About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-186501 1 (1977-02-02)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadejj0001 and id is 1 raw text is: M . . . -Richard fleman CD roce. UA II w-*4. , TIHE COMPTNCLLES~g ariUNAL C OuciIIJ . 2,9. aP TwH uNeTE ErATEs VdAUHINSTON, 0.0. 30546 FILE: 3-186501 DATE: hbbruary 2, 19'. MATTER OF: Control Data Corporation DIGEST: Disc pucks for use with computer system not being consumable items as required by Federal Property Management Regulations definition for supplies are automatic data processing equipment which cannot be procured on sole-source jwasis by using agency without delegation of procurement authority from GSA. This protest iavolvesathe negotiated soie-source award by Warner RobinsAir'Force Basof the l1-yeart n6fInite quantity contractflto. FO9603-76-D-4413 to Sperry RandtArporation, Univac/ Federal Systems Division (Untvac),for disc p'k to be naed ith the Univac U-1050-11 computer system. The award was made on March 25, 1976. Under the terms of tha contract, an initial order for the purhase of 190 disc packs at a total price of $221,560 was Issued wich the award of the contract. The maximum quantity which may be ordered during the term of the contract is 575. Control Data Corportion (CDC) protesEnd 'the award on siveral grouids: (1) the Air Forceviolated the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPHRV'bv- not oitkining a delegation of prncurement authokity (DPA) fiom theG&eieral Serviies Administration (GSA); (2),the Air Force determination to nigotiate on a sole-souice basis pursuant to 10 U.S.C. * 2304(a)(10) (1970 ed.), as implemented'by Armed Services Prourament Regulation(ASPR) .5 3-210.2(xv) (1975 ed.) was not well founded; and (3) an &arlier amendmnit ol - Univac contract whicht the Air Force relied upon in part to support ? aole-source a' determination was not justified and was an improper tie-in to reu ire the exclusive purchase of the Univac disc packs. For reasons which are indicated below, we have concluded that the sole-source procurement without a DPA was improper. Since the procurement was not authorized by GSA, it is not necessary to consider the other contentions summarized above. I