS, THE QUESTION OF EQUALITY BETWEEN THE SINGER-DIEHL BLOWERS AND THOSE PREVIOUSLY OFFERED BY GLOBE APPARENTLY WILL NOT ARISE IN THE FUTURE. NEVERTHELESS, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 U.S.C. 2304(G) BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF YOUR CONTRACTING OFFICIALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING THAT FUTURE AWARD ACTIONS CONFORM FULLY WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS. WE FEEL THAT ESO HAS BEEN LESS THAN CANDID IN ITS REPORTING ON THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENT. ITS SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS IN RESPONSE TO OUR INQUIRIES OF JANUARY 12, 1970 AND MAY 11, 1970, INDICATE THAT ESO KNEW OF THE CONCLUSIONS SET FORTH IN THE FINAL TEST REPORT WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE AWARD TO SINGER DIEHL. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY ESO STATED IN ITS INITIAL REPORT THAT THE FINAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE YET UNPUBLISHED REPORT SUBSTANTIATED ITS POSITION AND STATED AT PAGE 3 OF THE JANUARY 30, 1970 REPORT THAT MIDPOINT FAILURE RATE PERCENTAGES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE FINAL TEST REPORT AND THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY INFORMATION AVAILABLE WHEN THE INITIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT WAS SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ESO ADMITS THAT IT KNEW OF THE RESULTS OF THE FINAL TEST REPORT BUT WAS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THEM. IN THIS REGARD WE CAN NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAITED UNTIL THE LATTER PART OF SEPTEMBER 1969 TO CONTACT THE ENGINEER AT NAVSECNORDIV REGARDING GLOBE'S TELEGRAM OF AUGUST 11, 1969. ALTHOUGH IT IS STATED THAT THE DATE IN THE FINAL REPORT WAS NOT TABULATED PRIOR TO THE CONTRACT AWARD, IN RESPONSE TO OUR LETTER DATED MAY 11, 1970, DIRECTLY TO NAD, CRANE, IT IS REPORTED THAT TABULATION OF THE DATA WAS COMPLETED BY LATE AUGUST 1969. ESO'S FAILURE TO GIVE US THE FULL FACTS IN THE MATTER AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL REPORT HAS EFFECTIVELY PREVENTED THIS OFFICE FROM GRANTING ANY PRACTICAL RELIEF TO THE PROTESTANT. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT DELIVERIES UNDER THE SUBJECT CONTRACT ARE COMPLETED, NO POSSIBILITY EXISTS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT.

WE BELIEVE THAT OUR OFFICE IS ENTITLED TO BE FURNISHED ACCURATE AND FULLY INFORMATIVE REPORTS IN CASES OF THIS NATURE SO THAT PROPER DECISIONS MAY BE RENDERED IN TIMELY FASHION. WE REQUEST THAT YOU EMPHASIZE TO YOUR CONTRACTING OFFICIALS THE NECESSITY FOR CANDID AND ACCURATE REPORTS SO THAT PROTESTANTS MAY BE AFFORDED THE RELIEF THEY MAY DESERVE.