William Ainsworth and Sons, Inc., B-163399

• Decision Date: 09 July 1968
• Docket Number: B-163399
• Parties: WILLIAM AINSWORTH AND SONS, INC.
• Court: Comptroller General of the United States

WILLIAM AINSWORTH AND SONS, INC.

No. B-163399

Comptroller General of the United States

July 9, 1968

Further reference is made to your telegram of January 23, 1968 protesting the award of a contract by the santa monica unified school district, santa monica, California, to another bidder under invitation for bids no. 36, covering the furnishing of, among other items, laboratory digital analytical balances. The amount of the contract was partially funded under a grant made pursuant to title III of the national defense education act of 1958 (20 U.S.C. 441).

The record indicates that the award in question for digital analytical balances was in the amount of $8, 580. These balances were a portion of an award in the total amount of $18, 719, of which $5, 409 represented the federal share in connection with the total project. Title III of the national defense education act of 1958 provides for state plans to be approved by the united states commissioner of education and authorizes the purchase of equipment suitable for providing education in certain specified subjects (including science) and for minor remodeling. Under that title, each state receives a specified allotment which is computed on the basis of a statutory formula. Title III funds are available within the state's allotment for up to 50 percent of the cost to local educational agencies of equipment purchased or of minor remodeling, the remainder of the costs being borne by funds derived from state or local sources. The regulations under title III of that act provide at 45 CFR section 141.25 as follows: "the state plan shall describe the program for the acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling for the critical subjects to be served.' the regulations also provide at 45 CFR section 141.29, relating to standards, as ollows: "the state educational agency shall establish standards on a state level for equipment to be acquired, and for minor remodeling to be performed, with federal financial assistance under title III of the ACT. Such standards are to be related to the state's programs for improving instruction in the critical subjects and will be applied by the state agency in approving projects for the acquisition of equipment or minor remodeling.'

The federal regulations under title III of the act do not impose any federal requirement for competitive bidding in connection with the acquisition of equipment or minor remodeling. Inasmuch as title III is a matching grant program with part of the cost being paid out of state or local funds, the local educational agency must, of course, abide by state and local requirements with respect to such purchases. Section 15951 of the California education code requires the awarding of a contract to the lowest responsible bidder in the case, as here, of an award in excess of $4, 000. California state procedures require that purchases of equipment be approved by the state and, in connection with that approval, require that the local educational agency identify by brand name and model number the equipment to be purchased so that it can be determined that the purchase conforms to state standards.

In your telegram of January 23, 1968, five grounds of protest are stated.

The first ground for your protest is that the procurement unduly restricts domestic manufacturers of equal products by calling out brand name and model number as the only acceptable item. It is reported that while the invitation for bids did specify "balances, sartorius model 2743, " the brand name and model number were followed by detailed specifications which set forth the features which the school district determined were necessary for the school's intended USE. Moreover, it is reported that in the printed instructions...