360B86100
  Subject  Indexes of Protest
  Appeal Determinations Issued
  From  1974 through  1984
          J. KENT HOLLAND, JR.

 Grants, Contracts and General Law Division
    Office of General Counsel (LE-132G)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
         Washington, D.C. 20460
             (202) 382-5313

-------

-------
                            PREFACE
     In the course of administering its financial assistance
programs, EPA has decided over 700 bid protest appeals chal-
lenging assistance recipients' procurement actions.  These
determinations were made pursuant to the EPA protest appeal
procedures set forth at 40 C.F.R. §35.939 (assistance awarded
prior to May 12, 1982), 40 C.F.R. Part 33, May 12, 1982
Intermim Final Rules (assistance awarded between May 12, 1982
and March 28, 1983) and 40 C.F.R. Part 33, March 28, 1983
Final Rules (assistance awarded on or after March 28, 1983).

     Most of the appeals have involved awards of construction
contracts by assistance recipients under Title II of the
Clean Water Act, Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant
Program.  There have also been a number of appeals by Archi-
tectural/Engineering (A/E) firms concerning award of A/E
contracts.  In the past two years, there have been two appeal
determinations concerning procurement of services for Remedial
Actions under the Comprehensive Environomental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERLCA).

     To date, seven subject indexes of EPA appeal determinations
have been published in the Federal Register.  The first index,
listing Regional Administrator protest appeal determinations
issued during the period 1974 through 1977, was published at
43 FR 29086-95 (July 5, 1978).  This was supplemented by the
index of 1978 determinations published at 44 FR 25812-18
(May 2, 1979), the index of 1979 determinations published at
45 FR 58770-74 (September 4, 1980), the index of 1980 determin-
ations published at 46 FR 30476-80 (June 8, 1981), the index
of 1981 and 1982 determinations published at 49 FR 36004
(September 13, 1984), the index of 1983 determinations published
at 50 FR 4148 (January 29, 1985) and the index of 1984 determin-
ations published at 50 FR 23061 (May 30, 1985).  Each publi-
cation digests only the determinations issued during the
designated year or years.  Consequently, in order to completely
research a subject, it has been necessary to locate that
subject in seven different issues of the Federal Register.

     To make it easier to research the EPA determinations, we
have constructed this index of 1974 through 1984 determinations.
This has been accomplished by cutting apart the publications
of the Federal Register, reorganizing the subjects into two
principal categories, and placing them into this consolidated
format.

-------
     An eighth index has- been published at 51 Fed. Reg. 32038
(September 8,  1986) and is included immediately following the
Table .of Contents to this Volume.  It digests the decisions
issued during 1985.

     This volume has been prepared with the intent of making
it easier to research the large number of protest appeal
determinations issued by EPA..  Used correctly, it can save
time in analyzing and deciding matters under protest.  The
descriptive pareritheticals describing the determinations
are short and are meant only to assist you in focusing your
research.  Of course, before relying on any determination
reported in the Federal Registers and this volume, you should
read the full text of the determination to ascertain how it
may apply to a given situation.

     As a further convenience, for EPA personnel (especially
attorneys) responsible for completing information forms
necessary to enter data into the PATRACS computer system, a
copy of the Grants Law Index of bid protest and procurement
issues is included immediately before the Table of Contents
to this volume.   Questions and comments concerning use of
the computer should be referred to Anthony Guadagno, Esq.
(FTS-382-5313).
                               J. KENT HOLLAND, JR.

-------
     LOCATING A SUBJECT IN THIS VOLUME:

     The subjects are digested under two separate alphabetical
listings.  Substantive procurement subjects such as  "Bids,"
"Responsibility" and "Specifications" are listed under the
primary heading "Procurement."   Procedural appeal natters
such as "Burden of Proof," "Jurisdiction" and"Tine  Limitations"
are listed under the primary heading Appeals - Procedural
Matters."
     OBTAINING COPIES OF DETERMINATIONS;

     Determinations may be examined and obtained from the  EPA
Offices of Regional Counsel.   They may also be examined at
the Law Library at EPA Headquarters and may be obtained from
the Office of General Counsel at EPA Headquarters.
     FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT;

     J. KENT HOLLAND, JR., Esq. or ANTHONY F. GUADAGNO, Esq.,
Office of General Counsel (LE-132G), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,  Washington, D.C. 20460; (202)382-5313.

-------

-------
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF 1985 DETERMINATIONS                             i
SUBJECT INDEX OF PROCEDURAL APPEAL MATTERS  ....      1
  Burden of Proof 	      3
  Choice of Law	>      5
  Deferral of Procurement Action  	      8
  Exhaustion of Adminstrative Remedy  	      8
  Harmless Error  	      8
  Jurisdiction	      9
  Procedure   	     12
  Rational Bases	 . .     16
  Reconsideration   	     19
  Regulations	     21
  Review by EPA   .....'	 . .     22
     Sua Sponte Review	 .     23
  Standing	     25
  Summary Disposition	 .     28
  Time Limitations	     31

 SUBJECT INDEX OF SUBSTANTIVE PROCUREMENT MATTERS
   Architect/Engineer Procurement 	  43
   Award Prime Contract   	44
   Bids   	44
      General	44
      Addenda	44
      Alternative	45
      Ambiguity   	45
      Deduct Items	45
      Evaluation	45
      Extension of Bids	49
      Irregularities  	  49
      Late	49

-------
     Mistake	49
     Modification	•. -	50
     Qualified   	50
     Seal    	50
     Severable   	50
     Signature   	51
     Unbalanced	51
Bid Shopping   	51
Bidders	52
Bonds    	52
Buy American	54
Competition    	56
Conflict of Interest   	  56
Design Decisions	  57
Equal Employment Opportunity    	  59
Enforcement    .	60
Engineering Judgement  	 ...  61
Experience Requirements  	  64
Formal Advertising   	  65
Grantee Responsibility   	  65
Innovative Technologies  	  66
Invitation for Bids	66
   Ambiguity   .  .  '	4	66
   Defective   	67
License     .   .  .	  68
Listing Subcontractors   	  ....  68
Minority and Women's Business  	 .....  69
Negotiated Procurement	  .  72
Patents	72
Prequalification   	  72
Program Integrity    	  74
Rejection of All Bids	-	75

-------
Responsibility   	•	77
Responsiveness	  .   80
Small Business   	84
Specifications   	   85
   General   	85
   Brand Name or Equal   	85
   Competition   	85
   Design     	   85
   Defective	   85
   Local Preference   	   86
   Minimum Need	   86
   Nonrestrictive	   86
     (See also, Unduly Restrictive)
   Performance Based  	   89
   Salient Requirement	   89
   Sole Source	   90
   Unduly Restrictive 	   92
     (see also, Nonrestrictive)
Subcontract Award 	   94
Waiver	   97
APPENDIX (MBE/WBE Guidance, Bid Protests Chapter. .    99

-------

-------
                GRANTS          LAW
                    ' BID  PROTEST APPEALS
                             I N D
                                                            X
   GRL-200-100-000
   GRL-200-200-000
   GRL-200-400-000
   GRL-200-500-000
   GRL-200-550-000
   GRL-200-600-000
   GRL-200-625-000
   GRL-200-650-000
   GRL-200-700-000

   GRL-200-750-000
   GRL-200-775-000
   GRL-200-800-000
   GRL-200-850-000
   GRL-200-900-000
Burden of  Proof
Disnissal
Jurisdiction
Parties to Appeal
Procedures
Rational Basis Test
Recipient  Determination
Reconsideration
Reaulations
btanaara ot Review   (See, this heading -  Rational  Basis Test)
Standing
States
Sua Spcnte Review
Sunmary Disposition
Time Limitations
   GRL-780-000-000
   GRL-780-025-000
                <
   GRL-780-050-000
*  GRL-780-100-000
   GRL-780-100-600
   GRL-780-100-700
PRCXUREMENT
   Antitrust
   Architect/Engineer Services   (See also  this  heading -  Services)
   Bid Rigging (See this heading - Antitrust)
   Bid Shopping  (See this heading - Listing Requiranent)
   Bidders and Offerers
      Nonexistent
      Rrejudice

-------
GRL-730-000-000
GRL-780-100-000
GRL-780-100-800

GRL-780-125-000
GRL-780-125-050
GRL-780-125-100
GRL-780-125-150
GRL-780-125-200
GRL-780-125-300
GRL-780-125-400
GRL-780-125-450
GRL-780-125-500
GRL-780-125-600
GRL-780-125-700
GRL-780-125-750

GRL-780-125-800
GRL-780-125-850
           4
GRL-780-125-900
GRL-780-150^000
GRL-780-175-000
GRL-780-200-000
GBL-780-250-000
GRL-780-250-200
GKL-780-250-300
GRL-780-300-000
PROCUREMENT (continued)
   Bidders and Offerees  (  '  cinued)
      ft-equalification
      Responsibility  (See this heading - Responsibility)
   Bids
      Acceptance Period
      Alternate Bids
      Base Bids
      Cancellation of Solicitation
      Evaluation
      Late
      Mistake
      Modification
      Preparation Cost
      Qualified
      Rejection of All Bids
      Responsiveness "(See this heading - Responsiveness)
      Time to Prepare
      Unbalanced
      Unit Pricing
   Bonds
   Buy American
   Certified Recipient Procurement System
   Competition
      De Facto
      Free and Open
   Cost and Pricing Data

-------
 GRL-780-000-000

 GRL-780-350-000

 GRL-780-400-000

 GRL-780-400-400

 GRL-780-400-800

 GRL-780-475-000

 GRL-780-500-000

 GRL-780-550-000

 GRL-780-600-000

 GRL-780-600-100

 GRL-780-600-200

 GRL-780-600-500

 GRL-780-600-600

 GRL-780-600-700

 GRL-780-600-800

 GRL-780-600-900

*GRL-780-625-000




 GRL-780-650rOOO

 GRL-780-700-000

 GRL-780-750-dOO


 GRL-780-800-000

 GRL-780-850-000

 GRL-780-900-000

 GRL-780-900-100

 GRL-780-900-200

 GRL-780-900-300
PROCUREMENT (continued)

   Federal Procurement Principles

   Formally Advertised

      Invitation For Bid

      Two-Step

   Legal Services  (See also the heading - Services)

   Listing Requirement

   Minority and Women's Business Enterprise Requirements

   Negotiated

      After Advertisement

      Competitive Range

      Minimum Requirements

      Original Bid Price

      Request for Proposal

      Sole Source

      Source Selection

   Prior Approval of Contract Award

   Protest Appeal  (See BID PROTEST APPEALS)

   Responsibility

   Respons iveness

   Services  (See also this heading - Architect/Engineer Services;
               Legal Services)

   Small Business Enterprises

   Small Purchase

   Specifications

      Ambiguous

      Brand Nane

      Design

-------
GRL-780-000-000
GRL-780-900-000
GRL-78 0-900-400
GRL-780-900^450
GRL-780-900-500
GRL-780-900-600
GRL-780-90 0-650
GRL-780-90 0-700
GRL-780-900-750

GRL-780-900-790
GRL-780-900-800
GRL-780-925-000
GRL-780-950-000
PROCUREMENT (continued)
   Specifications (continued)
      Engineering Judgment
      Experience Requirements
      Local ac In-State Preference
      Minimum Need
      Nonrestrictive
      Oral Statements
      Performance
      Responsiveness  (See this heading - Responsiveness)
      Salient Requirements  (See also this topic - Brand Name)
      Single Material
   State and Local Law
   Subcontract Award

-------
Monday
September 8, 1986
Part IV
Environmental

Protection  Agency

Protest Appeals of Recipients'
Procurement Actions Under Federal
Assistance Agreements; Subject Index
List of EPA Regional Administrator
Protest Appeal Determinations Issued
During 1985; Notice

-------
32038
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 173  /  Monday.  September 8. 1986  /  Notices
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 [FRL-3074-3]

 Protest Appeals of Recipients'
 Procurement Actions Under Federal
 Assistance Agreements; Subject Index
 Ust of EPA Regional Administrator
 Protest Appeal Determinations Issued
 During 1985

   This notice publishes the subject
 index list of bid protest appeal decisions
 issued by EPA Regional Administrators
 during 1985. These determinations were
 made pursuant to the EPA protest
 procedures set forth at 40 CFR 35.939
 (assistance awarded prior to May 1Z
 1982), 40 CFR Part 33, May 12.1982
 Interim Final Rules (assistance awarded
 between May 12.1982 and March 28.
 1983) and 40  CFR Part 33. March 28.1983
 Final Rules (assistance awarded after
 March 28,1983).
   This is the Eighth EPA subject index
 which lists only the decisions  for the
 year stated. The first index listing
 Regional Administrator protest appeal
 determinations issued during the period
 1974 through 1977, was published at 43
 FR 29086-95 (July 5,1978). This was
 supplemented by the index of 1978
 determinations published at 44 FR
 25812-18 (May 2,1979). the index of 1979
 determinations published at 45 FR
 58770-74 (September 4.1980).  the index
. of 1980 determinations published at 46
 FR 30476-80 (June 8.1981). the index of
 1981 and 1982 determination* published
 at 49 FR 36004 (September 13.1984), the
 index of 1983 decisions published at 50
 FR 4148 (January 29,1985) and the index
 of 1984 decisions published at 50 PR
 23061 (May 30,1985).
   The index  lists. 71 appeal
 determinations and 6 reconsideration
 request determination* issued by the
 EPA Regional Administrators in 1985.
   The determinations are cited
 informally with the names of the
 assistance recipients and protestors
 shortened and abbreviated for
 administrative convenience. Each entry
 begins by identifying the year the appeal
 was decided and the sequential
 determination number for the year. This
 number  is not part of the preferred
 citation  which should state the
 following: Grantee, State, (EPA Region
 	, date of determination) (Protest
 of	).
   The issues have been divided into two
 major subject headings and then
 alphabetized. Procedural protest issues
 are listed under the heading "Protest
 Appeals;" substantive procurement
 issues are listed under the heading
 "Procurement"
                       Copies of specific protest appeal
                     determinations may be examined at or
                     obtained from the EPA Offices of
                     Regional Counsel or from the Office of
                     General Counsel in EPA headquarters.
                     FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                     I. Kent Holland.Jr.. Esquire: Grants.
                     Contracts, and General Law Division
                     (LE-132G). Office of General Counsel.
                     United States Environmental Protection
                     Agency, Washington. DC 20460; (202)
                     382-5313.
                       Dated: August 29,1986.
                     G«nld H. Yanada,
                     Acting Genera/ Counsel.
                     Bid Protest Appeals—Procedural
                     Matters
                     Burden of Proof
                     85:12  Orlando, FL (IV, 2-8-86KZ3rua
                       Owen Valve Co.) (burden shifts
                       throughout proceedings where unduly
                       restrictive specifications alleged).
                     85:49  Frederick. MD (IB. 9-17-85)/7LW
                       Co.) (shifting burden—where protester
                       alleges unduly restrictive specification
                       and shows that its equipment was
                       eliminated, grantee must show the
                       specification is necessary for
                       minimum performance  needs and
                       show rational basis for rejecting
                       protester's equipment).
                     Choice of Law (See Procurement
                     Index—"State and Local  Law")

                     Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy
                     85:14  Lake Accotink Park, Fairfax VA
                       (ID. 2-22-45) (Lyons Const.) (protester
                       cannot raise new issue on appeal
                       which was not raised in original
                       protest to grantee).
                     85:19  Kankakee. IL (V. 3-28-85) (Mehta
                       &Assoc.) (issue not raised during
                       initial protest cannot be raised 
-------
                  Federal Register / VoL 51, No. 173 / Monday, Septemoer 8,  1966 / Notices
                                                                      32039
85:07  Maine Dept of Environmental
  Protection (L 1-30-85) (MetcaJfS-
  Eddy) (where failure of protester to
  notify other interested parties of
  protest caused no prejudice, the
  appeal wfll be considered).
85:09  Carthage, MO (VIL1-31-85)
  (LaForge PBudd Const Co.) (grantee
  is not required to prepare a memo or
  rationale to accompany its written
  protest determination).
85:15  Lake Accotink Park. Fairfax. VA
  (EL 2-22-85) (Lyons Const) (only
  those matters raised before grantee on
  protest can be raised during appeal).
85:19  Kankakee. 1L (V. 3-28-85) (Mehta
  &Assoc.) (issue not raised during
  initial protest cannot be raised on
  appeal).
85:25  Shubuta. MS (TV. 4-29-85) (Video
  Pipe Services, Inc.) (letter addressed
  to recipient instead of EPA is not a
  proper appeal).
85:35  Willoughby. OH (V, 7-1-^5)
  (Quasar Const, Inc.) (letter addressed
  to City is not proper appeal to EPA).
85:47  Sioux City. IA (VII. 9-13-85)
  (Industrial and Municipal
  Engineering, Inc.) (protest may not be
  denied on procedural grounds where
  grantee failed to notify bidders that
  the procurement was subject to EPA
  regulation).
85:50  Lorain. OH (V. 9-17-85) (Mpsser
  Const, Inc.) (where grantee decides
  protest in favor of protester, other
  parties to the protest may appeal to
  EPA without first filing a protest)
  (where bid rejected as nonresponsive
  EPA will not consider arguments that
  bidder could be rejected  as
  nonresponsible) (cf. Anne Anmdel, m,
  9-27-«5).
85:54  Anne ArundeL MO (IE 9-27-85)
  (Robert Filter Manufacturing Co.. Inc.)
  (although interested parties must be
  notified of protest, failure to give
  notice will not justify rejection of
  protest where no prejudice resulted]
  (EPA may rely on all information
  available and is not restricted to the
  arguments raised by the parties).
85:81  Jordan, MI (V, 10-21-85) (Veit»
  Co.) (protest appeal may be decided
  by EPA although there is a pending
  law suit in State court) (cf. Possum
  Valley, m. 2-14-45).
85:62  Broomfield. CO (VUL11-28-85)
  (Summit Const, Inc.) (where project
  engineer recommended rejection of
  low bid, it was reasonable for grantee
  to accept a protest directly from that
  decision).
85:87  Monterey. CA (K, 12-17-86)
  (Dillingham Const, Inc.) (where third-
  low bidder failed to participate in
  protest proceedings initiated by the
  second-low bidder and had notice of
  the basis for its protest, it improperly
  waited until EPA issued appeal
  determination and then protested
  award that grantee made in
  accordance with the EPA
  determination).
85:70  Modesto, CA (DC (12-20-85)
  (Industrial Pump Supply) (it is not a
  conflict of interest for the project
  engineer who rejected equipment to
  decide the subsequent bid protest for
  the grantee.

Rational Basis Test (See also
Engineering Judgment)
85:09  Carthage, MO (VII. 1-31-85)
  (LaForge & Budd Const) (EPA refers
  to other appeal decisions and GAO
  decisions) (EPA will not reverse
  grantee decision concerning who is
  low bidder under State law unless
  clear showing of violation of State law
  or federal regulation).
85:12  Orlando, FL (IV. 2-8-85) (Drum
  Owen Valve Co.) (no EPA deference
  to engineer's technical judgment
  where inaccurate information used or
  where City's reason for rejection was
  speculative in nature).
85:49  Frederick, MD (m. 9-17-85) (RDP
  Co.) (EPA defers to technical
  judgment of engineer provided there is
  rational basis for specification).
85:50  Lorain. OH (V, 9-17-85) (Mosser
  Const, Inc.) (potential savings must
  be material before rejecting bid
  because it exceeds engineer's
  estimate).
85:62  Broorofield. CO (VUL11-26-65)
  (Summit Canst, Inc.) (grantee lacked
  rational basis for finding bid
  nonresponsive and bidder
  nonresponsible).

Reconsideration
84:52  Possum Valley, PA (H 2-14-85)
  (U-Max Engineering) (limited review
  does not permit rearguing points
  previously discussed and determined).
85:39  Lewes. DE (HL 8-28-85) (Mixing
  Equipment Co., Inc.) (denied where no
  factual mistake or error of law).
85:54  Anne Arundel. MD (IIL 7-18-85)
  (Roberts Filter) (EPA did not err in
  looking beyond the arguments made
  by the parties).
85:60  Westborough. MA (1.12-10-85)
  (Dorr-Oliver, Inc.) (denied) (where no
  newly discovered evidence, issue of
  law, factual mistake or error of law,
  the decision will not he reconsidered).
Regulations
85:42  Glenwood and Long Beach, MN
  (V. 8-9-85) (J * S Contracting)
  (grantee elected to follow Part 33
  regulations instead of Part 35 which
  was in effect on date of grant award)
  (appeal decisions interpreting certain
  Part 35 requirements continue to be
  followed and applied by EPA).
85:59   Georgetown. MN (V, 10-18-85)
  (Robert of Roberts & Associates. Inc.)
  (explanation of whether Parts 33 and
  35 apply).
85:68   Monterey, CA (IX. 12-17-85)
  (Fluor Constructors. Inc.) (EPA may
  rely on protest appeal determinations
  issued under Part 35 regulations and
  principles stated in those regulations.

Review by EPA
85:07   Maine Dept. of Environmental
  Protection. MA (L 1-30-85) (MetcalfS-
  Eddy) (review of competitive
  negotiations is limited to whether bid
  evaluation was based on RFP
  criteria).
85:09   Carthage. MO (VU, 1-31-85)
  (LaForge SrBudd Const.) (EPA refers
  to other appeal decisions and GAO
  decisions) (EPA will not reverse
  grantee decision concerning who is
  low bidder under State law unless
  clear showing of violation of State law
  or federal regulations).
85:45   Newberg, OR (X. 9-11-85)
  (Contractors,  Inc.) (deference given to
  grantee's responsibility
  determination).

Sua Sponte Review
85:27   Lansing. MI (V. 5-17-85)
  (Acrision, Inc.) (where protest was
  untimely, EPA summarily dismissed
  appeal but reversed the merits).
84:52   Possum Valley, PA (III. 2-14-85)
  (U-Max Engineering).  _	-
  (Reconsideration) (where no blatant
  violation of EPA regulations, EPA will
  not exercise discretion to review).
85:47   Sioux City.  IA (VII, 9-13-65)
  (Industrial & Municipal Engineering,
  Inc.) (protests were defective but
  brought to EPA's attention serious
  defects in grantee procurement. EPA
  reviewed merits  of protests).
85:51   Rantoul. EL  (V. 9-18-85)
  (American Surfpac Corp.) (EPA has
  authority to independently review
  grantee procurement actions).
85:53   Anne Arundel County, MD (III,
  9-27-85) (Allied  Contractors, Inc.)
  (EPA may review late protest on its
  merits).
85:19  Kankakee. IL (V, 3-28-65} (Mehta
  6-Assoc.) (subcontractor may not
  protest prime's method of evaluating
  its equipment).
85:39  Lewes, DE (HI. 7-19-85) (Mixing
  Equipment Co.) (supplier has standing
  to protest specifications on
  prequaliflcation but if protester can
  meet specifications it cannot
  challenge them as unduly restrictive).
85:48  Frederick. MD (III. 9-17-85)
  (Dresser Industries) (subcontractor

-------
32040
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.  173 / Monday. September 8. 1986  /  Notices
  substitution is not protestable)
  (subcontractor lacks standing to
  challenge grantee's evaluation of
  responsiveness of competitor
  supplier's equipment).
85:56  Westchester County. NY (EL 10-
  9-85] (Crouse Combustion Systems,
  Inc.) (bidder who withdrew bid before
  contract award lacks standing to
  protest award to another bidder).
85:57  Pueblo, CO  (Vffl, 10-11-65)
  (WesTech Engineering, Inc.)
  (substituted subcontractor cannot
  protest prime's decision to substitute
  firms).
85:60  Westborough, MA (1,10-21-85)
  (Dorr-Oliver, Inc.) (where supplier
  was able to compete but chose not to,
  it lacks standing to protest the later
  approval by recipient of another
  supplier's equipment).
85:68  Monterey, CA (IX, 12-17-85) (IX.
  12-17-85) (Fluor Constructors Inc.) (a
  nonresponsive bidder has no
  adversely affected direct financial
  interest and, therefore, lacks
  standing).
85:70  Modesto, CA (IX. 12-20-85)
  (Industrial Pump Supply) (equipment
  supplier may protest prime contractor
  rejection of its equipment where prime
  contractor's decision was directed by
  the recipient. However, technical
  disputes concerning performance are
  matters of contract administration
  which are not reviewed by EPA).

Summary Disposition
85:08  Milwaukee, WI (V, 1-31-85)
  (Kari-Kool Transports,  Inc.)  (reliance
  on incorrect oral advice given at pre-
  bid conference is not protestable).
85:33  Milwaukee. WI (V, 6-19-85)
  (Staff Electric Co.) (where grantee
  waives  failure to notarize bid as a
  minor irregularity and gives  legal
  opinion that State law permits the
  waiver, EPA will not review the
  matter where there is no overriding
  federal  interest).
85:35  Willoughby, OH (V, 7-1-85)
  (Quasar Const, Inc.) (protest
  challenged the waiver of minor bid
  irregularities of a competitor such as
  signature and seal) (where bidder is
  not next in line for award, EPA will
  not review).                 	_

 Time Limitations
 84:52  Possum Valley, PA (III, 2-14-85)
  (U-Max Engineering)
  (Reconsideration) (timeliness of
  protest is of paramount importance).
 85:02  New York, NY (H, 1-17-85)
  (Schiavone Const. Co.) (appeal clock
   starts when protest determination
  received by address listed on
   protester's letterhead even if not
   received by main office at that time).
                      85:05  Carson City. NV (K, 1-18-85)
                        (Nevada Const. & Mining) (protest
                        untimely where filed more than 7 days
                        after protester had notice that
                        contract was awarded to another
                        bidder).
                      85:25  Shubuta. MS (IV, 4-29-85) (Video
                        Pipe Services, Inc.) (appeal received
                        by EPA 7 days after protester receives
                        grantee determination is untimely).
                      85:27  Lansing. MI (V. 5-17-85)
                        (Acrison, Inc.) (appeal of
                        prequalification rejection dismissed
                        because not filed within 7 days of-  -
                        notice of rejection). But See Chelan,
                        WA (X, 6-24-86), which permits
                        prequalification protests filed more
                        than 7 days after receipt of decision if
                        the protest challenges the
                        specifications and is filed before
                        prime contract bid opening.
                      85:30  Pittsylvania. PA (HI. 5-24-85) (J&
                        D Constructors, Inc.) (where
                        contractor was default terminated for
                        failing to  provide performance bonds,
                        its protest was untimely for being not
                        filed within 7 days).
                      85:35  Willoughby, OH (V, 7-1-85)
                        (Quasar Const. Inc.) (appeal untimely
                        where filed more than 7 days after
                        receipt of grantee's determination).
                      85:41  Red Oak, IA (VII, 8-5-85) (Elliott
                        Equipment Co.) (protest was untimely
                        because it challenged specifications.
                        and was not filed before bid opening).
                      85:42  Glenwood and Long Beach, MN
                        (V, 8-9-85) (J & S Contracting, Inc.)
                        (protest was untimely because it
                        challenged specifications and was not
                        filed before bid opening).
                      85:50  Rantoul, EL (V, 9-18-85])
                        (American Surfpac Corp.) (protest
                        alleging improprieties in specification
                        is timely  where filed before bid
                        opening)  (this is generally so if
                        protester knew of the improprieties for
                        more than 7 days before filing. See
                        Chelan, WA (X, 6-24-36)).
                      85:54  Anne Arundel, MD (EL 9-27-85)
                        (Roberts  Filter Manufacturing Co.,
                        Inc.) (unduly restrictive specifications
                        must be challenged prior to bid
                        opening—protester cannot wait until
                        equipment is rejected after bid
                        opening to file its protest). (See also
                        Southbridge, L 1-24-86)
                      85:55   Little Blue Valley. MO (VII, 10-1-
                        85]  (Roots Division of Dresser
                        Industries) (where brand name or
                        equal specifications exclude supplier's
                        equipment, protest must be filed prior
                        to bid opening—supplier cannot wait
                        until equipment is rejected to file
                        protest).
                      85:62   Brpomfield, CO (VIE. 11-26-85]
                        (Summit Construction, Inc.) (where
                        protest was based on action of project
                        engineer rather than grantee, grantee
                        may consider it).
85:64   Augusta, GA (IV, 12-5-85) (Beiler
  Equipment Co., Inc.) (where alleged
  improprieties in specifications were
  clearly apparent in the IFB, protest
  was not filed prior to bid opening).
85.67   Monterey, CA (IX, 12-17-85)
  (Dillingham Const.,  Inc.) (where the
  third-low bidder did not participate in
  proceedings initiated by the second-
  low bidder, bidders' subsequent
  protest of the award was untimely
  where it had adequate notice of basis
  for  protest).
85:71   Binghamton, NY (H, 12-28-85)
  (American Bio Tech) (telegraph
  appeal notice was timely but
  subsequent submittal of detailed
  supplemental statement was
  untimely).

Waiver (See Procurement Index—
"Waiver")

Procurement
A/EServices
85:07   Maine Dept. of Environmental
  Protection (L 1-30-85) (Metcalffr
  Eddy) (EPA will not review grantee's
  judgment of what specific services are
  required for remedial action).
85:10   Lake County Sanitation District
  (IX 2-5-85) (Peak S-Assoc.) (bid
  evaluation of technical proposal is
  matter of procurement discretion and
  will not generally be disturbed by
  EPA).

Award Prime Contract
85:14   Washington Suburban Sanitary
  Commission (III, 2-22-85) (Hycon and
  Professional Services Group)
  (although state law gives grantee
  discretion in matters of contract
  award, that discretion is  limited by
  fundamental federal procurement
  requirements).
Bid Shopping
85:31   Bradenton, FL (IV. 6-4-85)
  (Lakeside Equipment Co.)
  (subcontractor substitution is not
  protestable).
85:50  Frederick. MD (ffl, 9-17-85)
  (Dresser Industries) (EPA regulations
  do  not prohibit bid shopping and EPA
  views equipment listing as
  informational only unless IFB clearly
  makes it a matter of responsiveness).
85:57  Pueblo, CO (VII. 10-11-85)
- (WesTech Engineering, Inc.) (bid
  shopping not prohibited unless state,
  local law or the bidding documents  so
  provide).
85:58  Pueblo. CO (VIII. 10-11-85)
  (Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (bid  shopping not
  prohibited by EPA).
85:65  Jacksonville. AR (VI, 12-12-85)
  (Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (EPA neither

-------
                  Federal Register  /  Vol. 51.  No. 173  /  Monday. September 8. 1986 /  Notices	32041
  prohibits nor require* bid shopping—
  see EPA Report to Congress:
  Wastewater Treatment Contracting
  and Bid Shopping, June 1978).

Bidders & Offerers
85:56  Westchester County, NY (H, 10-
  9-85) (Grouse Combustion Systems,
  Inc.) (grantee may obtain cost
  concessions from lowest bidder after
  bid opening).
Bifis

Acceptance Period
No entries.
Addendum
85:38  Clarence, NY (H, 7-18-85)
  (Hydro-Group, Inc.) (failure to sign
  formal acknowledgment of receipt of
  IFB addendum may be waived as
  minor irregularity where bidder
  included a quotation for the additional
  item in its bid and specifically
  referred to addendum).

Alternates
85:61   fordan. MI (V, 10-21-85) (Veil &
  Co.) (where bidders were required to
  list unit prices for several alternates
  but further required to choose one
  alternate to base its lump sum bids, a
  bid is nonresponsive if the bidder fails
  to list a unit pnce for one of its
  alternates).
85:37  Bradenton. FL (IV. 7-15-85)
  (ICOS/Hycon) (where failure to
  comply with bid terms reflect on
  responsibility rather than
  responsiveness they may be waived)
  (in order to be responsive on one
  alternate it was not necessary to
  submit bid on other alternate).
Ambiguity
85:40  Johnson County, KS fVH, 7-25-  .
  85) (Martin Eby Const.) (where
  contrary to terms of IFB, bid was
  conditioned upon grantee approving
  proposed "or equal" equipment before
  award, this caused ambiguity
  concerning bidder's obligation if
  equipment substitution was later
  required and made bid
  nonresponsive).
Base Bids
No entries.

Cancellation of Solicitation
85:47  Sioux City, IA CVH. 9-13-85)
  (Industrial & Municipal Engineering,
  Inc.) (EPA reversed grantee and
  directed solicitation be cancelled and
  readvertised).

Evaluation
85:07   Maine Dept. of Environmental
  Protection (1.1-30-85) (MetcalfS-
  Eddy) (where RFP stated cost was of
  secondary importance, grantee may
  award contract to more expensive
  proposal).
85:10  Lake County Sanitation District
  (IX. 2-5-85)/PeaA ZAssoc.) (A/E
  procurement—where RFP did not
  provide that proposer's failure to
  respond adequately to one of the
  evaluation factors would result in his
  rejection, grantee's affirmative
  evaluation was reasonable).
85:12  . .Orlando, FL [IV, 2-8-85) (Drum
  Owen Valve Co.) (performance based
  reason for rejection must be based on
  more than speculation of problems).
85:16  Mission. TX (IV. 3-1-35)
  (Evirondyne Inc.) (evaluation cannot
  be based on undisclosed, subjective
  criteria) (data submission requirement
  must he based on underlying need for
  considering data).
85:24  Chelan. WA (X. 4-26-85)
  (Walker Process Corp.)(A/E
  improperly rejected equipment for
  failing to meet design features which
  were not specified).
85:29  San Antonio. TX {VI 5-23-85)
  (Pollution Control, Inc.) (may not
  reject equipment on basis of criterion
  not disclosed in IFB) (IFB clause
  requiring "experience" in making
  "similar" equipment cannot be used to
  require experience in making exactly
  the same equipment).
85:40  Johnson County, KS (VII, 7-25-
  85) (Martin Eby Const) (by reviewing
  bidder's alternate equipment proposal
  before awarding contract, grantee
  failed to evaluate the bids in
  accordance with IFB criteria which
  stated "or equal" equipment would
  only be evaluated after award).
85:48  Frederick. MD (ID. 9-17-85)
  (Dresser Industries) (subcontractor
  lacks standing to challenge grantee's
  evaluation of its competitor's
  equipment).
Extension
85:62  Broomfield. CO (Vffl. 11-28-85)
  (Summit Constructors, Inc.) (active
  participation in protest proceeding
  evidences intent to extend bid).

Late
85:36  Chemung County, NY (II. 7-3-65)
  (Tougher Ind., Inc.) (bid
  nonresponsive where IFB stated  late
  bids would not be accepted and bid
  was-2 minutes late) (grantee has
  discretion in applying GAO strict
  treatment of late bids).

Mistake
85:08  Carthage. MO (VI. 1-31-65)
  (LaForge & Budd Const.) (extrinsic
  evidence may be used  to show
  intended bid where no bid
  displacement) (words over numbers
  reconciliation clause will not be
  strictly enforced where intended bid
  is clearly apparent).
85:17  Mackinac Is.. MI (V, 3-13-85)
  (Barton-Malow Co. Sr Omega Const.)
  (mistake in bid on entire project did
  not affect bid on individual pump
  station).
85:66  Newport, RI (L 12-17-85)
  (Peabody N.E., Inc.) (bid displacement
  allowed where mistake and intended
  bid are apparent on the face of the
  bid—extended amount price was put
  in unit price column).

Preparation Costs

No entries.

Public Notice
85:47  Sioux City, IA (VH. 9-13-85)
  (Industrial 6" Municipal Engineering,
  Inc.) (where grantee failed to
  advertise in newspapers and journals
  of general circulation and only
  allowed 17 days from notice to bid
  opening, EPA required resolicitation).

Qualified
85:40  Johnson County. KS (VII. 7-25-
  85) (Martin Eby Const.) (bid that was
  conditioned on grantee approving "or
  equal" equipment before award is
  nonresponsive where IFB provided for
  post award equipment evaluation
  only.

Rejection of all Bids
85:47  Neenah-Menasha, IL (V, 3-28-85)
  (Flour Bros. Const. Co.) (where low
  bid had to be rejected for being late
  and other bids were deemed too
  expensive,  grantee had rational
  business reasons for rejecting all
  bids).
85:02  Lowell, MA (1.1-11-85) (Gioiosa
  6- Sons, Inc.) (not justified by
  unbalanced bidding) (recipient does
  not have unfettered discretion).
85:22  Detroit, MI (V, 4-18-85) (ETS
  Towers, Inc.) (IFB failed to specify
  experience evaluation criteria
  necessary for determining which bids
  satisfied  requirements—harm to
  bidder required readvertising the
  project).

Signature
85:33  Milwaukee. WI (V, 6-19-85)
  (Staff Electric Co.) (failure to notarize
  bid as required by state law may be
  waived as minor irregularity).
85:35  Willoughby. OH (V, 7-1-65)
  (Quasar Const., Inc.) (failure to
  notarize bid waived as minor
  irregularity).

-------
32042
 Federal  Register / Vol. 51, No.  173 / Monday, September 8,  19G6 / Notices
wB&L^r*^^*9B»jr^v^MM^BHMWi^Mi^^^HMe>nM^Ha^^K^i^^H^B^EflKMHM«e>:^HH^B^KBM»^H^Ba.3r<» ..*.-nua-:9>*"mMnffRKaM^BVK«ZlMBiH^anMMnvW*:
Time to Prepare
85:47  Sioux City, IA (VII, 9-13-85)
  (Industrial & Municipal Engineering,
  Inc.) (advertising 17 days in advance
  of bid opening was inadequate)
  (adequate notice must be placed in
  newspapers and journals of general
  circulation).
Unbalanced
85:02  Lowell, MA (1,1-11-85) (Gioroso
  & Sons, Inc.) (Penny bidding is not
  contrary to federal principles unless it
  causes bid to be materially
  unbalanced making it impossible to
  determine the low bid).
85:35  Willoughby. OH (V, 7-1-85)
  (Quasar Const., Inc.) (whether
  unbalanced bid can be accepted
  depends on whether it is reasonably
  certain to result in lowest price).
Unit Pricing
No entries.

Bonds
85.30  Pittsylvania. PA (III, 5-24-85) (J &
  D Constructors, Inc.) (failure to
  provide performance bonds within 10
  days of contract award was rational
  basis for grantee to reject bidder as
  nonresponsible).
85:51  Rantoul. IL (V, 9-18-85)
  (American Surfpac Corp.)
  (performance bond which ensured
  performance for 3 years was
  reasonable where suppliers had no
  similar equipment in service)
  (inability of one supplier to  obtain
  bond does not prove undue  burden
  where other suppliers  did obtain
  bond) (EPA no longer requires grantee
  to accept bond in lieu  of experience).
Buy American Act
85:28  Osage Beach, MO (VII. 5-22-85)
  (Marley Pump Co.) (because grantee
  demonstrated that foreign components
  comprised under 50% total value of
  the product, the preference did not
  apply).
85:55  Little Blue Valley, MO {VH, 10-1-
  85) (Roots,  Dresser) (until prime
  selects supplier, compliance with the
  Act cannot be determined) (See also,
  Chelan, Washington, X, 6-24-86).
Conflict of Interest
 85:19  Kankakee, IL (V, 3-28-85) (Mehta
   & Assoc.) (no evidence of conflict
   presented, appeal dismissed as
   without merit).
 85:70  Modesto, CA (IX, (12-20-85)
   (Industrial Pump Supply) (it is not a
   conflict of interest for the project
   engineer who rejected equipment to
   decide the subsequent bid protest for
   the grantee).
                      Engineering Judgment
                      85:13  Dpthan. AL (IV, 2-21-85)
                        (American Bioreactor Co. & Fluid
                        Svstems, Inc.) (rational basis for
                        experience requirements).
                      85:42  Glenwood and Long Beach, MN
                        (V. 8-9-85) (J&S. Contracting, Inc.)
                        (rational performance based reasons
                        for requiring single material is given
                        deference by EPA.) (when EPA defers
                        to engineer it does not mean it
                        believes the specifications reflect the
                        best engineering judgment and no
                        opinion is offered regarding relative
                        merits of the material or equipment or
                        their suitability for particular
                        engineering applications).
                      85:49  Frederick, MD (III, 9-17-85) (RDP
                        Co.) (protest appeal sustained where
                        design features were not supported by
                        rational performance based needs).
                      85:55  Little  Blue Valley, MO (VII. 10-1-
                        85) (Roots, Dresser) (performance
                        reasons for design features).
                      Experience Requirements
                      85:13  Dothan. AL (IV, 2-21-85)
                        (American Bioreactor Co. and Fluid
                        Systems, Inc.) (City was justified in
                        rejecting equipment which
                        manufacturer had never before
                        fabricated or designed to the size
                        needed).
                      85:18  Mission, TX (VI, 3-1-85)
                        (Envirodyne, Inc.) (experience clause
                        was ambiguous where it did not
                        define applicable period of experience
                        to be objectively applied).
                      85:22  Detroit. MI (V, 4-18-85) (ETS
                         Towers, Inc.) (experience
                        requirements must be objectively
                        stated evaluation criteria).
                      85:29  San Antonio, TX (VI, 5-23-85)
                        (Pollution  Control, Inc.) (where IFB
                        required bidders to have experience
                        manufacturing "similar" equipment, a
                        bidder cannot be rejected for not
                        having manufactured "exactly" the
                         same equipment).
                       85:37  Bradenton, FL (IV, 7-15-85)
                        (ICOS/Hycon) (where IFB states
                         experience requirement was for
                         purpose of determining bidders
                         ability, it is a matter of responsibility
                         not responsiveness and can be cured
                         after bid opening).
                       85:45  Newberg, OR (X. 9-11-85)
                         (Contractors, Inc.) (experience of key
                         personnel was a matter of
                         responsibility not responsiveness and
                         the affirmative finding of
                         responsibility is a discretionary
                         decision which will not be reviewed
                         in the absence of fraud or bad faith).
                       85:70 Modesto, CA (IX, 12-20-85)
                         (Industrial Pump Supply) (where
                         bidder was rejected for lack of
                         experience, EPA found the IFB
  adequately defined experience and
  recipient had rational basis for
  rejecting bidder) (grantee may require
  proven product rather than newly
  designed one).

Innovative Technology
84:43  Troup, TX (VI, 9-4-85)
  (McKinney 6- Moore, Inc.) (more
  restrictive specifications are
  permissable).
In vitation for Bids (IFB)

General
85:08  Milwaukee WI (V, 1-31-85)
  (Kari-Kool Transports, Inc.) (bidder
  unjustifiably relied on oral
  representations made at pre-bid
  conference).
Ambiguity
85:22  Detroit, MI (V, 4-18-85) (ETS
  Towers, Inc.) (requirement that
  experience be documented failed to
  state how experience would be
  objectively evaluated).
85:45  Monterey, CA (IX 9-12-85)
  (Mortenson/Natkin) (no ambiguity
  where IFB clearly states that failure to
  list subcontractor renders bid
  nonresponsive and adds no other
  language describing rejection or
  permitting acceptance of
  nonconforming bid) (explanation of
  "two prong" test applied in other EPA
  decisions).
85:67  Monterey. CA (IX, 12-17-85)
  (Dillingham Const., Inc.) (City
  correctly found bid responsive where
  bidding documents did not clearly and
  unequivocally put bidders on notice
  that failure to comply with
  requirements that typically concern
  responsibility would render a bid
  nonresponsive) (EPA will examine not
  only the language in relevant portions
  of IFB but consider the bid documents
  in their entirety to determine overall
  clarity).

Defective
No Entries.
License Requirement
85:05  Carson Citv, NV (IX, 1-18-85)
  (Nevada Const. & Mining) (EPA would
  not consider whether state licensing
  law requiring license prior to bidding
 , unreasonably restricted competition,
  since bidder's delay in applying for
  the license contributed to his inability
  to obtain it in time).
listing Subcontractors
85:06  Addison, IL (V, l-25-85)YSo/i-«
  Const. Co.) (where IFB clearly
  required bidders to list manufacturers,

-------
  bid was properly rejected for failing to
  comply).
85:06  Addison. IL (V. 3-19-85) (Sollitt
  Const. Co.) (Reconsideration) (bid was
  nonresponsive because it named
  several subcontractors but did not
  identify which was to be used).
85:17  Mackinac Is.. Ml (V. 3-13-85)
  (Barton-Malow Co. 8- Omega Const.)
  (where IFB is ambiguous,
  subcontractor listing is matter of
  responsibility rather than
  responsiveness).
85:20  Leesburg. VA (ffl, 4-2-65) (fames
  Federline and MCI Const. Co.).
  (failure to list subcontractors did not
  render bid nonresponsive).
85:32  Warren. OH (V, 6-8-85) (RAM
  Engineering. Inc.) (MBE subcontractor
  substitution is not protestable because
  it is a matter of contract
  administration, not procurement).
85:37  Bradenton, FL (IV, 7-15-85)
  (ICOS/Hycon) (bid cannot be rejected
  for failure to list subcontractors where
  IFB did not expressly require it as a
  matter of responsiveness).
85:45  Newberg, OR (X. 9-11-85)
  (Contractors, Inc.) (bid cannot be
  rejected for failure to list
  subcontractors where IFB did not
  expressly require it as a matter of
  responsiveness).
85:48  Monterey,  CA (IX, 9-12-85)
  (Mortenson/Natkin) (bid failing to list
  equipment manufacturer must be
  rejected where IFB clearly stated
  listing was a matter of
  responsiveness—under Part 33
  regulation IFB need not state that bid
  will be rejected, provided it clearly
  states bid will be nonresponsive and
  contains no conflicting language
  suggesting grantee may he permitted
  to accept nonresponsive bid).
85:65  Jacksonville, AR (VI. 12-12-85)
  (Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (where IFB did
  not state that failure to list
  subcontractors would render bid
  nonresponsive, grantee may award
  contract to bidder that did not
  accurately list its subcontractors)
  (listing a supplier in its bid did not
  obligate prime to award subcontract
  to that supplier).
85:87  Monterey, CA (IX. 12-17-85)
  (Dillingham Const. Inc.) (failure of
  listed equipment to meet the
  specifications does not render prime's
  bid nonresponsive where IFB required
  that equipment be listed but did not
  require that bids be rejected for listing
  unqualified equipment.)
85:88  Monterey, CA (IX, 12-17-85)
  (Fluor Constructors. Inc.) (same
  analysis as Monterey, Dillingham, IX.
  12-17-85. this subject index).
 Minority Business and Women 'a
 Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE1
 85:14  Washington Suburban Sanitary
   Commission (ffl, 2-22-85) (Hycon &
   Professional Services Group)
   (documentation was matter of
   responsibility, not responsiveness).
 85:15  Lake Accotink Park. Fairfax VA
   (III, 2-22-85) (Lyons Const)
   (documentation a matter of
   responsibility).
 85:18  Lake Geneva. WI (V, 3-18-85)
   (Camosy Const) {MBE documenta-
   tion is matter of responsibility where
   IFB did not clearly state otherwise).
 85:19  Kankakee. IL (V, 3-28-85) (Mehta
   8-Assoc.J (prime may rely on MBE's
   self certification) (prime's evaluation
   of subcontractor is not protestable).
 85:23  Unalaska, AL (X, 4-28-85)
   (Rockford Corp.) (failure to include
   documentation did not render bid
   nonresponsive where IFB did not
   clearly recuire it).
 85:28  Scales Mound. IL  (V, 5-14-85)
   (Smith  & Andrews Const Co.) (EPA
   policy is to treat MBE documentation
   as matter of responsibility but grantee
   made it matter of responsiveness and
   rejected nonconforming bid
   accordingly).
 85:32  Warren, OH (V, 6-6-85) (RAM
   Engineering. Inc.) (subcontractor
   substitution is not protestable)
   (unsubstantiated allegation that prime
   negotiated in bad faith does not meet
   burden of proof needed for protest)
   (WBE firm has no standing to
   challenge the goal established by
   grantee).
 85:34  Cannon Falls, MN (V, 8-28-85)
   (Lysne  Const, Inc.) (bid responsive
   where it documented positive efforts
   and reasons for not meeting MBE
   goal).
 85:50  Lorain. OH (V, 9-17-85) (Mosser
   Const,  Inc.) (grantee cannot reject bid
   as nonresponsive when bidding
   documents contain contradictory
   language and. when read as a whole
   make documentation a matter of
   responsibility).
 85:51  Rantoul IL (V. 9-18-85)
   (American Surfpac Corp.) (bonding
'  requirement did not violate SBE/MBE
•  policy where several firms obtained
   the required bonds).
 85:53  Anne Arundel County, MD (III,
   9-27-85) (Allied Contractors, Inc.)
   (bidder can meet requirements by
   either meeting goal or showing good
   faith efforts) (documentation a matter
   of responsibility) (EPA affirmed
   grantee determination of good faith).
 85:57  Pueblo. CO (VIII. 10-11-85)    -
   (WesTech Engineering, Inc.)
   (substitution of firms for business
   reasons does not violate EPA policy)
  (prime's business decision to place
  one large order instead of dividing
  into smaller orders will not be
  reviewed by EPA).
85:58  Pueblo. CO (VIII. 10-11-85)
  (Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (prime's
  substitution of firms does not violate
  EPA regulation and is not protestable)
  (substitution does not violate
  affirmative steps) (protester lacks
  standing to challenge the way grantee
  calculated MBE participation).
85:85  Jacksonville. AR (VI. 12-12-85)
  (Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (MBE policy does
  not prohibit bid shopping) (prime did
  not bid shop but rather substituted the
  MBE based on a reconsideration of
  previous offers which were less
  expensive—prime did not negotiate
  prices with subcontract offerers after
  bid opening and was not required to
  do so) (no violation of the policy that
  total projects be divided into snail
  tasks where it is not economically
  feasible to do so).
85:66  Newport. RI (1.12-17-85)
  (Peabody N.E., Inc.) (bid documents
  when read as a whole did not make
  submission of certificates a matter of
  responsiveness).

Negotiated Procurement
85:07 Maine Dept. of Environmental
  Protection. MA (1,1-30-85) (Metcalf 6-
  Eddy) (review of competitive
  negotiations is limited to whether bid
  evaluation was based on RFP
  criteria).
85:10 Lake County Sanitation District
  (IX. 2-5-B5) (Peak & Assoc.) (A/E
  procurement—where RFP did not
  provide that proposer's failure to
  respond adequately to one of the
  evaluation factors would result in his
  rejection, grantee's affirmative
  evaluation was reasonable.
Preaualification
85:01 Ft. Lauderdale. FL (V, 1-8-85)
  (Compost Systems Co.) (City changed
  deadline for prime contract bid
  submittal but enforced the original
  deadline for submitting
  prequalification packages thereby
  incorrectly rejecting package
  submitted after that deadline but  more
  than 30 days before the revised bid
  opening date).
85:13 Dothan. AL (IV. 2-21-85)
  (American Bioreactor and Fluid
  Systems, Inc.) (rejection of proposed
  composting system which
  manufacturer had never before
  designed and fabricated to the
  required dimensions was affirmed).
85:18 Mission. TX (IV. 3-1-85)
  (Envirodyne Inc.) (must be based  on
  specifications, not on undisclosed

-------
32044
Federal  Register / Vol. 51, No. 173 / Monday. September 8,  1986 / Notices
  subjective criteria] (data submission
  requirement must be rationally based
  on underlying need for considering
  data).
85:24  Chelan, WA (X. 4-26-65)
  (Walker Process Corp.) (where only
  manufacturer could prequalify. it was
  unjustified sole source procurement).
85:27  Lansing. Ml (V, 5-17-65}
  (Acrison, Inc.) (equipment rejected for
  prequalification because insufficient
  data submitted—protester did not
  show grantee lacked rational basis for
  equipment design features) (time
  limitations for filing protest). (But see
  Chelan, WA (X. &-2S-86)).
85:39  Lewes, DE (III, 7-19-85) (Mixing
  Equipment Co.) (requiring submission
  of working drawings that describe
  project modifications that will be
  required by use of equipment does not
  unduly restrict competition) (failure to
  subrriit information gives rational
  basis fur rejecting equipment) (IFB
  authorizing only general contractors
  to submit equipment for
  prequalification unduly restricts
  competition).
85:44  Chariton. IA (VII, 9-9-85)
  (Electrical Control Systems, Ltd.)
  (proposal may be rejected as
  nonresponsive for not providing
  required information needed for
  determining responsiveness to
  specifications).
85:48  Frederick. MD (III, 9-17-85)
  (Dresser Industries) (successful
  bidder permitted to substitute a
  nonprequalified supplier for a
  prequalified supplier named in its
  bid).
85:49  Frederick, MD (III, 9-17-65) (RDP
  Co.).

Responsibility
85:14  Washington Suburban Sanitary
  Commission (III, 2-22-85) (Hycon and
  Professional Services Group) (MBE
  documentation is matter of
  responsibility unless bid documents
  unambiguously state it to be matter of
  responsiveness).
85:15 Lake Accotink Park, Fairfax VA
  (HI, 2-22-85) (Lyons Const.)
  (documentation a matter of
  responsibility).
85:17 Machinac Is., MI (V, 3-13-85)
  (Barton-Malow Co. & Omega Const.)
  (where IFB ambiguous, subcontractor
  listing is matter of responsibility
  rather than responsiveness).
85:18  Lake Geneva. WI (V, 3-18-85)
  (Camosy Const.) (MBE documentation
  is matter of responsibility where IFB
  did not clearly state otherwise).
85:20  Leesburg, VA (in. 4-2-85) (fames
  Federline, Inc. & MCI Const, Co.)
  (grantee determination of
  nonresponsibility based on prior poor
                       contract performance was rationally
                       based) (failure to list registered
                       contract number in bid is matter of
                       responsibility not responsiveness)
                       (subcontractor listing) (inclusion of
                       "experience, equipment and financial
                       statement" is matter of responsibility,
                       not responsiveness).
                      85:22  Detroit, MI (V, 4-18-85) (ETS
                       Towers, Inc.) (documentation of
                       experience is a matter of
                       responsibility rather than
                       responsiveness where bid documents
                       did not clearly make it
                       responsiveness).
                      85:28  Scales, Mound, L; (V. 5-14-85)
                       (Smith & Andrews Const. Co.) (EPA
                       policy to treat MBE documentation as
                       matter of responsibility).
                      85:30  Pittsylvania, PA (III 5-24-85) ff»
                       D Constructors, Inc.) (responsibility
                       determination is discretionary grantee
                       decision which will not be reversed
                       unless it lacks rational basis or is
                       made in bad faith] (grantee found
                       bidder nonresponsible because it
                       failed to obtain performance bonds
                       within required time after contract
                       award).
                      85:34  Cannon Falls. MN (V. 6-28-65)
                       (Lysne  Const. Co.) (MBE  compliance
                       demonstrated after bid opening).
                      85:37  Bradenton. FL (IV, 7-15-85)
                       (ICOS/Hycon) (experience
                       requirements could be cured after bid
                       opening since IFB made it a matter of
                       responsibility).
                      85:45  Newberg, OR (X, 9-11-65)
                       (Contractors, Inc.) (affirmative finding
                       of responsibility will not  be reviewed
                       in the absence of fraud or bad faith)
                       (manufacturers listing and experience
                       of key personnel were matters of
                       responsibility).
                      85:52  Seneca. IL (V. 9-18-85) (Mehta &
                       Associates, Ltd. and Shafer
                       Engineering) (where grantee found
                       bidders nonresponsible due to lack of
                       experience and adequate manpower,
                       EPA will not reverse determination
                       absent showing of clear error or lack
                       of rational basis).
                      85:53  Anne Arundel County. MD (TO,
                       9-27-85) (Allied Contractors, Inc.)
                       (EPA affirmed grantee finding that
                       bidder made good faith MBE  efforts).
                      85:62  Broomfield. CO (VIII, 11-26-65)
                       (Summit Const.,. Inc.) (information
                        developed post bid opening involves
                        responsibility, not responsiveness)
                        (bid may be rejected where owner
                        determines bidder does not intend to
                        comply with specifications) (grantee
                        rejection of bidder lacked a rational
                        basis and was reversed by EPA).
                      85:66   Newport, RI (1.12-17-85)
                        (Peabody N.E., Inc.) (bid documents
                        when read as a whole did not make
                        submission of certificates a matter of
                        responsiveness).
85:69  Anne Arundel. MD (IH. 12-20-85}
  (Johnson Const. Co.) (documentation
  was a matter of responsibility rather
  than responsiveness) (where grantee
  had rational basis for rejecting bid for
  failing to meet MBE requirements,
  EPA upheld the decision).

Responsiveness
85:06  Addison.  IL (V, 1-25-85) (Sollitt
  Const Co.) (bid was nonresponsive
  for failing to list equipment
  manufacturers when IFB clearly
  required it).
85:06  Addison.  IL (V, 3-19-65) (Sollitt
  Const Co.) (Reconsideration) (failure
  to identify intended subcontractor
  rendered bid nonresponsive).
85:23  Unalaska, AK (X. 4-26-85)
  (Rockford Corp.) (bid that failed to
  include  MBE/EEO documentation was
  responsive since IFB did not clearly
  require  documentation with the bids).
85:26  Scales Mound, IL (V, 5-14-85)
  (Smith &• Andrews Co.) (bid properly
  rejected for failing to include MBE
  documentation).
85:37  Bradenton, FL (IV. 7-15-85)
  (ICOS/Hycon) (where failure to
  comply  with bid terms reflect on
  responsibility rather than
  responsiveness they may be waived)
  (in order to be responsive on one
  alternate it was not necessary to
  submit bid on  other alternate).
85:40  Johnson County. KS (VII, 7-25-
  85)  (Martin Eby Const.) (where bid
  conditioned upon prior approval of
  "or equal"  equipment and IFB
  specified it would be evaluated post
  award only, bid was nonresponsive).
85:43  Troup, TX (VI, 9-4-85)
  (McKinney & Moore, Inc.) (bid
  offering equipment that failed to
  conform to the specifications was
  nonresponsive).
85:44   Chariton, LA (VU, 9-9-85)
  (Electrical Control Systems, Ltd.)
  (under prequalification procedure,
  equipment was rejected for failure of
  bidder to submit required information
  and data with its proposal).
85:45   Newberg. OR (X, 9-11-85)
  (Contractors, Inc.) (defined as a bid in
  exact accord with the material terms
  of the IFB) (manufacturer's listing was
  not a matter of responsiveness).
85:46  Monterey, CA (IX, 9-12-65)
  (Mortenson/Xatkin) (where IFB
  clearly  states  that failure to  list
  subcontractors will render bid
-  nonresponsive and WE does not add
  language describing bid rejection, a
  bid which  fails to comply is
  nonresponsive and must be rejected).
85:54  Anne Arundel, MD (III, 9-27-85)
  (Roberts Filter Manufacturing Co.,
  Inc.) (bid offering clay instead of

-------
                  Federal  Register / VoL 51. No. 173 / Monday, Septemoer 8, 1986 / Notices
                                                                      32045
  specified plastic underdrains was
  nonresponaive).
85:55  Little Blue Valley. MO (VH. 10-1-
  85) (Roots Division of Dresser
  Industries) ("or equal" equipment
  must be rejected where it does not
  meet specified design features).
85:61  Jordan. MI (V. 10-21-85) (Veil *
  Co.) (bid was nonresponsive because
  it failed to bid on one of the required
  alternative unit items).
85:62  Broomfield, CO (Vm. 11-26-65)
  (Summit Const, Inc.) (bid
  responsiveness must be determined at
  time of bid opening based on  -
  information submitted in bid)
  (information developed subsequent to
  bid opening cannot be used to
  determine responsiveness) (by
  submitting responsive bid. bidder
  agrees to supply equipment meeting
  specifications and may be required to
  provide different equipment if that
  listed in its bid is determined not to
  meet the specifications) (absent
  prequalification requirement grantee
  need not evaluate equipment listed by
  low bidder prior to contract award)
  (rejection of prime bidder because one
  item of equipment will not qualify as
  "or equal" was not proper).
85:64  August. GA (IV, 12-5-85) (Better
  Equipment Co.. Inc.) (equipment
  failing to meet specifications is
  properly rejected and bidder cannot
  rely on grantee's oral statement that
  led him to believe the nonresponsive
  equipment would be accepted).
85:68  Monterey, CA (DC. 12-17-85)
  fFluor Constructors, Inc.) (failure of
  equipment listed in bid to meet the
  specifications does not render prime
  bid nonresponsive where by its bid.
  bidder has committed to meeting the
  specifications and substituting other
  equipment if necessary).
85:69  Anne Arundel. MD (ID. 12-20-86)
  (Johnson Const. Co.) (MBE
  documentation is not a matter of
  responsiveness unless the IFB clearly
  so states) (documentation was a
  matter of responsibility rather than
  responsiveness) (where grantee had
  rational basis for rejecting bidder for
  failing to meet MBE requirements,
  EPA upheld the decision).
Small Business fSBE)
85:51   Rantoul. IL (V. 9-18-85)
  (American Surfpac Corp.) (bonding
  requirement did not violate SBE/MBE
  policy where several firms obtained
  the required bonds) (grantee
  adequately divided its procurement
  requirements to comply with EPA
  policy).
Specifications
Ambiguous (See Invitation for Bid (IFB))
Brand Name or Equal.
65:39 Lewes, DE (EL 7-19-85) (Mixing
  Equiment Co.) (improper to use brand
  name or equal specifications unless it
  is impractical or uneconomical to use
  other types of specifications)
  (specifications defective for not
  identifying salient requirements).
85:39 Lewes. DE (ID, 8-28-85) (Mixing
  Equipment Co.) (Reconsideration)
  (listing all the specifications of named
  brand is not a proper listing of salient
  features).
85:40 Johnson County. KS (VIL 7-25-
  85) (Martin Eby Const.) (where IFB
  stated that "or equals" would only be
  evaluated after contract award
  grantee improperly accepted a bid
  that was conditioned on preaward
  approval of equipment).
85:49 Frederick. MD (ID. 9-17-85) (HDP
  Co.) (where IFB was ambiguous
  concerning what salient features were
  required, a supplier would be unable
  to determine or demonstrate that its
  product is "equal").
85:55 Little Blue Valley, MO (VIII. 10-
  18-85) (Roots, Dresser) (permitting
  award to supplier whose equipment
  does not meet specifications would
  prejudice responsive bidders).
85:67 Monterey. CA (IX  12-17-85)
  (Dillingham Const., Inc.) (failure of
  equipment listed in bid to satisfy
  specifications does not render prime
  bid nonresponsive where, by its bid,
  bidder had committed to meeting the
  specifications and substituting other
  equipment if necessary).
Competition
85:42 Clenwood and Long Beach. MN
  (V. 8-9-85) ff 8>S Contracting)
  (specification limiting competition is
  not improper unless supplier would be
  unable to determine or demonstrate
  that its product is "equal").
85:44 Chariton. IA (VII. 9-9-85)
  f Electrical Control Systems, Ltd.)
  (requiring equipment supplier to be a
  manufacturer unduly restricts
  competition).
85:51  Rantoul. IL (V, 9-16-85)
  (American Surfpac Corp.) (bonding
  requirement did not violate SBE/MBE
  policy where several firms obtained
  the required bonds) (grantee
  adequately divided its procurement
  requirements to comply with EPA
  policy).
85:58 Pueblo, CO (VIII, 10-11-85)
  (Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (prequalified   -
  supplier cannot protest that
  independent decision of prime to
  substitute another firm harmed its
  ability to compete).
Design
85:43  Troup. TX (VL 9-*-85)
  (McKinney & Moore, Inc.) (basic
  design decision is not protestable).

Local Preference
No Entries.
Minimum Needs (See Performance
Based and Unduly Restrictive)
No Entries.
Nonrestrictive (See Unduly Restrictive)
No Entries.
Oral Statements
85:08  Milwaukee, WI (V. 1-31-85)
  (Kari-Kool Transports. Inc.) (reliance
  on incorrect oral advice given at pre-
  bid conference is not protestable).
85:18  Lake Geneva, WI (V, 3-18-85)
  (Camosy Const.) (Grantee's oral
  statements at pre-bid conference do
  not have force of law and cannot be
  basis for protesting City's subsequent
  responsibility determination).
85:64  Augusta. GA (IV. 12-5-86) (Beiler
  Equipment Co., Inc.) (a bidder who
  relies on  oral statements regarding
  bidding documents does so at its own
  risk).
Performance Based
85:24  Chelan. WA (X. 4-26-85)
  (Walker Process Corp.) (EPA funds
  minimum performance needs, not
  ideal or best design—the
  specifications improperly focused on
  design features instead).
85:44  Chariton. IA (VH. 9-9-85)
  (Electrical Control Systems. Ltd.)
  (EPA rejects arguments that extra
  safety and economic stability factors
  that a manufacturer can provide are
  justified by the minimum performance
  needs of  the project).
85:49  Frederick. MD (III. 9-17-85) (RDP
  Company) (for engineer to specify
  particular equipment he must show
  what is unique about a project that
  justifies it) (must compare operational
  efficiency of various equipment
  performing same task but having
  different  configurations)  (no rational
  performance based reasons given for
  design features).
Salient Requirements (See Brand Name
or Equal]
No Entries.
Sole Source
85:24  Chelan. WA (X. 4-26-85)
  (Walker Process Corp.) (it was
  improper to formally advertise for
  procurement where only one offerer
  was able to effectively compete) (City

-------
32G46
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 1986  /  Notices
  failed to justify need for sole source
  and failed to perform cost analysis).
85:42  Glenwood and Longbeach. MN
  (V, 8-9-85) ff & S Contracting, Inc.}
  (specification allowing a single
  material which can be obtained from
  several sources is not "sole source"
  specification).
85:43  Troup, TX (VL, 9-4-85)
  (McKinney & Moore, Inc.) (equipment
  available from a sole source must be
  procured through negotiation not
  formal advertising) (grantee should
  probably find out whether there are
  two equipment sources before
  deciding to procure as subcontract
  items under formally advertised prime
  bids) (if only one supplier can be used
  by all primes there is potential for
  unreasonable bid prices by the
  supplier).

Unduly Restrictive
85:24  Chelan, WA (X, 4-28-85)
  (Walker Process Corp.) (grantee's
  description of requirements focused
  on design features rather than
  performance characteristics)
  (specification would require
  manufacturers to duplicate
  competitor's design).
85:42   Glenwood and Long Beach, MN
  (V, 8-9-85) (JSrS Contracting)
  (specification limiting competition is
  not improper unless its restrictive  •
  features are not necessary to the
  minimum project needs) (grantee
  explained rational performance basis
  for requiring single material).
85:44  Chariton. IA (VII, 9-9-85)
  (Electrical Control Systems, Ltd.)
  (requiring supplier to be a
  manufacturer is unduly restrictive-1-
  EPA rejects arguments that extra
  safety and economic stability factors
  that a manufacturer can provide are
  justified by the minimum performance
  needs of the project).,
85:49   Frederick. MD (III, 9-17-85) (RDP
  Company) (where protester shows its
                        equipment was eliminated, engineer
                        must justify why particular project
                        needs particular equipment—cannot
                        require more than is necessary for the
                        minimum performance needs)
                        (specification that requires
                        manufacturer to duplicate  .
                        competitor's design places a premium
                        on design rather than performance)
                        (even where manufacturer can
                        duplicate competitor's  design.
                        competition is discouraged).

                      State and Local Law
                      85:14  Washington Suburban Sanitary
                        Commission (III, 2-22-85) (Hycon and
                        Professional Services Group)
                        (although state law gives grantee
                        discretion in matters of contract
                        award, that discretion  is limited by
                        federal procurement requirements).
                      85:20  Leesburg, VA (in. 4-2-85) (James
                        Federline, Inc. and MCI Const, Inc.)
                        (in determining questions of State law,
                        EPA relies on State authorities and
                        will accept a grantee's interpretation
                        of State law unless it lacks a rational
                        basis).
                      85:33  Milwaukee, WI (V, 6-19-85)
                        (Staff Electric Co.) (where grantee
                        waives failure to notarize bid as a
                        minor irregularity and gives legal
                        opinion that State law permits the
                        waiver, EPA will not review the
                        matter where there is no overriding
                        federal interest).

                      Subcontract Award
                      85:44  Chariton, IA (VH. 9-9-85)
                        (Electrical Control Systems, Ltd.}
                        (requiring equipment supplier to be a
                        manufacturer unduly restricts
                        competition).
                      85:48  Frederick, MD (III, 9-17-85)
                        (Dresser Industries) (successful
                        bidder was permitted to substitute a
                        nonprequalified supplier for a
                        prequalified supplier named in its
                        bid).
                      85:57  Pueblo, CO (Vin,  10-11-85)
                        (WesTech Engineering, Inc.)
  (subcontract substitution is matter of
  contract administration, not
  protestable).
85:58  Pueblo, CO (VHI, 10-11-85)
  (Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (prime
  contractor's decision concerning
  subcontract award, substitution of
  firms, is not protestable] (EPA policy
  not to interfere in business judgments
  of primes) (no EPA restriction of prime
  requiring subcontractors to meet
  additional experience, bonding,
  warranty requirements).

Waiver
85:16  Mission, TX (IV, 3-1-85)
  (Envirodyne, Inc.) (grantee used
  unduly restrictive specifications and
  attempted to waive them to accept a
  nonresponsive offerer).
85:21  Wheatfield, NY (LI, 4-12-85)
  (Milherst Const, Inc.) (grantee could
  waive IFB requirement that bids on
  two sections of a project must contain
  identical unit prices since it had a
  negligible effect and no unfair
  advantage occurred).
85:33  Milwaukee. WI  (V, 6-19-85)
  (Staff Electric Co.) (failure to notarize
  bid as allegedly required by State law
  may be waived as minor irregularity).
85:37  Bradenton, FL (IV, 7-15-85)
  (ICOS/Hycon) (failure to comply with
  terms of bid such as certificates and
  forms may be waived and cured after
  bid opening where items reflect on
  responsibility rather than
  responsiveness).
85:38  Clarence, NY (II, 7-18-85)
  (Hydro-Group, Inc.) (failure to sign
  formal acknowledgment of receipt of
  IFB addendum waived as minor
  informality where bidder included a '
  quotation for the additional
  addendum item in its bid and referred
  to the addendum).
[FR Doc. 86-20197 Filed 9-5-86; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE MM SO II

-------
Subject Index
       Appeal  Issues
  PROCEDURAL  APPEAL MATTERS

-------

-------
               BURDEN   OF  PROOF
Burden of proof
84:07  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
    Greater Chicago. IL (V, 2-6-84) (A.J.
    Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind. Inc., and
    Klein Cons. Co.) (grantee burden
    where proposes to award to other
    than low bidder).
84:10  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
    Greater Chicago, IL (V, 3-1-64)

    (Premier Electrical Const. Co.)
    (protester's burden where award to
    apparent low bidder).
84:27  Metropolitan Sewer Diit,
    Cincinnati. OH (V. 7-16-84)
    (Parkson Corp.} (protester moat
    show specification unduly restricted
    it from competition).
8435  Portage Sanitary Bd.. Portage, IN
    (V, 8-31-84) (Cariup Const. Co..
    Inc.) (protester's burden to prove his
    competitor's equipment was not
    equal to brand name salient
    requirements).
84:37  Lewistown. MT (VIII. 9-27-84)
    (Process Equipment Co.) (protester's
    burden where challenges
    application of specification).
84:47  Reelfoot Lake. TN (IV, 11-6-84)
    (Carlon, Inc.) (shifting burden where
    unduly restrictive specifications
    alleged).

Burden of Proof
83:01  Spearfish. SD tVIII, 1-11-63)
  (RickelManufacturing Co.) (grantee
  must prove exclusionary specification
  based on minimum performance
  needs).
83:03  Columbus. OH [Reconsideration)
  (V, 6-6-83) [Cobey Metro—Waste
  Compositing System, Inc.) (grantee
  must prove rational basis for
  experience and bonding requirements
  if protestor shows adverse effect).
83:16  Halstead, Hutchinson, KS (VII. 3-
  9-83) (Charles E. Stevens) (protestor's
  burden to prove intent to bid).
83:27  "Port Arthur. TX (V, 5-12-83)
  (Robert Bossow, Inc.) (bidder failed to
  prove reliance on ambiguity),
83:39  Philadelphia, PA (HI. 8-22-83)
  (Fisher & Porter Co.) (shifting burden).
 83:43  Toledo. OH (V, 6-29-33)
  (Industrial Pump 6- Equipment Corp.\
  (protestor must show specification not
  minimum perfornamce).
 83:63  Monterey CA (IX, 11-4-63)
  (Power Systems) (successful supplier
  cannot prove specifications excluded
  it).
 33:68  Tri-City. OR (X. 13-9-83)
  (Dresser Industries. Inc.) (shifting
  burden where restrictive specification
  alleged did not exclude equipment).
 33:69  Conroe, TX (VI 12-13-»3) (JWC.
  Inc.) (protestor must show prejudice
  to competition).

 Burden of Proof

  81:22  Corvallis, OR (X, 4-10-81)
 (Environmental Pollution Control. Inc.)
 (shifting burden when grantee awards to
 apparent nonresponsive bidder).
  81:24  El Dorado Irrigation District,
 CA (DC. 4-13-81) (Lotus Const.)
 (protestor's, where award to apparent
 low bidder).
  81:33  Lynchburg. OH (V, 4-30-61)
 (Dow Const.) (failure to rebut sworn
 statements).
  81:45   Pasadena. TX (VI. 8-17-82)
 (Parkson) (shifting throughout restrictive
 specification protest).
  81:69   Houma, LA (VI, 8-19-81)
(Hydromatic Pump) (shifting).
  81:80   Sacramento County. CA (IX.
10-2-81) (Westates Carbon Co.) (sole
source procurement—shifting burden).
  81:85  Sacramento, CA (DC. 10-14-61)
(Dredge Masters International)
(grantee's, for determining apparent low
bid nonresponsive).
  8}:106  Gower, MO (VII. 12-29-81)
(Empire Generator) (protestant must
show restrictive specification excluded
it).
  82:20  Baltimore, MD (III, 4-1-82) (}.
Vinton Schafer & Sons) (grantee's, if
rejects apparent low bidder).

-------
               BURDEN   OF   PROOF
                          (CONTINUED)
  82:27  Eveleth. MN (V, 5-3-82)
(Gridor Const.) (protestor's, if award to
apparent low bidder).
  82:37  Culhnan, AL (TV, 7-6-«2) (Cal
Corp.; Encore Corp.; and Drew and
Assoc.) (grantee's, if award not to low
bidder).
  82:41  Abilene, TX (VI 7-27-82) (R&S
Engineering) (shifting on restrictive
specifications).
  82:43  Brockton. MA (L 8-18-62)
(Tenco Hydro) (grantee must show
minimum performance needs) (grantee
must prove untimely appeal).
  82:45  Pasadena. TX (VL 8-17-62)
(Parkson) (protestor must show product
excluded).
  82:49  Dumas. AR (VL 9-7-82) (Hiade
Engineering) (shifting throughout
restrictive specification protest).
  82:61  El Dorado, KS (YD. 11-16-62)
(Oursler Brothers Const) (grantee must
show rational basis for exclusionary
design requirements).
  82:66  Smyrna. TN (TV. 11-29-82)
(Charles Finch Co. and Waterman
Industries) (grantee's, where protestor
proves restrictive specification).

Burden of Proof
  1. OeKalb County. GA (TV, 2-29-80)
(SoutheMt Grading. Inc.) (on procurement
agency in award to other than low bidder).
  2. Cordele, GA (IV. 5-1-80) (Franklin
Aluminum Division/Hoover Universal. Inc.)
(on protester in restrictive specification
claim).
  3. Clarksville, TN (IV. 0-5-80) (Penetryn
Systems, Inc.) (on procurement agency if low
bidder is nonresponsive).
  4. Ashley Valley Sewer Management
Board. UT (Vffl, 11-20-80) (Western Utility
Contractors, Inc.) (on protester to show
violation of procurement principles).

Burden of Proof
1. Bend. OR (X. 5-15-79) (Industrial
  Pump Sales Co.) (burden on grantee)
2. Cleveland Regional Sewar District,
  OH—clarification (V, 12-28-79)
  (Water Pollution Control Corp.)
3. Laurens County, SC (TV, 7-10-79)
  (Carolina Concrete Pipe Co., et al.)
4. Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside, CA
  (K. 7-23-79; errata 9-21-79) (Radco
  Construction, Inc.)
5. Skagit County, WA (X, 5-4-79)
  (Glantz Supply, Inc.)
6. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
  Greater Chicago, IL (V, 10-11-79)
  (Morrison-Knudsen-Paschen)
  (mistake)
Burden of Proof (eg .  § 35 939(8). as well as
subtler issues)

  1  KitsapCount\ Washington IX. 2-3-7H)
(Will Construction Co.. Inc ) where granicc
md\ be dvxardmg to other than low bidder|
  2. Webster. lowd (VII. 2-10-78)
(Environmental Systems Division of George
A. Hormel * Co. Inc.)
  3. Efftngham. Illinois (V. 3-6-78) (Mdutz N
Oren. Inc.) (failure of prime to list line itt-m
prices in bid)
  4  Turloclv. California |IX. J-{>-78) (Ri«.i
Inc )
  5. Southern Clinton Count>. Michigan (V.
8-11-78) (A. Z. Shmina) (for third low b.iddrt
where low prime fails to include all
subcontractor names and prices .it time of biJ
submission)
  6. Toppenish. Washington (X. 10-20-7HI
(Ridge Construction Co.) (burden shifting
from protestant to grantee)
  7. Indidnapolis. Indiana (V. 10-31-78)
(Allis-Chalmers) (non-restrictive specification
protest)


Burden of Proof (§ 35.939(g)).
  1.  Omaha.  Nebraska (VII.  9-14-74 >
(DaLamoster Division—ACCO)
  2. Grand Forks,  North Dakota (VIII.
9-25-74) (Komline-Sanderson)
  3.  Phoenix.  New York  (II.  5-7-76)
(Vincent J. Fasano Inc.)
  4. Round Hill. Virginia (III. 5-13-76)
(Frank  L. Black Jr.)
  5.  Sioux City,  Iowa  (VII.  7-12-76)
(U.S. Enviro-Con. Inc.)
  6. Norwalk. Connecticut (I, 11-16-76)
(Brunalli Construction Co.)
  7.  Fairfax,  Virginia  (III.  4-14-77)
(Concrete Pipe 
-------
                    CHOICE   OF  LAW
State and Local Law
84:05  City of New York, NY (II 2-2-84]
    (Schiavone Const. Co. & Worth
    Engineering, Inc., A Joint Venture)
    (local law unduly restricting
    competition by creating local
    preference is unenforceable on EPA
    project).
84:30  County of Erie, NY (II, 8-16-64}
    [Amadori Const. Co.] (state law did
    not give grantee unlimited
    discretion in determining low
    bidder).
84:53  MSD of  Greater Chicago, IL (V,
    12-13-84) (Moretrench American
    Corp.] (deference to grantee
    interpretation of State licensing
    law).

Choree of Law

A. General
83:34   New  Concord. OH (V. 6-10-83)
  [Adams Robinson Enterprise. Inc.)
  (EPA reliance on grantee
  interpretation of state and local law).
63:51   Santa Barbara, CA (IX. 8-15-83)
  (Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
  Co.] (under State law warranty
  qualification did not negate express
  warranty).
83:53   New  Haven. CT (I. 8-19-63)
  (Blakeslee arpaia Chapman. Inc.}
  (interpretation of local law—
  deference to City's legal opinion).
83:61   Johnston. OH (V. 10-24-83)
  {Zimpro, Inc.) (protestor barred from
  immediate protest where issues
  primarily determined by state law).
83:66  Boston. MA (1.12-&-83)
  (Schiavone Consi, Co.) (deference to
  grantee interpretation where State
  law unclear and no overriding federal
  principle).

B. Local Law
83:07  Oklahoma City. OK (VI. 2-4-83?
  (£>./. Domas, Inc.] (requiring
  submission of duplicate copies of
  birs).

C. State Law
83:05  Morton. MS (IV. 1-25-83)
  (Associated Cos/it. Inc.) (City
  attorney opinion on state licensing
  requirement).
83:13  Sandpoint ID (X. 3-3-83) (Lyding
  Const.. Co.) (listing subcontractors
  required, no overriding  federal
  interest).
Choice of Law

State Law
  81:09   Wilmington. DE (ID, Z-12-81)
(Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley) (grantee may
make price cap matter of
responsiveness).
  81:67   Wanaque Sewerage Authority,
NJ (II. 8-18-81) (A. Cestone Co.)
(correcting bid and displacing low
bidder).
  81:78   Lake County, CA (EC 9-24-81)
(Rickel Manufacturing Corp.) (grantee's
attorney's opinion interpreting state law
supports award).
  82:21   Fallbrook Sanitary District CA
(IX. 4-4-62) (Metro-Young/Lopez Con«U
A Joint Venture) (grantee's
interpretation).
  8222  Goldendale, WA (X 4-18-82)
(IMCO General Const) (state law
 requiring bid rejection when
   82:89  Globe. AZ (DC 12-8-82]
 (Mercury Const, Inc.) (protest
 proceedings governed by local law).

Choice of Law

A. Central
  No entries.

A Fundamental Federal Procurement
Principles
  1. Colfax Public Service District VW (in.
8-29-80) (Salerno Brothers, Inc.) (bid
rejection for failure to acknowledge wage
rate addendum).
  I Alma.  NE (YD, 9-4-40) (William
Anderson Company. Inc.) (bidders advised of
basis for evaluation).

C GAO Decisions—Effect of
  1. Norwich. CT (L 2-1-80] (Fantoni
Company)  (absence of state law).

D. State Law
  1. Mount  Holly Sewerage Authority, NJ (II.
2-6-80) (Neshaminy Constructors, Inc.) (State
Court action).
  2. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago. 0. (V. 2-27-80) (Shea-Kiewit) (post-
award contract daim).
  3. Hastings. NE (VII. 3-7-80) (Horizon   .
Construction Company; Olson Construction
Company) (State Open Meeting law).
  4. Whiteville, NC (IV, 3-28-80) (Astor
Bolden Enterprises, Inc. T/A Quality Sanitary
Services Co.) (contractor bidding license.
number of bids).
  5. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation
District CA (DC. 5-8-40) (Burdick
Contractors. Inc.) (state law on bid mistake).

-------
                     CHOICE   OF   LAW     (CONTINUED)
  ft. Monmouth. OR (X. 8-21-ao) (Chinook
Pacific Corporation) (bid withdrawal).
  7. Colfax Public Service District WV (in.
fr-29-80) (Salerno Brother*. Inc.) (itate law
does not require award to low bidder).
  8. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District.
OH (V. 9-4-80) (D. B. Williams Electric. Inc.)
(relief for bid mistake).
  9. Ashley Valley Sewer Management
Board. UT (VOL 11-20-flO) (Western Utility
Contractors. Inc.) (correction of error in unit
price).
  10. Ashley Valley Sewer Management
Board. UT (VIII, 11-28-40) (Van Staveren
Construction. Inc.) (state license, dollar bid
amount).
  11. Pierce County. WA (X. 12-23-80) (Frank
Coluccio Construction Company) (reversal of
decision to reject bids).
Choice of Law

A. General
1. Newton, IA (VD. 12-8-79) (Municipal
  and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)

B. Fundamental Federal Procurement
Principles
1. Atlanta, GA (IV, 3-21-79) (Fruin-
  Conlon'Corp.) (inconsistent local
  ordinance)
2. Gainsville. GA (IV, 6-15-79) (National
  Hydro Systems, Inc. (II)) (evaluation
  of equipment)
3. Skagit County. WA (X 5-4-79)
  (Glantz Supply, Inc.)

C. State Law
1. Caldwell, ID (X, H-l-79) (Neilson 4
  Co)
2. Detroit, MI (V, 8-29-79) (C. J. Rogers,
  et al.. A Joint Venture)  (availability of
  local share)
3. Detroit, MI (V, 12-11-79) (Pollutech
  Inc. and Glenn E. Wash Associates, A
  Joint Venture) (material deviation
  fromlFB)
4. Detroit MI (V, 12-11-79) (Dynamic
  Construction Co.)

5. Jackson, CA (DC, 7-5-79) (Joseph R.
   Ramos Pipeline Engineering)
   (inaccuracies/irregularities in bid)
*8. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
   Greater Chicago, IL (V, 10-11-79)
   (Morrison-Knudsen-Paschen)
   (mistake)
Choice of Law—General.

  •1. New York City. New York (II. 1-12-781
(Schiavone Construction Co.) (public interest
standard: mistake—bidder intent rule) \\'ote
The determination was affirmed in Schiavone
Construction Co. v. Sumowitz. 451 F.Supp 29
(S.D.N.Y. 1978): aff'd without opinion. 578
F.2d 1370(2dCir. 1978)|.
  2. Kitsap County. Washington (X. 2-3-78)
(Will Construction Co.. Inc.)
  3. Washington County. Oregon (X. 7-31-78)
(North American Contractors Inc.)
(fundamental fairness: need for competition)
  '4. San Francisco. California (IX. 8-9-78)
(Slaltery Assoc.. Fischbach and Moore Inc.
and Morrison-Knudsen Co.. joint venture)
(specification language as controlling—
federalizing local law issues)
  5. Onondaga County, New York (II. 8-23-
78) (Pizzagalli Construction Co. and |ohn W.
Cowper Co. Inc.) (public interest standard:
mistake—bidder intent rule)

  f,  Topponish. Washington (X. 10-20-78)
(Kul^f Construction Co.) (conformance to
boiti slate and federal principles)

Choice of Law—Fundamental Federal
Procurement Principles /see also. Rational
/y,.-'.s- Test'/.

  1  Newcastle. Indiana (V. 5-18-78) (Spencer
] i:rbine Co.) (fair evaluation of subcontract
offers)

Choice of Law—State Law, Applicability of
 • y  5 §  35.936-2. 35.937-5 and 35 939(|)(3|).

  1  Niiigra County Sewer District (No. 1).
\Cw York  (II. 10-18-78) (Environment One
Cnip) (building code approvals)

 Choice of Law—General
  1. Alexandria. Virginia  (III. 4-4-75)
(taxes) (John C. Grimberg. inc.)
  2.  Davpnport,  Iowa  (VII,  4-11-75)
(Lametti & Sons)
  3.  Fresno, California  (IX,  7-10-75)
(Dorfrnan Construction Co.)
  4.     Tahoe-Truckee     Sanitation
Agency. California (IX.  8-21-75) (Jos.
Ramos Co.; and Contri-Hood)
  5. Henry. South  Dakota (VIII. 9-15-
75) (Henningsen  Construction Co.)
  6. Sunnyvale,  California (IX, 12-5-
75) (ABF Contractors)
  1. Clark County (Las  Vegas), Sani-
tary District (No. 1). Nevada (IX   12-
24-75)  (Bovee  &  Crail  Construction
Co.)
 8.  Palmer Lake,  Colorado (VIII, l-
16-76) (Dugan Construction Co.)

-------
  DEFERRAL  OF  PROCUREMENT
  ACTION
 Deferral of Procurement Action (§ 5 35 938-
 4(h)(5) and 35.939(h|) (see also. A^ard—
 Prime Contract).

  1. Harrington. Illinois (V. 10-20-78) (I'lililv
 & Industrial Construction Co.)

   1. Westchester Co.. New York (II. 3-
 3-76) (General Building Contractors)
   2. Lynn. Massachusetts (I, 10-21-76)
 (A/E) (Clinton Bogert Associates)
   3. Rhode Island Statewide Planning
 Program (I. 4-26-77) (§208 grant) (C.
 E. Maguire Inc.)
  4. Jackson. Mississippi (IV, 8-19-77)
(restrictive  specifications) (American
Cast Iron Pipe Co.)
  5. Toms Brook-Maurertown, Virginia
(III. 9-20-77) (National Hydro Sys-
tems)      "
  6. Contra Costa County. California
(IX, 10-25-77) (Armco Steel)
EXHAUSTION  OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDY
 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy
 84:29  City of New York, NY (tt 5-15-
    84) (Terminal Const. Corp., and
    Fairfield Service Company) (appeal
    dismissed where letter to grantee
    did not invoke protest procedures).
 84:38  Town of Westborough. MA (10-
    2-84) (Lynch, et at.} (letter advising
    grantee of contemplated legal action
    does not constitute valid protest).
HARMLESS  ERROR
 Hanntau Error
  81:87 Cridersville, OH (V, 10-16-81)
 (Miami Valley Contractors) (omission of
 MBE guidance from IFB).
  81:90 Chicago MSD, IL (V. 10-27-«l)
 (S.A. HeaJy, et aJ.) (reconsideration of
 81:76) (ambiguous MBE requirements).
  82:45 Pasadena, TX (VL 8-17-82)
 (Parkson) (actual notice of reason for
 rejection not given).
Harmless Error
83:55  Haysville, KS [Reconsideration]
  (VII, 2-14-83) (WalkerProcess Corp.)
  (procedural error by not distributing
  engineer's letter).
83:03  Columbus. OH [Reconsideration]
  (V, 6-6-83) (Cobey Metro—Waste
  Composting System. Inc.) (incorrect
  EPA conclusion that grantee had
  authority to use a sole source.
83:27  Port Arthur. TX (V, 5-12-83)
  (Robert Bossow, Inc.) (where reliance
  on unclear bid evaluation method).
83:36  Bentonsville, AR (VI, 6-14-83)
  (Archer Henry Const., Co.)
  (ambiguous IFB description of bid
  evaluation method).
83:48  Heber Spring. AR (VI. 8-2-83)
  (Trigon Engineering Co.) (no prejudice
  resulted from imperfect bid evaluation
  process).

-------
                  CHOICE  OF  LAW
                      (CONTINUED)
 9.  Huston, Louisiana  (VI.  3-18-76) •
(Allan J. Harris Co.. Inc.)
 10. Concord. North Carolina (IV. 10-
8-76) (Mercury Construction Co.)
 •11. St. Paul  (Metropolitan  Waste
Control  Commission),  Minnesota (V,
12-3-76) (Kvalsten Electric)
 12.  Bradford.  Vermont (I.  3-4-77)
(Cummings)
 •13. St. Paul  (Metropolitan  Waste
Control  Commission),  Minnesota (V,
5-3-77) (Palco; and Kraus-Anderson)
Choice  of Law—Federal Procurement
   ;.;.':,-, Applicability of (§ 35.936-10).
 1 Denver (City), Colorado (VIII, 4-
J'J-74) (Pinkard Donovan)
 2. Englewood and Littleton, Colora-
do  i.VIII, 2-10-75)  (Air Products &
Chemicals Inc.)
 3. Woonsocket, Rhode Island (I, 6-
20-75) (Westcott Construction Co.)
 4. South Portland, Maine (I. 10-7-75)
(Pizzasalli Construction Co.)
 5. Winter  Haven, Florida (IV 11-26-
75) (Griffin Construction Co.)
C/iojcc of Law—Fundamental Federal
   Procurement Principles (.see also,
   Rational Basis Test).
 •1. Monroe.  Washington (X, 1-9-76)
(Will Construction Co.)
 2. Bergen County. New Jersey (II, 9-
28-76) (Wm. L. Crow-Wolff & Munier,
Joint Venture)
 3.  Puerto Rico Aqueduct .
  1. Lowell, Massachusetts (I, 4-1-76)
(United Electrical Contractors)
  2. Lowell. Massachusetts (I. 4-2-76)
(Honeywell Corp.)
  3. Haverstraw, New York  (II,  6-24-
76) (Fletcher Creamer & Son)
  4. Denver (City and County), Colora-
do (VIII, 7-9-76) (Prank Briscoe Co..
Inc.)
  5.  McKinleyville  Community  Sani-
tary District (Humboldt Co.). Califor-
nia (IX, 8-13-76) (McGuire &  Hester)
  6. San Mateo. California (IX,  8-17-
76) (Elmer Freethy)
  7.  Middlesex  (Bound Brook  Pump
Station), New Jersey (II, 6-3-77) (Cam-
penella Construction Co.)
  8. Middlesex (Sayreville Relief Pump
Station), New Jersey (II, 6-9-77) (Ter-
minal Construction Co.)
  9. San Francisco,  California (IX,  6-
20-77) (McKee-Berger-Mansueto)
  10. Sonoma, California (IX. 6-30-77)
(P. C. Jensen)
  11. Cumming. Georgia (IV, 9-28-77)
(NewKirk Construction Co.)

-------
                       JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction
84:02   City of Bemidji, MN (V, l-18-«4)
    (Fiber-Dyne, Inc.) (supplier
    substitution by contractor is not
    protestable as a grantee
    procurement action).
84:08   Western Carolina Regional
    Sewer Authority, Greenvill. SC
    (Reconsideration) (IV, 6-18-85)
    (Ashbrook-Simon-Harttey) (bid
    protest not proper forum for
    disputing eligibility of costs).
84:09   City of Los Cruches. NM (VI. 2-
    27-84) (Mass Transfer, Inc.)
    (equipment exclusion by basic
    design decision, not protestable).
84:10   Metropolitan Sanitary Dist of  \
    Greater Chicago, IL (V, 3-l-«4)
    (Premier Electrical Const. Co.)
    (allegation that bidder cannot
    satisfy specification is
    responsiblity/contract
    administration matter and not
    protestable).
84.38   Town of Westborough. MA (L
    10-2-84) (Lynch, et al.) (refusal of
    grantee to require subcontractor
    substitution is not protestable by
    subcontractor).

Jurisdiction
83:04  Globe. AZ (IX. 1-25-83) (Brown *
  Caldwell) (grantee procurement
  action premature where prior EPA
  approvalof A/E contract not
  obtained).
83:11  LaPorte, TX (VI, 2-18-83) [Jess
  Loveless Const., Co.) (reprocuremnt of
  services after contractor quits job).
83:33  Joplin. MI (IX, 8-6-83) (Advance
  Constructors, Inc.} (summary
  dismissal where protest based solely
  on Federal Procurement regulations
 , not adopted by EPA regulations).
83:37  Central Valley, UT (VIII. 6-17-83)
  (American Surfpac, Inc.) (selection of
  filter media not broad design
  decision—protestable).
83:57  Sod Run. Harford County, MD
  (in, 10-7-83) (CESCO, Inc.)
  (equipment substitution not
  protestable).
83:58   Evanston. WY (VIII10-18-83)
  (WesTech Engineering,  Inc.)
  (equipment substitution by contractor
  not protestable procurement action).
83:61  Johnstown. OH (V, 10-24-83)
  (Zimpro, Inc.) (subcontractor
  substitution by contractor not
  protestable].
83:63  Monterey, CA (IX, 11-4-33)
  (Power Systems) (contract obligations
  not addressable in bid protest).
83:66  Boston, MA (L 12-9-83)
  (Schiavone Const Co.) (violation of
  State law not protestable unless
  contravening federal requirement).

Jurisdiction
  81:01  N.Y. State DEC, NY (IL 1-7-81)
(Sweda Enterprises) (firms representing
other clients not protestable).
  81:05  Puerto Rico Aqueduct and
Sewer Authority, PR (II. 1-29-81)
(Redondo Const) (bid withdrawn
because of mistake not subject to EPA
review).
  81:08  Morgantowrl WV (Itt 2-1-81)
(Clow Co.) (prior EPA approval does not
bar review)
  81:26  Loganviile. GA (IV, 4-14-81)
(Miller, Stevenson ft Steininchen)
(contract termination dispute).
  81:41  Grand Haven. MI (V, 8-5-81)
(Equipment ft Gravel) (procurement of
services beyond grant scope).
  81:49  Los Angeles County, CA (DC. 7-
1-81) (Dresser Industries) (competitor
subcontractor's compliance with
equipment specifications not
protestable)
  81:59  Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission. OR (X. 7-30-
81) (Hyland Brothers Const and Assoc.)
(whether competing bidder will meet
MBE goal not protestable).

  81:64 Loganviile, GA (TV, 8-14-81)
(Flygt Corp.) (personal financial loss not
matter of contract award propriety).
  81:66 Ewing-Lawrence Sewerage
Authority, N] (IL 8-18-81) (Standard
Engineers and Const) (equitable
adjustment claim not protestable).
  81:84 Russian River County
Sanitation District CA (DC. 10-14-81)
(Dan Caputo ft Wagner Const.)
(withholding payment not pro testable).

-------
                        JURISDICTION
                                 UED)
  81:91   Wettem Monmouth Utilities
Authority. NJ (IL 10-29-81) (Parcoa)
(failure to pay contractor not
protestable).
  81:98   Atlanta. GA (TV, 11-13-81)
(Fiiher ft Porter Co.) (contract
performance and administration are
pott-award matters not protestable).
  81:101   Ewing Lawrence Sewerage
Authority. NJ (0.12-14-81) (Neshaminy
Const.) (substitution of subcontractor
not protestable).
  82:02   Rysh-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (EL1-22-82) (R * M Assoc.) (state
approval of similar facilities not
protestable).
  82.-07   Chattanooga, TN (IV, 2-18-82)
(Spencer Turbine Co.) (basic design
decision to use existing structure not
protestable).
  82:23   Passaic Valley. N] (IL. 4-20-82)
(Rochester Pump and Machine)
(subcontractors selection of supplier not
protestable).
  82:24   El Dorado, KS (VTJ, 4-20-82)
(Oursler Brothers Const.) (equipment
rejection matter of.contract
administration).
  82:29   Syracuse. NY (II. 5-18-82) (Bat-
Con. Inc.) (withholding payments to
contractors not protestable).
  82:39   Russian River. CA (IX 7-20-
82) (Dan Caputo Co. and Wagner Co.. A
Joint Venture) (contract administration
dispute not protestable).
  82:42  Philadelphia, PA (TIL 7-28-82)
(Carr & Duff) (failure to negotiate
change order not protestable).
  82:57  Cape May County MUA. N) (II.
11-1-82) (American Bioreactor Corp.
and Fairfield Service Co.) (basic  project
designs not protestable).
  82:61  El Dorado, KS (Vn. 11-18-82)
(Oursler Brothers Const] (jurisdiction to
consider reconsideration request).
  82:84  Shady Spring PSD, VW (HI. 11-
22-82) (Davis Water & Waste Industries.
Inc.) (subcontractor substitution  not
protestable).
 Jurisdiction
  1. Pima County. AZ (IX 2-20-80) (Ameron)
 (change order).
  2. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
 Chicago. IL (V. 2-27-80) (Shea-Kiewit)
 (change order).
  3. Suffolk County. NY (IL 3-3-80) (Davis
 Construction Corp.) (retainage).
  4. Metropolitan Sanitary Disrict of Greater
 Chicago. 0. (V. 3-7-80) (Joint Venture of Pora
 Construction Company and Minority-
 Majority Construction Company) (delay
 claim).
  5. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
 Chicago. Q. (V. 3-27-60) (Herlihy Mid-
 Continent Company) (claims).
  8. Northwest Bergen County Sewer
 Authority. NJ (TL 5-5-60) (Interpace
 Corporation) (contract interpretation).
  7. Portland. OR (X. 8-12-80) (Robbins A
 Myers, Inc.) (change order).
  8. County of Nassau. NY (II. 8-7-60)
 (Komline-Sanderson Engineering
 Corporation) (equipment substitution).
  9. Portland. OR (X 8-7-60) (Robbins ft
 Myers. Inc.) (change order).
  10. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District.
 OH (V. 9-4-80) (D. E. Williams Electric. Inc.)
 (State law as to remedy for bid mistake).


 Jurisdiction

 1. Albuquerque, NM [VI, 2-2-79) (Kent
   Nowlin Construction Co.)
 2. Clarksburg. MA (I. 8-25-79)  (Curran
   Associates, Inc.)
 *3. Conneaut, OH (V, 7-18-79) (Hoff-
   Weston)
 4. Detroit. MI (V, 6-29-79) (C. T. Rogers
   Construction Co., et al., A  Joint
   Venture) (State or local law  question)
 5. Gainesville. GA (IV. 6-15-79)
   (National Hydro Systems,  Inc., (n))
   (by or for the grantee)
 6. Hannibal. MO (VU, 6-7-79) (U.S.
'  Enviro-Con, Inc.) (lack of direct
   grantee involvement)
 7. Howard County. MO (HI, 2-15-79)
   (Water Pollution Control Corp.) (not
   by or for grantee)
 8. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
   Greater Chicago, IL (V. 8-16-79)
   (Troesch Trucking. Inc.)
                                        10

-------
                       JURISDICTION     (CONTtNUED
*9. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
  Greater Chicago, IL (V. 10-11-79)
  (Morrison-Knudsen-Paschen)
  (mistake)
10. Middletown. DE (TO. 9-17-79) (Ml.
  Joy Construction, Co.) (change order is
  not procurement)
•11. Muskegon County. MI (V, 7-29-79)
  (Video Media Corp.) (post
  performance claims]
12. Newton, IA (VII, 12-6-79) (Municipal
  and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.
  (forfeiture of bond)
13. Frederick County. MD (HI. 4-19-79)
  (Conewago Contractors. Inc.)
  (retainage not a procurement issue)
14. Sterling. IL (V. 3-9-79) (Neptune CPC
  Engineering Corp.)
15. Stillwater, OK (VI, 3-1-79) (Robicon
  Corp.) (subcontracts)
16. Suffolk County. NY (H. 9-15-79)
  (Spencer, White & Prentis, Inc. and
  Seatec International. Ltd., A Joint
  Venture) (claims)
Jurisdiction   (§35.939(j))  (but   see.
   System Design; A/E Procurement;
   Choice of Law—State  Law;  Sub-
   contracts; Choice of Law—Federal
   Procurement Law).
  1. District of Columbia (Blue Plains)
(III,  2-20-75) (} 35.9390X5)) (Kenics
Corp.)
  2. Rhinelander, Wisconsin (V. 3-31-
76) (subcontractor selection) (EPCO—
Hormel)
  3. Lowell. Massachusetts (I. 4-1-76)
(§35.939(j)(3)) (United Electrical Con-
tractors)
  4. Lowell. Massachusetts (I. 4-2-76)
(5 35.939(jX3)) (Honeywell Corp.)
  5.  Danville.  Illinois  (V.  4-15-76)
(Honeywell Corp.)

  1. Mountamlop. Pennsylvania (III. 1-5-78)
 (National Hydro Systems. Inc.) (antitrust
 issues subcontract—business |udgmon: inlrl
  2. North Little Rock. Arkansas (VI 2-l-"Hl
 (Emironmentul Equipment Corp ) (subtler—
 grantee involvement)
  '3. Knoxville. Tennessee^IV. 2-ft-78) (Ro\
 F Weston Inc.) (A/E procurement: local
 requirements)
  4 East Bay Discharges Authority.
 California (IX. 2-15-78) (R. D. Smith) (A 'F-
 subagreements)
  5. Turlock. California (IX. 3-6-78) |Ri (Can-Tex)
  •15. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (VI.
5-18-77) (grantee involvement; by  or
for) (Ingersoll-Rand I)
  16. Middlesex (Bound Brook Pump
Station). New Jersey (II. 6-3-77) (Cam-
penella Construction Co.)
  17.   Middlesex  (Sayreville  Relief
Pump Station). New Jersey (II, 6-9-77)
(Terminal Construction Co.)
  18. San Francisco, California (IX. 6-
20-77)   (A/E;    and   §35.939(j)<3)>
(McKee-Berger-Mfensueto Inc.)
  19. Sonoma, California (IX, 6-30-77)
(§ 35.939(JX3)) (P. C. Jensen)
  20. Newton. North  Carolina (IV.  7-
17-77) (project grant  ineligible) (Caro-
lina Concrete Pipe)
  •21. Oklahoma City. Oklahoma (VI.
7-25-77) (grantee involvement; by  or
for) (Carborundem)
  22. Cumming. Georgia (IV, 9-28-17)
(Newkirk Construction Co.)
  •23.  McFarland, California  (IX,  9-
29-77) (grantee involvement; by or for)
(Lagoon Aeration Corp.)
  24. Orange County, California (IX.
11-2-77) (§35.939(j)<5)) (Pentech Divi-
sion of Houdaille Industries)
  25. Loxahatchee River  Environmen-
tal Control District, Florida (IV, 11-3-
77) (Guy Villa & Sons)
  26. Amherst, New York (II. 11-22-77)
(Smith it, Associates)
  27. Bridgewater, New Jersey (II.  12-
2-77) (Lombardo Contracting Co.)
  28. Monterey Peninsula Water Pollu-
tion  Control Agency, California (IX,
12-9-77) (J. M. Bush)
                                         11

-------
                         PROCEDURE
Procedure
84:09  City of Los Cruches, NM
    {Reconsideration} [VI, 2-27-84)
    (A/as* Transfer. Inc.] (accepting
    evidence on appeal unnecessary

    where facts not relevant to issues in
    bid protest).
84:10  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
    Greater Chicago, IL
    [Reconsideration] (V, 4-12-84)
    (PremierElectrical Const. Co.) (if
    protester challenges specifications.
    it must submit copy with appeal).
84:22  Mercer County. NW (IL 5-7-84)
    (RDP Company} (protest
    determination by consulting
    engineer appropriate where acting
    as grantee's agent) (appeal
    defective for failure to include copy
    of grantee's determination).
84:24  City of Leominster. MA (L 6-11-
    84) (P. Gioioso # Sana. Inc.)
    (additional grantee rationale for
    rejecting all bids cannot be relied
    upon on appeal).
84:2B  Riverton, WY (VIIL 7-13-**)
    (Martel Const.. Co., Inc.) (appeal
    filed before improper EPA official
   "may be considered).
84:34  Glens Falls, NY (IL 8-30-84)
    (Dorr-Oliver, Inc.) (under Part 33
    regulations grantee not required to
    afford protester a conference
    hearing).
84:38  Town of Westborough. MA (L
    10-2-84) (Lynch, et al.} (appeal
    dismissed for failure to file initial
    protest).
84:39  Town of Thompson WTF
    Kiamesha Lake Sewer Dist.
    [Reconsideration] (II. 11-1-84)
    (Ultraviolet Purification System,
    Inc.] (appeal dismissed for failure to
    include copy of grantee  decision
    and state what regulations were
    violated).*
84:49  Richgrove, CA (IX, 11-8-84) (El
    Camino Const. Co.) (filing appeal
    with State agency does  not
    constitute valid appeal to EPA).
84 52  Possum Valley, PA (III. 11-9-84)
    (U-Max Engineering & Const. Corp.)
    (appeal  dismissed for failure of
    bidder to file proper  initial protest).
 84:55  City of Fort Lauderdale. FL (IV.
     12-27-84) (Gray Engineering Group.
     Inc.] (where appeal dismissed on
     purely procedural grounds, briefs
     and arguments on the substance
     need not be permitted).

 Procedure
 83:01  Spearfish. SD (VEL 1-11-33)
   (Rickel Manufacturing Co.) (decision
   affirmed for different reasons than
   supplied by grantee).
 83:02  Columbus. OH (V, 1-12-83)
   (Cobey Metro—Waste Composting
   Systems; Inc.) (summary dismissal not
   justified by failure to notice parties).
 83:08  Hamilton. MT (Vffl. 2-8-S3) (4C
   Plumbing.^ Heating. Inc.) (grantee
   duty to afford opportunity to present
   arguments).
 83:13  Sandpoint, ID (X. 3-3-33) (Lydig
   Const. Co.) (appeal premature before
   grantee issues decision) (applicability
   of Part 33 regulations).  '

 83:14  MSD Chicago. EL (V. 3-4-83) (R.
   Rudnick 8- Co.. Inc. Sr Namat Const.
   Co-) (hearing notice).
 83:18  Halstead. Hutchinson. KS (VII. 3-
   9-83) (Charles E. Stevens} (GAO
   decisions used].
 83:22  San Jose. CA (IX. 4-11-83)
   (Johnson Controls. Inc.) (GAO
   decisions used).
 83:23  Jerseyville. IL (V. 4-14-83) Clow
   Corp.) (citing Part 35 instead of Part 33
   regulations cot fatal)  (failure to seek
   prequalification not failure to exhaust
   administrative remedies where futile).
 83:29  Fargo. ND (VIIL  5-18-83) (Van
   Bergen S'Markson, Inc.: The Gray
*   Engineering Group. Inc. Sr
   Conservatek, Inc.) (where IFB
   improperly included Part 35
   regulations EPA applied Part 33
   regulations with same result).
 83:31:  Younstown, OH (V. 5-31-83)
   (Floyd Brown Associates) (new issues
   may not be raised on appeal) (no
   allegation how action violated
   regulations).
 83:37  Central Valley. UT (VDL 9-17-83)
   (American Surfpac, Inc.) (telegraphic
   notice perfecting appeal).
 83:38  Sacramento. CA (VOL 5-17-83)
   (Power Machine Co.) (adequate notice
   where regulations not cited).
                                       12

-------
                          PROCEDURE
                 (CONTINUED)
83:41  MSD. Chicago. IL (V, 6-24-83)
  (Premier Electrical Coast. Co.) (bid
  bond extension during protest).
83:48  Heber Spring. AR (VI. 8-2-33)
  (Trigon Engineering Co.) (few EPA
  restraints on manner grantee decides
  protest).
83:49  MSD. Chicago. IL (V, 8-2-83)
  (Dear Systems of Elk Crave) (grantee
  dismissal for failure to attend hearing
  and present detailed written
  statement).
83:51  Santa Barbara. CA (DC. 8-15-83)
  (Namtec Corp. & Unipn Enginnering
  Co.) (failure to reference regulations
  and notify parties not fatal).
33:81  Johnstown, OH (V. 10-24-83)
  (Zunpro, Inc.) (specific regulations not
  cited).

Procedure

  81:10   N.Y. State DEC. NY (II. 2-13-
81] (Sweda Enterprises) (protest not
stating bases or referring to EPA
regulations).
  81:17   McHenry, IL (V. 3-16-81) (Pio
Lombardo & Assoc.) failure to notify
interested parties having actual
knowledge).
  81:32   Black Diamond. WA (X, 4-29-
81) (Bowen Const.)  (bidder intent to hold
bid open although not formally
extended).
  81:34   San Diego, CA (IX. 5-1-61)
(Westates Carbon)  (small size and lack
of counsel no  excuse for not knowing
and following procedures).
 ' 81:44   Tuolumme County. CA (IX, 6-
11-81) (Chaudhury & Assoc.) (appeal
filed with Regional  Counsel not mailed
to interested parties).
  81:46   San Francisco, CA (IX. 3-27-
81) (Alliance of Minority Contractors
and Suppliers) (failure to notify
interested parties or cite regulations)
(time limit for filing not waived).
  81:58   Ashland, KY (IV, 7-27-31)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (suppliers
appeal period not started by notice to
prime that equipment rejected) (failure
to notify  interested parties).
  81:59   Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission, OR (X, 7-30-
81) (Hyland Brothers Const, and Assoc.)
(no prejudice  from failure to transmit
protest to other parties).
  81:60  East Troy, WI (V. 7-31-81)
(Joseph Lorenz. Inc.) (failure to send
copy of initial protest did not require
dismissal).
  81:89  Houma,LA(Vla-19-81)
(Hydromatic Pump) (detailed initial
protest telegram did not require
additional written protest).
  81:81  Columbus. OH (V, 10-5-81)
(Cantwell Machinery} (omission of legal
report from grantee decision).
  81:87  CridersviDe, OH (V. 10-18-81)
(Miami Valley Contractors) (appeal
bond unnecessary).
  81:100  Harriman, TN (IV, 12-9-81)
(Municipal ft Industrial Pipe Services)
(failure to file detailed protest after
telegraphic notice).
  82:09  Cobden. IL (V. 2-19-82) (R-J
Equipment Sales) (elements of protest
appeal).
  82:10  Sauget. IL (V. 2-19-82) (GHA
Locks Joint Co.) (appeal not made moot
by addendum).
  82:15  Philadelphia, PA (EL 3-16-82)
(Willierd. Inc.) (request for review need
not contain word "protest").
  82:20  Baltimore. MD (m 4-1-82) (J.
Vinton Shafer * Sons) (no reference to
regulation).
  82.24  El  Dorado. KS (VIL 4-20-82)
(Oursier Brothers Const.) (protest appeal
most allege  regulatory violation)
(reversed by reconsideration 82:61).
  82:48  Claremont CA (DC 8-28-82)
(Peter Gavrilis) (summary dismissal of
nonmeritorious-protest).
  82:61  El  Dorado. KS (VIL 11-16-82)
(Oursier Brothers Const)
(reconsideration reversed 8234
concerning necessity of citing regulatory
violation in appeal).
  1. Fall River. MA (L 2-13-80) (Passavant
Corporation) (notice to others).
  2. Anne Arundel County, MD (HI. 2-13-80)
(Sabatini Company) (moot, premature,
readvertise).
  3. DeKalb County. GA (IV, 2-29-80)
(Southeast Grading. Inc.) (authority to award
before resolution of subcontract protests,
notice to others).
  4. ToUeton. AZ (DC 3-17-40) (Hydro
Conduit Corporation) (short notice of protest
hearing, notice to others).
  5. Whiteville. NC (IV, 3-28-80) (Astor
Bolden Enterprises. Inc. T/A. Quality
Sanitary Services, Inc.] (failure to state basis.
notice to others).
                                       13

-------
                            PROCEDURE      (CONTINUED)
  9. Soldotna. AK (X. 4-25-80) (Interstate
Company) (grantee's hearing procedure).
  7. Little Rock. AR (VL4-29-80) (Autotrol
Corporation) (notice to others, raising new
issues at EPA review).
  a Orange County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County. CA (DC. 5-22-80) (Ralph B.
Carter Co.; Komfine-Sanderson Engineering
Corp.) (time limits to present evidence).

Procedure
1. Aberdeen, MD (HI. 9-7-79) (Chemcon,
  Inc.] (no proper protest w/o grantee
  determination)
2. Bardstown, KY  (IV, 1-3-79) (E. H.
  Hughes Co. (I)) (notification of other
  parties)
3. Decatur, Sanitary District IL (V, 2-15-
  79] (Autotrol Corp.) (notice to all
  interested parties)
5. Gainesville, GA (TV, 11-5-79)
  (National Hydro Systems. Inc. (01))
  (EPA de novo review)
6. Greenville. TX (VI, 5-31-79—
  Reconsideration) (Ralph B. Carter Co.]
  (Per Parkson Corp.)
7. Hageretown, MD (El. 1-4-79) (PCI
  Ozone Corp.) (telegraphic
  determination)
8. James Island Public Service District,
  SC (IV, 5-2-79)  (Pyramid Builders.
  Inc.) (telegraphic determination]
9. Macon-Bibb County Water and
  Sewage Authority, GA (TV. 3-16-79)
  (Shirco, Inc.) (telegraphic
  determination)
10. Meridian, MS (IV, 1-15-79)
  -{Mississippi Pump and Equipment Co.)
11. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
  Greater Chicago, IL [V. 8-18-79)  "
  (Troesch Trucking Inc.) (failure to file
  with grantee)
12.Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
  Authority, FL (TV, 4-30-79) (Cobo Co.)
13.Middletown, DE (ffl, 9-17-79) (Mt. Joy
  Construction Co.) (change order not
  procurement)
* 14. Mill Hall, PA (HI. 1-29-79)
  (Municipal and Industrial Pipe
  Services, Ltd.) (failure to prosecute
  appeal)
15. Monterey County, CA [DC, 2-28-79)
   (Monterey Construction Surveys. Inc.)
16. Plainfield, CT (1.12-11-79)
   (Greenman's Trucking. Inc.)  (letter
   full decision to follow)
17. Seaford. DE (III, 1-6-79) (National
   Hydro Systems, Inc.)  (grantee's failure
   to comply with its harmless  error)
18. Simpsonville, KY (IV, 4-17-79)
   (Warner A. Broughman III and
   Associates] (failure to file with
   grantee)
Procedure (!§ 35.939 (a), (b). (I)] (see also.
Burden of Proof: Jurisdiction: Review—
Regional Administrator Authority: Standing;
Sua Sponte Summary Dispositions: Time
Limitations).

  1. Clenwood Springs. Colorado (VIII. 1-13-
78) (Colorado Environmental Equipment. Inc.)
(failure to properly plead protest. §§ 35.939
(c). mmi
  2. Sandusky. Ohio (V. 1-13-78) (Bay-Con
Corp-) (no proper protest  to EPA without
grantee determination)
  3. Gainesville. Georgia  (IV. 1-17-78)
(National Hydro Systems. Inc. and Tuttle/
While Constructors) (bid*bond extension:
mootness)
  4. West Bend. Wisconsin (V. 3-3-78)
(Oliver Construction Co. Inc ) (due process)
  5. Turlock, California (IX. 3-6-78) (Riga
Inc.) (intervention of competitors)
  6 Cldyton County. Georgia (IV. 4-19-78)
(National Hydro Systems. (" d! )
(prirtiupdlinn of an interested p.irty)
  7. Front Royal. Virginia (III. 4-21-78) (I.yco-
Zf) (bid protest process not APA review)
  8. Newton. North Carolina (IV. 4-25-78)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.] (consultant as
proper party)
  9. Cleveland  Regional Sewer District
(Westerly Plant). Ohio (V. 6-14-78)
(McLaughlin &  Associates) (grnntee's
apparent threat to protestant for protest
action)
  '10. Contra Costa County Sanitation
District No. 15.  California—Reconsideration
(IX. 7-14-78) (Gladdmg-McBean Inc. and
Pacific Clay Products Co.) (intervention of
competitors in bid protest proceeding)
  11. Goose Creek. South Carolina (IV. 7-24-
78) (Kenney and Assoc.) (notice of grantee
determination)
  12. Onondaga County. New York—
Supplement (II. 9-7-78) (Pizzagalh
Construction Co. and John W. Cowper Co.
Inc.)
  13. Knoxville. Tennessee (IV. 9-25-78) (R.
B. Carter) (withdrawal)
  14. Grand Rapids. Michigan (V. 9-26-78)
(Infilco Degremont) (access to bids)
  15. Guilderland. New York (II. 10-3-78)
(Clevepak Corp.) (state law claim: exclusive
sales arrangement)
  16. Shreveport. Louisiana (VI. 10-25-78)
(Dumesml Construction Co. Inc.) (protests
withdrawn)
  17. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-31-78)
(Allis-Chalmers) (deadlines for written
arguments)

  18. Fairfield. New Jersey (II. 11-8-78)
(Autocon Industries) (failed to plead case as
required under  EPA regulations)
  19. Portage. Michigan (V. 12-20-78)
(lacobelli Construction Inc.) (no proper
prosiest to EPA without grantee
determination)
                                            14

-------
                         PROCEDURE
CONTINUED)
Procedure (§ J5.939(/» (See also. Stand-
   ing; Time Limitations;  Jurisdic-
   tion;    Summary    Dispositions;
   Burden of Proof; Review—Regional
   Administrator Authority).
  1. Shreveport. Louisana (VI. 6-1-74)
(Section 8 grant) (Mainstay Corp.)
  2. Jacksonville. Florida (IV, 8-12-74)
(protest pre-regulation) (Adrian Con-
struction Co.)
  3. Haverstraw. New York (II, 6-24-
76) (Fletcher Creamer & Sons)
  4. Chatham County (Isle of  Hope),
Georgia (IV.  7-8-76) (pre-bid protest
resolution) (Kyle-Gifford-Hill Inc.)
  5. Denver (City and County), Colora-
do (VIII. 7-9-76) (Frank Briscoe)
  6. Cayce. South Carolina  (IV. 7-18-
76) (Southeastern  Concrete Products
Co.)
  7.  Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester.
South  Carolina  (IV.  7-19-76)  (§208
grant) (Davis  & Floyd Engineers Inc.)
  8.  Boynton   Beach/Delray  Beach
Florida (IV.  10-14-76)  (oral protest)
(Ecological Sen-ices Products Inc.)
  9. Lynn, Massachusetts (I,  10-21-70;
(pre-grant award) (Clinton Bogert  As-
sociates)
  10. Detroit, Michigan (V.  11-10-76)
(Lotepro Corp.)
  11. Waterford. Connecticut (I. 3-9-
77) (Loc Pump and Equipment)
  •12. Dothan.-Alabama (IV. 3-10-77'
(full Regional Administrator revirw. :..
place of Grantee) (Infilco Degremont!
  13. York. Pennsylvania (III, 4-22-77)
(Union Carbide Corp.)
  14. Atlanta,  Georgia (IV, 5-11-77)
(Mayer 
-------
            RATIONAL   BASIS  TEST
 Rational Basis Test
 84:02  City of Bemidji. NM (VV. 1-18-
     84) (Fiber-Dyne. Inc.] (grantee
     determination not reversed unless
     clear error or lacks reasonable
     basis).
 84.07  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist of
     Greater Chicago. IL (V. 2-6-84) (A./.
     Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind. Inc., and
     Klein Const. Co.) (EPA review of
     appeal not limited to arguments
     presented to grantee).

 84:30  County of Erie, NY (IL 8-16-84)
     (Amadori Const. Co.) (rigid
     enforcement of words over
     numerals reconciliation clause
     lacked rational basis).
 84:31  Trumbull County, OH (V. 8-24-
     84) (/? £• K Constructors. Inc..)
     (deference to grantee determination
     that bidder is not responsible based
     on poor past performance).
 84:34  Glens Falls, NY (IL 8-30-84)
     (Dorr-Oliver. Inc.) (deference to
     affirmative determination of
     responsibility based on technical
     evaluation).
.84:35  Portage Sanitary BA, Portage, IN
     (V, 8-31-84) (Gariup Const Co.,
     Inc.] (deference to technical
     decisions of grantee).
 84:40  City of Lancaster. PA (IIL 10-16-
     84) (Parkson Corp.) (bid rejected for
     performance reasons).
 Rational Basis Test
 83:01   Spearfish.  SD (Vm. 1-11-33)
   (Rickel Manufacturing Co.) (no
   rational basis for liquid cooled pump).
 83:18  Perryville, MD (EL 3-21-33)
   (Lyco Wastewater Equipment
   Division) (no performance basis for
   rejecting RBC equipment).
 83:20  Los Angeles. CA (EC 3-28-83)
   (Solar Turbines, Inc.) (engineering
   design to use four turbines).
 83:23  Jerseyviile. IL (V, 4-14-83) (Clow
   Corp.) (for using brand name or equal
   specifications instead of stating
   technical requirements).
 83:28  Sacramento. CA (Vm. 8-17-83)
   (PowerMachine Co.) (defer to grantee
  where it and protester have credible
  cases).
83:41  MSO, Chicago. IL (V. 6-24-83).
  (Premier Electrical Const., Co.)
  (setting period for bid bond
  extension).
83:55  Brazo River. TX (VI. 9-23-83)
  {'Jeffery Manufacturing Div.)
  (technical requirements need not be
  only available choice).
83:62  Wayne. NB (VIL 10-31-83)
  (Envirex, Inc.] (speculation of
  equipment failure) (post ward
  equipment substitution not required
  by subcontractor price—no effect in
  prime's price).
83:66  Boston, MA (L 12-9-83)
  [Schiavone Const. Co.) (interpretation
  of state law).
83:68  TrirCity. OR (X12-9-83)
  (Dresser Industries. Inc.)
  (specifications to achieve uniformity
  in blowers by requiring single
  manufacturer).

Rational Basis Test
  81:18  Clermont County, IL (V. 3-18-
81) (Glenn Rhoades Const.) (EPA
reliance on grantee determination of
state/local law unless no rational basis).
  81:39  Guam PAU (IX. 5-29-81) (John
Carollo Engineers—George Chen ft
Sons) (re-ranking A/E firms).
  81.43  Honolulu. HI (IX. «-ll-«l)
(Hawaii Concrete Products) (vertical
cast pipe vs. centrifugal cast pipe).
  81:58  Ashland. KY (IV. 7-27-81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (design
decision).
  81:61  Southington. CT (L 8-7-81)
(Chemcon) (pump design).
  81:68  Warren County MUA. NJ (IL 8-
19-81) (SchuykUl Products) (materials
limited without test results).
  81:89  Houma. LA (VL 8-19-61)
(Hydromatic Pump) (minimum
performance needs of pumps)
(speculation of maintenance problems
not sufficient).
  81:83  Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority.
PA (III10-13-81) (R&M Astoc] (failure
                                         16

-------
           RATIONAL   BASIS   TEST
               (CONTINUED)

to iubmit test data] (reversed by
reconsideration 82:02).
  81:65  Sacramento. CA (IX 10-14-61)
(Dredge Masters International) (bid
evaluation).
  81:89  Harford County, MD (Hi 10-
19-81) (Sdraylkill Products) (exclusion
of specific manufacturing process).
  81:100 Harriman, TN (IV, 12-9-81)
(Municipal «• Industrial Pipe Services)
(single material grout required by soil
conditions).
  82:01  Bowling Green,  OH (V. 1-12-
82) (DCK Contracting) (limited EPA
review).
  82:06  Tangier. Va (ffl. '2-11-82)
(Ultraviolet Purification Systems)
(experimental design).
  82:07  Chattanooga, TN (IV. 2-18-82)
(Spencer Turbine Co.] (grantee reliance
on engineer).
  8240  Sauget DL (V, 2-19-82) (GHA
Lock joint Co.) (sustain grantee  where
rational basis).
  82:12  Channelview, TX (VL 3-8-82)
(Euramca Ecosystems) (erroneous legal
premise not rational).
  82:17  Lummi Indian, WA (X 3-26-
82) (Walker Processing Corp.)
(deference to engineering judgment).
  82:18  Miami-Oade water ft Sewer
Authority. FL (IV, 3-31-82 (Worthington
Group) (engineer's basis for
specification).
  82:21  Fallbrook Sanitary District CA
(IX 4-6-82) (Metro—Young/Lopez
Const, A Joint Venture) (grantee's
interpretation and application of state
law).
  82:22  Goidendale. WA PL 4-18-42)
(IMCO General Const) (determination
that ambfguity did not give substantial
advantage to others).
  82:26  Akron, OH (V. 5-3-82)
(Environmental Elements] (deference to
technical judgment).
  82:27  Eveleth, MN (V, 5-3-82)
(Gridor Const) (waiving irregularities in
bid).
  82:31  Menominee, MI (V. 6-8-«2)
(Krygoeki Const.) (finding bid to be
nonconditional in spite of alternative
proposal).
  82:34  Monterey. CA (IX 6-24-82)
(Frank M. Booth, Inc.) (specification
requiring use of nickel, minimum
performance needs).
  8238  Fulton. NY (IL 7-18-82) (LOG
Pump and Equipment) (specification
based on minimum needs).
  82:46  Spearfisn, SD (VID. 8-19-82)
(Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co.)
(minimum performance needs).
  82:49  Dumas, AR (VL 9-7-82) (Hinde
Engineering) (minimum performance
needs).
  82:53  Monterey, CA (DC. 9-29-82)
(Frank M. Booth. Inc.) (longevity in
service).
  82:58  Rochester Pure Waters District.
NY (IL 11-3-82) (Schiavone Const./
Cotton Dean Underground Excavation
Co., Joint Venture) (award to low bidder
on highest cost alternate).
  82:68  Smyrna. TN (IV, 11-29-82)
(Waterman Industries, and Charles
Finch Co.) (equipment rejection to be for
performance reasons not physical
differences).
  82.-70  Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission. OR (X 12-
22-82) (Robert Dougan Const.) (rejection
of all bids because equipment not
meeting specifications did satisfy
performance requirements).

Rational Basis Test
  1. East Bay Dischargers Authority. CA (DC.
1-30-80) (Capital Control Company)
(equipment fails to meet salient
requirements).
  2. Fall River. MA (I 2-13-80) (Passavant
Corporation) (no performance related
rational basis for manufacturers only).
  3. Cordele. GA (IV. 4-10-80) (Ralph Healey
ft Associates. Inc.) (no rational basis for
manufacturers only).

  4. Puyallup. WA (X 4-24-80) (Rodding-
Cleaning Machines. Inc.) (rational basis to
require ipecific method of mixing grout).
  5. Orange County Sanitation Districts of
Orang* County. CA (IX. 5-22-40) (Ralph a
Carter Co.; Komline-Sanderson Engineering
Corp.) (high quality specifications had
rational basis).
  8. County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County, CA (IX S-28-80) (Ingenoil-
Rand Co.) (hard abrasive surface for
centrifuge had rational basis).
  7. Vista Sanitation District/Encina Joint
Powers. CA OX 7-30-60) (Don Todd
Associates) (evaluation of engineering
qualifications had rational basis).
  & Ashley Valley Sewer Management
Board. UT (Vm, 11-20-80) (Western Utility
Contractors. Inc.) (correction of unit price
mistake had rational basis).
                                        17

-------
           RATIONAL  BASIS  TEST
               (CONTINUED)

  82:41  Abilene. TX (VL 7-27-82) (R4S
Engineering] (minimum performance
needs itated as manufacturen only).
  82:43  Brockton. MA (L S-16-82)
(Tenco Hydro) (minimum needs
justification).
  82:44  Memphis. TN (IV, 8-16-82)
(B.F. Goodrich Co.) (exclusion of plastic
media bio filter not rational).

Rational Basis Test

1. Atlanta, GA (IV. 3-21-79) (Fruin-
  Conlon Corp.)
2. Caldwell. ID (X. 11-1-79) (Neilsen Co.)
3. Hannibal, MO (VII. 6-7-79) (U.S.
  Enviro-Con, Inc.)
4. Laurens County, SC (IV, 7-10-79)
  (Carolina Concrete Pipe Co., et al.)
5. Detroit MI (V, 6-29-79) (C. J. Rogers
  Construction Co., et al., A Joint
  Venture)
6. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
  Greater Chicago, IL (V, 10-11-79)
  (Morrison-Knudsen-Paschen)  ,
7. Monterey County, CA (K. 2-28-79)
  (Monterey Construction Surveys, Inc.)
8. Newton, LA (VII. 12-6-79) (Municipal
  and IndustriaLPipe Services, Ltd.)
9. Portage, MI (V, 12-31-79) (Tom
  Robinson 4 Son, Inc.)
10. Greenup County. KY (TV. 11-13-79)
  fW. Rogers Co.)
11. West County Agency, CA (DC. 6-28-
  79) (R. D. Smith)

Rational Basis Test (e.g.. 55 35.93ft-2(b).
35.939 (e)(4) and (j)(3)).

  •1. Knoxville. Tennessee (IV. 2-8-78) (Roy
F. Weston Inc.) (A/E procurement—
evaluation of proposals)
  2. Webster. Ipwa (VIL 2-10-78)
(Environmental Systems Division of G«orge
A. Hormel & Co. Inc.)
  *3. Chester. South Carolina (IV. 3-29-78)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.) (selection of
single pipe material)
  4. Clayton County. Georgia (IV. 4-19-78)
(National Hydro Systems Inc.. et al.}
  5. Breese, Illinois (V, 10-18-78) (Midwest
Soil Products and Davco-Defiance) (use for
analysis of equipment item reviews)
  6. Toppenish. Washington (X. 10-20-78)
(Ridge Construction Co.) (either federal or
sidle law)
  7  Concord. North Carolina (IV. 1O-24-78)
(KUC/Enviro Development !nc )
Rational Basis Test.
  1. Hannibal. Missouri (VII. 2-15-74)
(Sammons Construction Co.)

  2. Omaha.  Nebraska (VII,  9-14-74)
^Datarnaster Div.—ACCO)
  3. Gainesville-Alachua * * * Board.
Florida (IV, 7-10-75) (Grumman Eco-
systems Corp.)
  4. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Au-
thority, Florida (IV, 3-11-76) (George
Hyman Construction Co.)
  5. Ruston.  Louisiana (VI,  3-18-76)
(Allan H. Harris Co.)
  6. Lowell. Massachusetts  (I, 4-1-76)
(United Electrical Contractors)
  7. Lowell, Massachusetts (I, 4-2-76—
(Honeywell Corp.)
  8. Phoenix, New  York (II, 5-7-76)
(Vincent J. Fasano)
  9. Chatham County  (Isle of Hope),
Georgia  (IV. 7-8-76)  (Kyle-Gifford-
Hill Inc.)
  10.  Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester.
South Carolina   (IV,   7-19-76) (§208
grant) (Davis & Floyd  Engineers Inc.)
  11.  Sacramento, California (IX,  8-
12-76) (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
  12. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Au-
thority, Florida (IV, 9-27-76)  (Altman-
Mvers Construction Co.)
  •13. Concord,  North Carolina  (IV,
10-8-76) (Mercury Construction Co.)
  14.    Philadelphia.    Pennsylvania
(Northeast Plant) (III, 12-6-76)  (Sov-
ereign Construction Company)
  15.  Bradford,  Vermont (I, 3-4-77)
(Cummings)
  •16. Dothan, Alabama (IV, 3-10-77)
(Infilco Degremont)
  17.  Pasadena.  Texas  (VI. 4-1-77)
(Union Carbide Corp.)
  18.  Sussex, Wisconsin (V. 4-14-77)
(Fischer & Porter)
  19 Rhode Island Statewide Planning
Program (I, 4-26-77) (§208 grant) (C.
E. Maguire Inc. II)
  20. Montgomery, Alabama (IV. 5-11-
77) (Envirotech)
  21. Lynden. Washington (X. 5-16-77)
(Arcomm Construction Co.)
  22.  Ceres.  California (IX. 6-20-77)
 (Inman Inc.)
  24.  Cynthiana,  Kentucky  (IV, 8-11-
77) (Lyco-ZF)
  25. Jackson, Mississippi (IV. 8-19-77)
(American Cast Iron Pipe Co.)
  26.  McFarland,  California (IX, 9-29-
77) (Lagoon Aeration Corp.)
                                       18

-------
                RECONSIDERATION
                  (CONTINUED)
8455  City of Fort Lauderdale. FL
    [Reconsideration] {IV, 12-27-84)
    (Gray Engineering Croup, lac.}
    (summarily dismissed where no
    clear error of fact or law
    demonstrated and protester's chief
    complaint was that EPA did not
    permit him to argue the substance of
    this complaint where it was
    untimely).

Reconsideration

B4.-08  Western Carolina Regional
    Sewer Authority, Greenville, SC
    (Reconsideration] (IV. 2-17-04)
    (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley)
    (summarily dismissed for lack of
    evidence of EPA mistake).
84rlO  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
    Greater Chicago. IL
    [Reconsideration] (V, 1-3-84)
    (Premier Electrical Const. Co.] (EPA
    discretion—will review only where
    determination dearly erroneous)
    (determination affirmed on merits).
84:11  City of New York. NY
    [Reconsideration] (II. 3-5-84]
    (Bristol Babcock, Inc.)
    (determination affirmed after
    reconsideration granted to consider
    merits).
84.26  Riverton. WY [Reconsideration]
    (VIII. 7-13-84) (Martel Const. Co.,
    Inc.) (discretionary review to be
    exercised in limited situations)
    (time limitation for filing appeal
    applies to filing reconsideration
    requests. Request denied because
    filed 21 days after decision issued).
84:32  Bayshore Regional Sewerage
    Authority, NJ [Reconsideration] (0.
    11-1-84) (RAMEngineering. Inc.]
    (affirmed for difference reasons).
84:39  Town of Thompson WTF
    Kiamesha Lake Sewer Dist
    [Reconsideration] (II. 10-16-85)
    (Ultraviolet Purification System
    Inc.] (denied reconsideration of
    merits because of other procedural
    deficiencies in protest).
84:54  Summit County, OH
    (Reconsideration) (V. 12-28-64)
    (Munttech. Inc.) (request denied
    when beyond 7 days after receipt of
    appeal determination).
Reconsideration
8235  Haysville, KS [Reconsideration!
  (VEL 2-14-83) (Walker Process Corp.)
  (affirmed 10-13-62 decision) (inherent
  authority of EPA).
83:63  Elk Pinch. WV [Reconsideration]
  (HL 1-7-83) (Kappe Associates. Inc.)
  (cannot raise new argument based on
  same facts).
83:03  Columbus. OH [Reconsideration]
  (V. 6-6-83) (Cabey Metro-Waste
  Composting System. lac.) (affirmed
  prior decision — no legal error).
83:08  Western Carolina. SC
  [Reconsideration] (TV. 5-6-83)
  (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley) (affirmed
  prior decision].
83:24  Oklahoma  City. OK
  [Reconsideration] {VL 3-23-33)
  (Fiberglass Engineered Products, Inc.)
  (affirmed prior decision — no new
  facts).-
83:37  Central Valley. UT
  [Reconsideration] (Vm. 9-22-83)
  (American Sarfpac. Inc.)  (affirmed
 ' 83:42 — summarily dismissed as
  untimely).
83:44  Streettboro. Ravenna. OH
  [Reconsideration] (V, 8-28-83) (Robert
  Bossow. Inc.) (affirmed prior •
  decision — no legal error shown).

        f ration
  81:03  Pierce County, WA (X, 1-14-
81) (Frank Culuccio Const.) (substantial
error of law alleged) (affirmed 12-23-80
decision).
  81:10  N.Y. State DEC, NY (II, 2-13-
81) (Sweda Enterprises) (affirmed 81:01).
  81:28  Corvallis. OR (X. 4-22-81)
(Environmental Pollution Control, Inc.)
(cannot reargue points previously
discussed and decided or make new
contentions based on same facts
(affirmed 81:22).
  81:32  Black Diamond, WA (X. 4-29-
81) (Bowen Const.) (affirmed 81:27).
  81:52  Buncome County, NC (IV, 7-
17-81) (Carlon, Division of Indian Head)
(no new facts) (affirmed 81:36).
  81:79  Ashland, KY (IV, 10/1/81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (affirmed
81:58).
  81:90  Chicago MSD, IL (V, 10-27-81)
(S.A. Healy Co, et a/.} (affirmed 81:76).
                                      19

-------
                 RECONSIDERATION
                      (CONTINUED)
   82:02  Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
 PA (HI, 1-22-82] (R&M Associates)
 (clearly erroneous law or fact] (reversed
 81:83].
   82:03  Fort Wayne, IN (V, 1-25-82)
 (Bates & Rogers Const.] (affirmed 81:88).
   82:13  Santa Fe. NM (VL 3-9-82)
 (Ranger Corist.) (renewal of same
 arguments) (affirmed 82:08).
   82:53  Monterey, CA (IX. 9-29-82)
 (Frank M. Booth, Inc.] (evidence
 available but not offered) (affirmed
 82:34).
   8258  Russian River, CA (IX 11-1-
 82] (Dan Caputo Co.. and Wagner Const.
 Co.. A joint Venture) (denied where no
 mistakes, new evidence or error of law]
 (affirmed 82:39). >-
  82:61   El Dorado. KS (VD.  11-1-82)
(Oursler Brothers Const.) (legal error in
not permitting protest of restrictive
specifications) (reversed 82:24).
  82:65   Spearfish. SD (VIII, ll-23-«2)
(Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co.)
(affirmed 82:46).
  82:67   Cullman. AL (IV, 11-30-82)
(Cal Corp.; Encore Corp.; and Drew and
Assoc.) (no mistake, new evidence or
legal error) (affirmed 82:37).

Racouidantkn of AdmuiMtrativ*
DetenninanoM
  1. Plma Comity, AZ [DC. 3-17-80] (Ameron)
(denied if issue ii not protntabie).
  2. Checotnh, OK (VL 7-25-80) (Sherman
Machina and Iran Work*. Inc. [Per Lakeside
Equipment Corporation]} (dented if no
material factual mistake, new evidence or
legal error).
  3. Portland. OR (X 8-7-W) (Rabbins It
Myers, Inc.) (decision affirmed when no
material error of law or fact).
  4. Vista Sanitation District/Enema Joint
Powers. CA (DC. 9-l»-80) (Don Todd
Associates) (without new evidence or
arguments, no reconsideration to require MW
RFP rather than new evaluation of prior RFP).
Reconsideration of Administrative
Determinations
' 1. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
  OH-Reconsideration (V, 10-18-79)
  (Water Pollution Control Corp.) (Per
  Norton Co.)
2. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
  OH-Clarification (V, 12-28-79) (Water
  Pollution Control Corp.)
3. Greenville, TX-Reconsideration (VI,
  5-31-79) (Ralph B. Carter Co.] (Per
  Parkson Corp.)

Reconsideration of Administrative
Determinations (but see Finality of
Administrative Determinations: where
appropriate see subject listing in 43 FR 29086-
95 (July 5-1978), for pre-1978 determinations).

  1. Corvullis. Oregon—Reconsideration (X.
l-V.»-rH) (request of City of Corvalh.s)
(dflcrmmdtion of 12-G-77 affirmed)
  2  Ohi'stfT. South Carolina—
Reconsideration (IV, b-2J-ra) (request of
Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.) (determination of
3-29-78 affirmed)
  3. Contra Costa Coiwty Sanitation District
No. 15. California—Reconsideration (IX. 7-
14-7(1] (request pf Gladding-McBean Inc. .nid
Pacific. Clay Hroducts*Co.) (determination of
10_;:r,-78 iiffirmed in part, modified in part)
  4. Onondaga County, New York—
Reconsideration (II. 7-19-78) (request of
Zimprn) (determination of 6-3l>-78 affirmed)
  5 Ni-wtasllu. Indiana—Reconsideration (V.
a-23-7(l) (request of City of Newcastle)
(determination of 5-18-78 and intervening
correspondence clarified as to remedy)

Reconsideration of Administrative De-
   terminations (but see. Finality of
   Administrative Determinations).
  1.  Detroit. Michigan  (V,  11-23-76)
(denied) (Lotepro Corp.)
  2. North Shore Sanitary District.  Il-
linois (V, 2-27-77) (denied) (Biospher-
ics Inc.)
  3.  Delano.  California (IX. 4-15-77)
(denied)  (California Vitrified Clay
Pipe Manufacturers)
  M. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (IV. 9-1-
77) (denied)  (Vito's Trucking «fe Exca-
vating Co.)
  5. Jackson. Mississippi (IV. 10-25-77)
(denied)  (American  Cast  Iron  Pipe
Co.)
                                         20

-------
                     REGULATIONS
Regulations
84:09  CityofLosCruches, NM(V1. 2-
    27-84) [Mass Transfer, Inc.) (Part 33
    not substantive change from Part
    35).
84:13  New Hampshire Water Supply &
    Pollution Control NH (L 3-28-64)
    (Catamount Const, Inc.) (Part 35
    procurement principles apply in
    Part 33 regulations and
    determinations under Part 35 may
    be relied upon u precedent).
84:15  Mattabassett Oist. Regional
    Sewer Auth., Cromwell CT (L 4-12-
    84) (Peabody NJL, Inc.] (regulation
    on listing requirement changed but
    basic principles of Part 35 apply in
    Part 33).
84:18  Town of Milford. MA (L 4-20-84)
    (Euramca Ecosystems, Inc.) (where
    prequalification information
    package and rejection letter
    erroneously cited Part 35 instead of
    proper Part-33, no prejudice caused
    by deciding protest under Part 33).
84:27  Metropolitan Sewer Dist,
    Cinncinnati, OH (V. 7-18-84)
    (Partisan Corp.) (Part 35 improperly
    relied upon in a Part 33 protest
    involving a specific regulation).
84:28  Libby. MT (Vffl. 8-9-84)
    (Transamencan Contractors, Inc.)
    (Part 33 regulations incorporated in
    specifications—grantee decided
    protest under Part 35—EPA decided
    appeal using Part 33 reaching some
    result).

Regulations
83:29  Fargo. ND (Vm. 5-18-83) (Van
  Bergen &Markson, Inc.; Cray
  Engineering Croup. Inc. &
  Conservatek. Inc.) (where IF3
  incorrectly included Part 35
  regulations EPA applied Part 33).
83:46  Palatine. IL (V. 7-19-83) (Di
  Paolo-Rosseiti. Joint Venture) (grantee
  opted to use interim Part 33 by
  reference in IFB).

83:68  Boston, MA (L 12-9-83)
  (Schiavone Const., Co.) (grantee
  indicated Part 33 applied by reference
  in IFB).
                                      21

-------
                     REVIEW   BY   EPA
 Review
  81:12  California SWRCB, CA (IX. 2-
 26-81) (Navas Pipe Supply and Hydro
 Conduit Co.) (review of delegated state
 decision).
  81:31  Gildford County Sewer
 District. MI (VIII. 4-28-81) (Baltrusch
 Const.) (role of EPA Regional
 Administrator).
  81:39  Guam PUA flX. 5-29-81) (John
 Carollo Engineers — George Chen &
 Sons. Inc.) (A/E procurement) (review of
 A/E procurement to insure maximum
 competition and compliance with
 regulations).
  81:74  Tifton. GA (TV. 9-1-81)
 (Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services)
 (EPA review of determination by state
 delegated authority).
  81:87  Cridersville. OH (V. 10-16-81)
 (Miami Valley Contractors) (issues
 raised before grantee only)!
  82:04  Westport. SD (VIII. 2-3-42)
 (H.P. Jacobs and Sons) (role of EPA
 Regional Administrator).

•  82:55  Haysville, KS (VII. 10-13-«2)
(Walker Process]  (on-site maintenance].
  82:16  El Dorado. KS (VII. 11-16-82)
(Oursler Brothers Const.) (chain vs.
cable).

 Review — Regional  Administrator Authorit>
 (see also Procrdtirr: but si-e Sun Spotitp
   1. Sanduiky. Ohm (V. 1-13-70) (B.i> -Ciui
 Corp )
   2. Dret-se. Illinois (V. 10-1U-7B) (Midwest
 Soil Products ,iml n,ivci)-Dt;fi,iru.r) (uoli<>
 diicctionj


 Judicially Directed Review.

   1. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authontx
 Florida— Supplement (IV. 4-28-78)
 (Intercounty Construction Co. and Morg.mti-
 South. Inc. — Wolffs Munier. a joint \cnturc)
   2. Onondaga County. New York —
 Supplement (II. 9-7-78) (Pizzagalli
 Construction Co. and John W. Cov\pcr Cu
 Inc)
Review— Regional Administrator  Au-
    thority (See also Procedure; but see
    Sua Sponte Review).
  1. Englewood and Littleton. Colora-
do  (VIII,  2-10-75) (Air  Products &
Chemicals Inc.)
  •2. Fresno. California  (IX, 7-10-75)
(Dorfman Construction Co.)
  3.  Cleveland  Regional Sewer  Dis-
trict. (Westerly  Plant) Ohio (V, 11-3-
75) (Blount Brothers; Darin and Arm-
strong)
  4. Haverstraw. New  York (II, 6-24-
76) (Fletcher Creamer & Son)
  5. Lynn. Massachusetts (I, 10-21-76)
 CV.r»t.on Bogert  Assoc.)
  6.  Detroit,  Michigan  (V.  11-10-76)
    •".•ro Corp.)

  7. Waterford, Connecticut (I, 3-4-77)
(Loc Pump it Equipment)
  •8. Dothan, Alabama  (IV,  3-10-77)
(infilco Degremont)
  9. York, Pennsylvania (III. 4-22-77)
(Union Carbide Corp.)
  10. Atlanta, Georgia  (IV.  5-11-77)
(Mayer and Associates)
  11. St.  Paul  (Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission), Minnesota (V,
5-24-77) (Eimco-BSP Services)
  12. Cynthiana. Kentucky (IV, 8-11-
77) (Lyco-ZF)
  13. Jackson. Mississippi (IV. 8-19-77)
(American Cast Iron Pipe Co.)
  14. Lower Salford. Pennsylvania  (III.
9-8-77) (Gerngross Corp.)
  15. Gumming.  Georgia (IV, 9-28-77)
(Newkirk Construction Co.)
  16. Cranberry  Township. Pennsylva-
nia (III, 9-30-77) (Bay-Con Corp.)


Remand to Grantee
84:28   Libby. MT (Vin, 8-9-84)
    (Transamerican Contractors, Inc.]
    (on remand grantee given option of
    awarding contract to low
    responsive bidder or due to
    seasonal delay and need for
    additional grant funds City may
    consider rejecting all bids).
                                        22

-------
             SUA  SPONTE  REVIEW
Sua Sponte Review
84:14  City of Texarkana. TX (VI,4-5-
    84) (Eununca Ecosystems. Inc.) (sua
   \sponte review denied where no
    threshold level of showing abuse in
    procurement).
84:26  Riverton. WY (Vffl, 7-13-84)
    (Mortal Const Co.. Inc.) (appeal
    filed before improper EPA official
    considered because of nature of
    issues raised).
84:27  Metropolitan Sewer Diflt..
    Cincinnatic. OH (V. 7-16-84)
    (Parkson Corp.) (restricted to
    protests containing dear evidence
    that competition unduly impaired)
    (not available to protester upon
    reauestl.

Sua Sponte Review
83:01  Spearfish. SD (Vffl. 1-11-83)
  [Rickel Manufacturing Co.] (authority
  to review unduly restrictive
  specifications).
83:08  Hamilton, MT (VIH. 2-8-83) (4G
  Plumbings'Heating,.Inc.] (where
  appeal summarily dismissed EPA may
  review merits to provide guidance).
83:11  LaPorte. TX (VI 2-18-83) (Jess
  Lovelace Const., Co.] (where integrity
  of procurement system at issue).
83:24  Oklahoma City. OK
  [Reconsideration] (VI 5-23-83)
  (Fiberglass Engineering Products,
  Inc.) (experience clause—integrity of
  procurement).
83:41  MSD. Chicago, IL (V, 8-24-83)
  (Premier Electrical Const, Co.)
  (strictly discretionary).
83:80" Tri-City, OR (X10-20-83)
  (Donald M. Drake Co.) (EPA may
  raise issue not addressed by any
  party).
 Sua Sponte Review
  81:08  Morgantown, WV (III, 2-11-81)
 (Clow Co.) (untimely protest, disguised
 sole source specifications).
  81:31  Gildford County Sewer
 District, Ml (Vffl, 4-28-81) (Baltrusch)
 Const, (unstated rejection rationale
 reviewed}.
  81:38  Indianapolis, IN (V, 5-27-81)
 (American Digital Systems) (denied, no
 fundamental principles at issue).
  81:55  Centerville, IA (Vn,7-21-81)
 (Grady Unlimited) (discretionary).
  81:62  Cobb County. GA (IV, 8-11-81)
 (American Bioreactor Corp./BAV)
 (importance of prospective
 procurement).
  81:69  Houma, LA (VI. 8-19-81)
 (Hydromatic Pump) (untimely protest
 exclusionary specifications).
  81:87  Cridersville, OH (V, 10-16-81)
 (Miami Valley Contractors) (issues not
 raised to grantee).
  82:25  Perryville. MD (III 4-28-82) 0-
 Vinton Schafter & Sons, Inc.) (MBE
 responsiveness issues).
  82:44  Memphis, TN (IV, 8-16-82)
 (B.F. Goodrich Co.) (review of single
 material specification).
  82:52  Gwynns Falls Relief
 Interceptors (III, 9-14-82) (R.J. Longo
 Const.) (before grantee decision).

Sua Spooto Review
  1. Cordele. GA (TV. 1-15-80) (Tuttle/White
Constructors, Inc.) (restrictive specifications).
  2. Tacoma. WA (X 4-3-40) (Worthington
Pump Corporation) (bid evaluation).
  3. Moorhead, MN (V. 0-9-80) (Waldor
Pump & Equipment Company) (bid evaluation
on cost and performance basis).
  4.  Checotah. OK (IV. 7-25-30) (Sherman
Machine and Iron Works, Inc.) (decision need
not be based on parties' arguments).
  5.  Toledo. OH (V. T-2S-80) (Minority Earth
Movers, Inc.) (WBE is not MBE).
  6.  Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
OR (X 12-24-80) (Ausland Construction, Inc.)
(MBE efforts).
                                       23

-------
             SUA  SPONTE   REVIEW
                  (CONTINUED)
Sua Sponte Kaview

•1. Albuquerque. MM (VI. 2-2-79) (Kent
  Nowlin Construction Co.) (initial
  review by RA)
2. Atlanta. .GA (IV. 3-21-79) (Fruin-
  Conlon Corp.) (grantee bidder
  qualification practices)


3. Cochran, GA (VI. 9-14-79) (Municipal
  and Industrial Pipe Services. Ltd.)
4. Glenbard Wastewater Authority, IL
  (V, 4-6-79) (USEMCO, Inc.)
5. Jefferson Parish. LA (VI. 3-28-79)
  (Moore, Gardener and Associates)
  (selection criteria for engineering
  contract)
8. Kansas City, MO (VII. 12-20-79)
  (Carney Companies)
7. Mt. Pleasant MI (V, fr-25-79)
  (Collavino Brothers Construction Co.]


Sua Sponle Review (§§  35.935-2 and
35 939(0(6)) (but see Review—Regional
Administrator Authority).

  1. North Little Rock. Arkansas (VI. 2-1-78)
(Environmental Equipment Corporation)
  2. Cynthiana. Kentucky (IV. 2-9-78) (James
N. Gray Construction Co.)
  3. Newcastle. Indiana (V. 5-18-78) (Spencer
Turbine Co.)
  4. Onondaga County.  New York (II. 7-11-
78) (Pentech Division of Houdailte Industries)
  5. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 9-20-78)
(Passavant Corp.)
  6. Grand Rapids. Michigan (V. 9-26-78)
(Infilco Oegremont)
  7. Cuilderiand. New York (II. 10-3-78)
(Clevepak Corp.)
  8. Passaic Valley  Sewerage Commissioners.
New jersey (II. 1O-S-78) (BSP Division of
Envirotech Corp. and Wheatley Corp.)
Sua Sponte  Review (§$35.935-2  and
    35.939(fX6) (see also. Review—Re-
    gional Administrator Authority.
  •1. Bergen County, New Jersey (II.
9-28-76)  (State   law.   competition)
(Wm. L. Crow Construction Co.-Wolfl
& Munier Inc.—Joint Venture)
  2. Norwalk. Connecticut (I. 11-18-7S)
(Regional Administrator remedy  not-
withstanding protest dismissal) (Brun-
alll Construction Co.)
  3. Waterford. Connecticut (I. 3-4-T7)
(continuing  Regional   Administrator
review  notwithstanding protest  dis-
missal-timeliness) (New Ikor II)
  •4,  Sussex,  Wisconsin (V.  4-14-77)
(grantee  Involvement;   delegation to
agent) (Fischer is Porter)
  •5, York. Pennsylvania (III. 4-22-77)
(policy/regulation review) (Union  Car-
bide Corp.)
  8. Parsippany-Troy Hills. New Jersey
(II. 7-8-77) (Frank  Briscoe Co.)
  •7. McFarland, California (IX. 9-28-
77)   (grantee   procurement   rule)
(Lagoon Aeration Corp.)
  •8.  Loxahatchee  River Environmen-
tal Control District. Georgia (IV, 11-3-
77) (contract dispute: reprocuremcnt)
(Guy Villa & Sons. Inc.)

   9. Brick Township. New Jersey  (II.
 11-22-77) (bid expiration, bidder ineli-
 gibility) (P. & A. Construction Co.)
   •10. Bridgewater,  New Jersey (II. 12-
 2-77) (mootness; State law) (Lombardo
 Contracting Co.)
   11. Ramsey. New Jersey (II. 12-2-77)
 (timeliness) (P. & A. Construction Co.)
  12.  Corvallis.  Oregon  (X.  12-6-77)
 (Frank Coluccio Construction Co.)
  13. Passaic Valley  Sewerage Commis-
sioners. Newark. New Jersey (II.  12-
 10-77) (EPA regulatory-policy  review)
(BSP Division of Envirotech Corp )
                                      24

-------
                             STANDING
Standing
84:02  City of Bemidji, MN (V. 1-18-84)
    [Fiber-Dyne, Inc.) (supplier lacks
    standing to protest his substitution
    by contractor).
84:11  City of New York. NY (U. 3-5-64)
    (Bristol Babcock. Inc.) (supplier has
    no standing to protest improper bid
    evaluation).

84:18  Town of Milford. MA (L 4-20-84)
    (Euramca Ecosystems. Inc.)
    (because supplier did not dispute
    A/B's technical reasons for
    rejecting equipment EPA relied on
    A/E judgment).
84:20  City of Decorah. IA (VH 5-1-84)
    (Humboldt Wedag) (supplier lacks
    standing to challenge evaluation of
    prequ alification submittal).
84:29  City of New York. NY (II. 8-15-
    84) [Terminal Const. Corp., and
    Fairfield Service Co.) (prime
    contractor lacks standing to protest
    grantee rejection of specific
    equipment offered after contract
    award) ( subcontractor may protest
    City's negative responsibility
    determination) (experience and
    bonding requirement also at issue).
84:32  Bayshore Regional Sewerage
    Authority, NJ (H. 8-30-84) [RAM
    Engineering. Inc.) (subcontractor
    cannot protest rejection by prime
    contractors caused by their inability
    to evaluate his last minute
    proposals).
84:32  Bayshore Regional Sewerage
    Authority. N] (Reconsideration] (II.
    11-1-84) [RAMEngineering, Inc.)
    (supplier has standing to protest
    bonding requirements but lacks
    standing here because he did not
    submit bid to prime carry enough to
    be considered by prime).
84:38  Town of Westborough, MA (I.
    10-2-84) \Lynch, etal.)
    (subcontractor lacks standing to
    protest grantee's refusal to
    substitute).
84:41  City of Lancaster. PA (TO. 10-16-
    M) [Wyatt Const. Inc.)
    (subcontractor was permitted to
    protest MBE compliance of a prune
    bidder).
84:44  Pepper's Ferry, VA (HI. 10-29-84)
    (RDP Co.) (supplier protest of
    bonding requirement dismissed as
    untimely).
Standing
83:02  Columbus. OH (V, 1-12-83)
  [Cobey Metro—Waste Composting
  Systems, Inc.) (supplier protest
  experience requirements and grantee
  determination of inadequate
  experience).
83:03  Columbus, OH (V, 1-12-63)
  [Zimpro. Inc.) (subcontractor not
  listed by prime lacks direct financial
  interest).
83:08  Hamilton, MT (Vm. 2-8-83) [4G
  Plumbing & Heating, Inc.) (MBE
  snixxratractor offerer may protest
  prime's actions).
83:16  Halstead. Hutchinson. KS (VIL 3-
  9-83) [Charles E. Stevens) (protester
  burden to show intent to bid).
83:18  PevyviUe, MD (III 3-21-83)
  (Lyco Wastewater Equipment
  Division) (RBC supplier may protest
  specifications which prevented prime
  from awarding it contract).
83:22  San Jose, CA (DC. 4-11-83)
  [Johnson Controls, Inc.) (low bidder
  affected by decision to reject all bids).
83:29  Fargo. ND (Vffl. 5-18-63) [Van
  Bergen S'Markaon, Incj The Gray
  Engineering Group, Inc. £•
  Conservatek, Inc.) (subcontractor may
  protest substitution dictated by
  grantee).
83:30   St Albans. WV (ID. 5-27-83)
  (Ralph B. Carter Co.) (subcontractor
  may protest City rejection of its
  equipment).
83:38   Sacramento, CA (IX, 6-17-83)
  [Power Machine Co.) (subcontractor
  protested specifications).
83:43   Toledo. OH (V. 6-29-83)
  [Industrial Pump & Equipment Corp.)
  (supplier alleging sole source) (Part 33
  regulations).
83:51   Santa Barbara, CA (IX. 8-15-83)
  [Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
  Co.) (supplier protested specifications
  and prime's responsiveness).
83:56  Los Angeles. CA (IX. 9-30-63)
  (Bailey Controls Co.) (to protest
  competitor's responsiveness bidder
  must be responsive).
83:57  Sod Run. Harford County, MD
  (III. 10-7-63) (CESCO, Inc.)
  (equipment substitution not
  protestable).
83:58  Evanstdn. WY (VIII. 10-18-83)
  (WesTech Engineering. Inc.]
  (equipment substitution not
  protestable).
                                        25

-------
                             STANDING    (CONTINUED)
83:62  Wayne. NB (VII. 10-31-83)
  (Envirex. Inc.} (prequalified supplier
  may protest grantee directed
  substitution).
83:63  Monterey. CA (IX. 11-4-83)
  (Power Systems) (successful supplier
  cannot protest specifications).
83:68  Tri-City, OR (X12-9-83)
  (Dresser Industries, Inc.) (where
  protester can meet specifications no
  basis for protest).
Standing
  82:06  Oceanside, CA (IX. 1-30-81)
(Bird Machine Co., Inc.) (subcontractor
cannot protest a prime's use of
nonresponsible subcontractor).
  81:07  Albert Lea, MN (V. 2-3-81)
(Pennwalt Corp.) (summary disposition).
  81:19  Phoenix, AZ (DC. 3-27-81)
(TGK Const and MM. Sundt Const)
(second low bidder).
  81:45  San Francisco, CA (IX 10-2-
81) (Hydro Conduit Co,) (supplier/
offeror with ability to compete has
affected financial interest).
  81:46  San Francisco. CA (IX. 6-15-
81) (Alliance of Minority Contractor*
and Suppliers) (association representing
minority subcontractors).

  81:47  Jasonville, IN (V, 8-30-81)
(Hinde Engineering) (equipment supplier
may protest restrictive application of
specifications, may not protest
specifications with which it complies).
  81:49 Los Angeles County, CA (IX, 7-
1-81) (Dresser Industries) (subcontractor
lacks standing to protest competitor's
equipment compliance with
specifications).
  81:58 Ashland, KY (IV, 7-27^81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (subcontractor
protesting restrictive specifications).
  81:59 Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission, OR (X, 7-30-
81) (Hyland Brothers Const and Assoc.)
(entitlement to contract award as
responsive, responsible bidder not
required for filing protest).
  81:64  Loganville. GA (TV, 8-14-61}
(Flygt Corp.] (subcontractors/suppliers
lack standing to protest equipment order
cancellation).
  81:72  Albert Lea, MN (V, 2-3-81)
(Bird Machine Co.) (subcontractors may
not protest substitution by prime).
  81:75  New Castle, IN (V, 9-9-81) (Joe
R. Norman Contractor) (bidder may not
challenge acceptance of performance
bond absent effect on competition).
  81:77  Carrboro, NC (IV, 9-23-81)
(Clevepak Corp.) (suppliers protesting
procurement from nonresponsible
supplier).
  81:92  Hallandale. FL (IV, 11-3-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services;
Interstate Pipe Maintenance; and
Polymer Chemical Corp.) (supplier
challenging single material requirement).
  81:96  Tallahassee. FL (IV, 11-10-61)
(GS&L Mechanical Const and Assoc. of
Minority Contractors) (association
representing minority contractors).
  82:03  Fort Wayne, IN (V, 1-25-82)
(Bates & Rogers Const) (equipment
supplier lacked standing).
  82:09  Cobden, IL (V, 2-19-82) (R-J
Equipment Sales) (standing of
equipment suppliers limited).
  82:29  Syracuse, NY (II, 5-18-82) (Bat-
Con, Inc.)  (withholding payments to
contractor for failure to meet MBE
requirements not protestable).
  82:48  Spearfish. SD (VIII, 8-19-82)
(Sheesley  Plumbing and Heating Co.)
(subcontractor protest of restrictive
application of specifications).
  82:48  Claremont CA (IX. 8-26-82)
(Peter Gavrilis) (city employee allegedly
fired for questioning subagreement
award lacks standing).
  82:49  Dumas, AR (VI, 9-7-82) (Hinde
Engineering) (potential subcontractor
may protest restrictive specifications).
  82:51  Moline, IL (V, 9-21-62) (Walker
Process) (subcontractor/supplier lacks
standing to challenge evaluation of
prime bid responsiveness).

  82:58  Russian River, CA (DC, 11-1-
82) (Dan Caputo Co., and Wagner
Const, A Joint Venture) (terminated
contractor not bidding on corrective   .
work contract lacks standing).
  82:60  Rochester Pure Waters District,
NY (II, 11-3-82) (Schiavone Const. Co./
Cotton Dean Underground Excavation
Co., Joint Venture) ("public interest"
provides no standing).
  82:63  Elk Pinch, WV (HI, 11-18-82)
(Kappe Assoc.) (subcontractor lacks
standing to protest nondiscriminatory  '
performance bond requirement).
  82:64  Shady Spring PSD, WV (HL 11-
22-82) (Davis Water & Waste Industries,
Inc.) (subcontractor substitution not
protestable).
  82:71  Columbus, OH (V, 12-29-62)
(Zimpro) (adversely affected direct
financial interest).
  82:72 Alliance. OH (V. 9-10-62) (R&S
Engineering) (no standing where
subcontractor failed to attempt
prequalification).
                                         26

-------
                             STANDING
               (CONTINUED)
Standing
  1. East Bay Discharger* Authority. CA (DC
1-30-80) (Capital Control* Company)
(supplier).
  2. Tacoma. WA (X. 4-3-80) (Wocthington
Pump Corporation) (supplier alleging sole
source).
  3. Cordele. GA (IV, 5-1-60) (Franklin
Aluminum Division/Hoover Universal Inc.)
(supplier alleging restrictive specifications).
  4. Moorhead. MN (V. 6-3-flO) (Waldor
Pump & Equipment Company) (supplier's
standing can be recognized by RA).

 Standing
 1. Batesville. AR (VL1-12-79) (Hinde
   Engineering Co.)
 2. Clarksburg. MA (L 8-25-79) (Curran
   Associates Inc.)
 3. Concord, NH (L10-4-79) (Bethlehem
   Steel Corp.]
 4. Conneaut, OH (V. 7-18-79) (Hoff-
   Weston) .
 *5. Decatur, AL (IV, 3-2-79) (Johnson
   Controls, Inc.)
 6. Decatur, AL (IV, 7-23-79)
   (International Electric Co.)
 7. Oe Kalb Sanitary District. EL (V. 2-15-
   79) (Autotrol Corp.) (equipment
   supplier)
 8. Gainesville. GA (TV, 8-15-79)
   (National Hydro Systems, (nj).(by or
   for grantee)
 9. Hagerstown. MD (IE 1-4-79) (Pd
   Ozone Corp.) (suppliers direct
   financial interest)
 10. Laurens County, SC (IV. 7-10-79)
   (Caroline Concrete Pipe Co.. et al.)
 11. Macon-Bibb County Water and
   Sewage Authority, GA (TV. 3-18-79)
   (Shirco, Inc.) equipment suppliers
   protesting responsiveness of prime
   bidder)
 12. Meriden, CT (L 10-4-79) (Carter
   Construction Co.) (MBE)
 13. Seaford, DE (m. 1-8-79) (National
   Hydro Systems, Inc.)
 14. SoUlwater, OK (VL 3-1-79) (Robicon
   Corp.)
 *15.Sterling, IL (V, 3-9-79} (Neptune
   CPC Engineering Corp.)

  1. Sandusky. Ohio (V. 1-13-78] (Bay-Con
Corporation) (protest must be decided by
jjrdntee before filing with EPA)
  2. Springfield. Missouri (VII. 1-24-78)
[Armco Steel Corp.) (equipment supplier)
  3. North Little Rock. Arkansas (VI. 2-1-78)
(Environmental Equipment Corporation)
(limited at subtler levels)
  4 Turlock. California (IX. 3-6-78) (Riga.
Inc ) (subtler, intervenors)
  5. Wells. Maine (I. 3-17-78) (Purcell Pump)
(subtler)
  6. Effmgham. Illinois (V. 3-21-78) (Autotrol)
  7. Anligo. Wisconsin (V. 3-24-78) (General
Killer Co.) (supplier challenging
responsiveness of prime bid)
  8. Newcastle. Indiana (V. 5-18-78) (Spencer
Turbine Co.) (equipment supplier)
  '9. Contra Costa County Sanitation District
\o  15. California—Reconsideration (IX. 7-
1-J-THI (Cldddms-McBean Inc. and Pacific
Cl.ty IVoducts Co.) (intervenors)
  10. Lebanon. Pennsylvania (III. 8-28-78) (B.
K Goodrich General Products) (subtler
protest)
  11. Knoxville. Tennessee (IV. 9-25-78) (R.
B Carter) (subcontractor challenge to pnmn
Lull
  12. Brii-sc. Illinois (V. 10-18-781  (Midwest
Soil Products and Davco-Defiance)
  13. Frankfort. Kentucky (IV. 10-18-78)
(Passavant) (subcontractor protest limitation
of § 35.939(j)(6))
  14. West Goshen. Pennsylvania (III. 11-1-
78) (Electric Machine Mfg. Co.) (subtler)
  15. Lake County. Illinois (V. 11-17-78)
(F.nvirex)
  16. Delaware County. Ohio (V. 11-21-78)
|R. B Carter)

 Standing.
   1. Westchester  County, New York
 (I!. 3-3-76) (trr.de association) (Gener-
 al Buildini; Contractors)

  2. Baton Rouge. Louisiana (VI. 11-5-
 76) (National Hydro Systems, Inc.)
  3. Bridgeport. Connecticut (I, 11-22-
 76)  (interested   parties-associations)
 (Connecticut  Engineers   in  Private
 Practice)
  4. Rhode Island Statewide Planning
 Program (§ 208 grant) (I. 3-4-77) (non-
 offeror to  RFP) (C. E. Maguire, Inc.)
  •5. York. Pennsylvania (III. 4-22-77)
 (subcontractor protest of prime award
 issue) (Union Carbide Corp.)
  6. Montgomery, Alabama  (IV, 5-11-
 77)  (subcontractor -  non  -  restrictive
 specifications) (Envirotech Corp.)
  7. Daytona Beach. Florida (IV. 6-21-
 77)  (subcontractor protest  of   prime
 award; accord York, Pa.) (Hydro-Clear
 Corp.)
  •8. Norwalk. Connecticut (I. 7-22-77)
 (no valid bid due  to  price increase on
 bid extension) (Primiano Construction
 Co.)
  9. McFarland, California (IX. 9-29-
 77)  (subcontractor protest of engineer-
 ing evaluation;  vs.  grantee involve-
 ment rule) (Lagoon Aeration Corp.)
   10. Contra  Costa County.  California
 (IX, 10-25-77) (Armco Steel)
  11. Loxahatchee River Environmen-
 tal Control District. Georgia (IV, 11-3-
 77)  (contract disputes; reprocuremenu
 (Guy Villa & Sons)
   12. Brick Township, New Jersey (II,
 11-22-77) (P.  & A. Construction  Inc.)
   13. Monterey Peninsula Water  Pollu-
 tion Control Agency, California (IX.
 12-9-77) (J. M. Bush)
   14. Passaic Valley Sewerage Cormr.:
 sioners, Newark,  New Jersey (II.  12
 10-77)  (Restrictive Specifications—Ex-
 perience) (BSP Division of EnvirotecM
 Corp.)
                                        27

-------
         SUMMARY   DISPOSITION
Summary Disposition

84:22  Mercer County. NW (IL 5-7-84)
    (RDP Co.] (untimely appeal).
84:24  City of Leominister. MA (L 6-11-
    84) (P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc.)
    (untimely appeal).
84:29  City of New York. NY (H 8-15-
    84) (Terminal Const. Corp., and
    FairfieldService Co.] (failure to
    exhaust administrative remedy and
    lack of merit).
84:33  Muncie, IN (V, 8-30-84)
    (Shambaugh & Son, Inc.) (failure to
    submit anything after initial
    telegraphic notice).
84:37  Lewistown, MT (VII. 9-27-84)
    (Process Equipment Co.) (failure to
    file initial protest).
84:52  Possum Valley. PA (HI. 11-8-84)
    {U-Max Engineering Sr Const. Corp.)
    (failure to file initial protest).
84:55  City of Fort Laaderdale. PL (TV,
    12-27-84) (Gray Engineering Group,
    //id) (request for reconsideration).

Summary Disposition
  81:07   Albert Lea, MN (V. 2-3-61)
(Pennwalt Corp.) (untimely, no
standing).
  81:41   Grand Haven, MI (V, 6-5-81)
(Equipment & Gravel] (work beyond
scope of project).              *
  81:63   Honolulu, HI (DC, 8-12-81)
(Nichols Engineering & Research Co.)
(frivolous).
  81:100 Harriman, TN (IV, 12-9-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services)
(failure to file written protest after
telegram).
  81:104 Elizabethtown, KY (TV. 12-18-
81) (Autorol Corp.) (protest used to
preserve restrictive specification for
protestor's benefit).
  82:03   Fort Wayne. IN (V, 1-25-82)
(Bates & Rogers Const.) (appeal
procedurally defective).
  82:39   Russian River, CA (IX, 7-20-
82) (Dan Caputo, Co. and Wagner Co., A
Joint Venture) (contractor claim).
  82:51   Moline, IL (V, 9-21-82) (Walker
Process) (supplier lacks standing to
challenge bid evaluation/
responsiveness).
  82:57   Cape May County MUA, N] (II,
11-1-82) (American Bioreactor Co. and
Fairfield Service Co.) (protest not
frivolous where basic project design not
clear from IFB).
  82:71  Columbus, OH (V. 12-29-82)
(Zimpro) (no adversely affected
financial interest).
  1. AMM AruodeJ County, MD(DL 1-13-WI
(Sabatini Company) (mam or piMiiaUai«
protest).
  2. Pima County. AZ (DC Z-20-80) (Ameron)
(change order).
  3. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago, IL (V. 2-27-80) (Shea-Wewtt) (tait
prica claim).
  4. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicafo. n. (V. $-27-40) (HerEhy Mid-
Conbent Company) (contract claim).
  5. Hudson County Utilities Authority. ffl (a
J-31-80) (EaJlEnjifleeri Limited) (uatimelyi
  a. Moorhaad. MN (V. *-J-*>| (Waldor
Pump & Equip/nun! Company) (lengthy
iubmittals preclude dismissal).
  7. Cecil County. MD (QL t-11-60) (Hanks
Contractta* lac) (uattoely. lack of bid
bond).
  8. Whitewater. WI (V. 9-22-90] (Ntsjb-
  9. Linden Roaatte Seweraf* Aatkortty, N)
(IL 10-31-60) (Euramca Boocyvtaram, tee.)
(untimely).
  10. Qear Lake City, TX(Vl tZ-2B-«B)
-------
          SUMMARY  DISPOSITION    (CONTINUED,
 14. Meriden. CT (1.10-4-79) (Carter
   Construction Co.)
 15. Miami-Oade Water and Sewer
   Authority. FL (IV, 4-30-79) (Cobo
   Construction Co.)

 16. Mill Hall. PA (III. 1-29-79)
   (Municipal and Industrial Pipe
   Services. LTD.)
 17. Plainfield. CT (112-11-79)
   (Greetunan's Trucking. Inc.)
 18. Frederick County, MD (EL 4-19-79)
   (Conewago Contractors, Inc.)
 19. Greenup County,  KY (IV, 11-13-79)
   (W. Rogers Co.)
 20. Rocky Mount. NC (IV, 1-15-79)
   (Enviro Development Co.)
 21. City and County of San Francisco,
   CA (IX 12-20-79) (Chemcon. Inc)
 22. Simpsonville. KY  (TV, 4-17-79)
   (Warner A. Brougnman in and
   Associates)
 23. Stillwater. OK (VL 3-1-79) (Robicon
   Corp.)
 24. Wood County Parks and Recreation
   Commission. WV (HI, 3-15-79) (GAL
   Construction, Inc.)
 25. Worchester County (Ocean City),
   MD (IH 3-14-79) (Charles E. Brohawn
   and Brothers. Inc. (II))

Summary Disposition (§ 35.939(kj).

  1. Mountaintop. Pennsylvania (III. 1-5-78)
(National Hydro Systems. Inc.)
  2. Glenwood Springs. Colorado (Vlll. 1-13-
78) (Colorado Environmental Equipment, Inc.)
(procedures: timeliness)
  3. Sandusky. Ohio (V.  11-3-78) (Bay-Con
Corporation) (timeliness)
  4. Glen Ellyn. Illinois (V. 4-7-78) (Lyco-Zf)
(timeliness)
  5. Atwater. California  (IX. 4-26-78)
(Warren C. T. Wong & Assoc.) (A/E
procurement)
  6. Olympia. Washington (X. 5-30-78)
(Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries.
Inc.)
  •7. Bay City. Michigan (V. 6-28-78)
(Greenfield Construction Co.) (contract 10 D)
(timeliness)
  8. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority.
Florida (IV. 7-13-78) (Ed. L Nezelek Inc.)
("without merit")
  9. Goose Creek. South  Carolina (IV. 7-24-
78) (Kenney and Associates) (timeliness)
  10. Pepperell. Massachusetts (I. 7-28-78)
(Wescor Associates. Inc.) (timeliness)
  11. Bay County. Michigan (V. 8-11-78)
(Frank V. Louis Equipment Co.)
   12. Perms Grove. New [rrsrv (11. 8-24-7H)
 jPiinduIlo Quirk Assou
-------
        SUMMARY   DISPOSITION     (CONTINUED)
  •13. Sacramento, California (IX.  9-
 13-76) (timeliness—restrictive specifi-
 cation challenge)  (Amoco  Reinforced
 Plastics)
• 14. Deposit, New York (II. 10-5-76)
 timeliness—challenged reprocurement
 upon default  of  contractor)  (Albin
 Construction Co.)
  15. Boynton Beach/Delr.ay Beach.
 Florida  (IV.  10-14-76)  (timeliness—
 subtler) (Ecological Services Products)
  16. Concord. North Carolina (IV. 10-
 14-76) (timeliness—subtler) (Air Prod-
 ucts & Chemicals Inc.)
  17. Baton Rouga Louisiana (IV, 11-
 5-76) (business judgment)  (National
 Hydro Systems)
  18. Detroit. Michigan (V,  11-10-76)
 (timeliness—subtler) (Lotcpro Corp.)
  19. Occoquan-Woodbndne (Potomac
 Plant),  Virginia  (III.  11-12-76)  
-------
               TIME   LIMITATIONS
Time Limitations

84:14 City of Texarkana. TX (VL 4-5-
    84) (Euramca Ecosystem* Inc.)
    (appeal dismissed a* untimely).
84:18 Town of Milford. MA (14-20-64)
    (Euramca Ecosystems, Inc.] (protest
    dismissed because received one day
    late. Copy received by A/E did not
    constitute grantee receipt).
84:10 Clinton County, NY (IL 4-90-84)
    (Compost Systems Co.)
    (specifications restrictive on their
    face must be protested before bid
    opening).
84:22 Mercer County, NW (U. 5-7-84)
    (RDPCo.) (appeal received on
    eighth day dismissed as untimely).
84:25 City of Revere, MA (1.6-13-84)
    (Polymer Chemicals, Inc.) (appeal
    received on eleventh day is
    untimely).
84:28 Riverton. WY (VIII, 7-13-84)
    (Martel Const, Co., Inc.) (protest
    appeal alleging impropriety in
    solicitation dismissed when not
    filed before bid opening).
84:27 Metropolitan Sewer DisL,
    Cincinnati. OH (V, 7-16-64)
    (Parkson Corp.) (dismissal where
    protest of restrictive specifications
    filed after bid opening).
84:31 Trumbull County. OH (V. »-24-
    84) (R SrK Constructors, Inc.)
    (dismissed appeal filed 10 days
    after receipt of granted decision).
84:33 Muncie, IN (V, 8-30-65)
    (Shambaugh &Son. Inc.) (failure to
    submit anything  after initial
    telegraphic notice).
84:34 Glens Falls, NY (H. 8-30-64)
    (Dorr-Oliver. Inc.) (dismissed
    appeal received 11 days after
    receipt of grantee decision).
84:37 Lewistown. MT (Vffl, 9-27-84)
    (Process Equipment Co.) (must
    protest prequalification rejection
    prior to bid opening).
84:39 Town if Thompson WTF
    Kiamesha Lake Sewer Dist. (II, 10-
    18-84) (Ultraviolet Purification
    System Inc.) (dismissed appeal
    receive 11 days after receipt of
    grantee decision).
84:41  City of Lancaster, PA (III. 10-16-
    84) (Wyatt Const. Inc.) (initial
    protest filed untimely).
84:44  Pepper's Ferry, VA (in. 10-29-84)
    (RDPCo.) (must protest'
    specifications containing alleged
    unduly restrictive experience and
    bonding requirements before bid
    opening).
84:48  Indianapolis, IN (V. 11-7-64)
    (Becbtel Const. Corp.) (protest of
    specification that required contract
    clause inconsistent with EPA model
    clause dismissed because protest
    was after bid was rejected).
84:49  Richgrove. CA (IX, 11-3-84) (El
    Camino Const.  Co.) (dismissed
    appeal filed with State  agency and
    not received by EPA until 18 days
    after receipt of grantee  decision).
84:51  City of New York, NY (IL 11-8-
    84) (Williams & Lane Energy
    Systems Corp.) (dismissed where
    mailgram not supplemented within
    7 days).

Tuna Limitation*
83:01  Spearfish, SD (Vffl, 1-11-83)
  (Rickei Manufacturing  Co.) (mailed
  appeal must be received within one
  week).
83:02  Columbus, OH (V, 1-12-83)
  (Cobey Metro—Waste  Composting
  Systems, Inc.) (documents must be
  promptly filed following mailgram
  notice and*protest).
83:08  Hamilton. MT (VIII, 2-8-83) (4G
  Plumbing & Heating, Inc.)
  (communications between protestor
  and EPA do not excuse untimely filing
  of appeal).
83:22  San lose, CA (IX. 4-11-83)
  (Johnson Controls. Inc.) (clock not
  started by engineer's communication
  to bidder concerning adequacy of
  equipment).
83:25  Onondaga County. NY (IL 5-9-
  83)  (Herbert F. Darling, Inc.) (appeal
  of post bid determination of good faith
  MBE efforts ripe when  award
  announced).
83:28  Oes Moines, WA (X. 5-18-83)
  (Will Const, Co., Inc.)  (protester's
  burden of proving timeliness).

83:31   Youngstown, OH  (V, 5-31-83)
  (Floyd Brown Associates) (must
  challenge evaluation criteria before
  submitting proposal).
                                        31

-------
              TIME  LIMITATIONS     (CONTINUED)
83:38  Sacramento, CA (IX, 8-17-83)
  (Power Machine Co.) (protest after bid
  opening where specification not
  clearly restrictive on its face)
  (rejection of equipment started clock).
83:39  Philadelphia, PA (ffl. 8-22-83)
  (Fisher * Porter Co.) (good faith
  negotiations delayed dock).
83:40  Elkhart. IN (V, 8-22-83) (Penn
  Equipment & Tool Corp.) (strictly
  construed 1 week).
83:43  Toledo. OH (V, 8-29-83)
  (Industrial Pump & Equipment Corp.]
  (sole source must be protested before
  bid opening).
83:50  Detroit Ml (V, 8-2-83) (Dynamic
  Const., Co., Inc.) (timely where no
  knowledge of grantee intent to award
  to competitor).
83:51  Santa Barbara, CA (IX. 8-15-83)
  (Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
  Co.) (7 days to protest restrictive
  specifications) (nonresponsive bid
  must be protested within 1 week of
  learning of award) (oral notice of City
  Council meeting starts appeal clock).
83:54 Dorchester, MD (111, 9-20-83)
  (F.E. Meyers Co.) (specifications must
  be protested prior to bid opening).
83:55 Brazos River. TX (VL 9-23-83)
  [feffery Manufacturing Div.) (where
  protester reasonably believed
  equipment met 'specifications protest
  may be filed after bid opening).
83:58  Evanston. WY (Vffl. 10-18-83)
  (WesTech Engineering, Inc.)
  (protester risks late delivery of
  express mail protest appeal).
83:60  Tri-City, OR (X. 10-20-83)
   (Donald M. Drake Co.) (telegraphic
   notice received after close of business
   deemed timely).

 83:63  Monterey, CA (IX11-4-83)
   (Power Systems) (protest of
   specifications).

 Time Limitations
   81:01   N.Y. State DEC. NY (II. 1-7-81)
 (Sweda Enterprises) (7 days-from IFB).

  81:08  Morgantown. VW (HI, 2-11-81)
(Clow Co.) (protest 10 days after receipt
of IFB] (sua sponte review granted).
  81:09   Wilmington. DE (IIL 2-12-81)
(Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley) (knowledge
of restrictive specification requires
 protest before bid opening).
  81:23  Tifton, TA (IV, £l3-81) (Astor
Bolden Enterprises, Inc. and Municipal I
Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.) (protest tc
be within week of factual event giving
notice of basis).
  81:25  Hopkinsville. KY (IV, 4-14-81)
(Price, Inc. and Neal Inc., Joint Venture)
(protest within week of constructive
knowledge).
  81:33  Lynchburg. OH (V. 4-30-81)
(Dow Const.) (clock starts on bid
evaluation issue when access to bid
content allowed).
  81:34  San Diego, CA (IX. 5-1-61)
(Westates Carbon) (time limits protect
public interest).
  81:36  Buncombe County, NC (IV, 5-
7-81) (Carlon. Division of Indian Head)
(advance knowledge of restrictive
specifications before bid opening made
protest late).
  81:38  Indianapolis, IN (V. 5-27-81)
(American Digital Systems) (clock starts
on procurement method issue on receipt
of IFB).
  81:40  Memphis, TN  (IV, 6-2-81)
(American Digital Systems) (where  RFP
not in conformity with request for
qualifications must protest week after
proposal meeting).
  81:44  Tuolumme County, CA (IX. 6-
11-81) (Chaudhury & Assoc.. Inc.)
(protest 6 days late, appeal 1 day late).
  81:46  San Francisco, CA (IX. 6-15-
81) (Alliance of Minority Contractors
and Suppliers) (5 days late).
  81:47  Jasonville. IN (V. 6-30-81)
(Hydro Conduit] (each issue's timeliness
considered separately).
  81:49  Los Angeles County, CA (IX, 7-
1-81) (Dresser Industries) (timely filed
three months post bid opening).
  81:54  Monmouth County. NJ (II.  7-
21-81) (Fellows. Read & Assoc.)  (for
protesting short proposal preparation
period).
  81:55  Centerville, IA (VII. 7-21-81)
(Grady Unlimited) (understandable but
inexcusable delay).
  81:57  Newaygo County Board of
Public Works,  MI  (V, 7-24-81] (D.J.
Domas] (one day late).
  81:58  Ashland. KY (IV, 7-27-81)
(Fairbanks  Morse Pump) (notice to
prime that supplier's equipment rejected
does not start dock on  supplier) ( failure
to notify interested parties does not
affect dismissal).
  81:62  Cobb County, GA (IV, 8-11-81)
(American Bi ore act or Corp./BAC) (sua
sponte review after time for protest

-------
                TIME  LIMITATIONS
   appeal) (one week means seven
   consecutive calendar days).
     81:84 LoganviUe. GA (IV. 8-14-61)
   (Flygt Corp.) (Supplier's protest due
   week after letter advising equipment
   would not be used).           '
     81:69 Houraa. LA (VL 8-19-81)
   (Hydromatic Pump) (untimely appeal.
k  sua sponte review of exclusionary
'   specifications).
     81.-70 Tuscaloosa, AL (TV, 8-20-81)
   (Naylor Supply Co.) (receipt of
   determination by law firm, not
   individual attorney, starts dock).
     81:80 Sacramento County, CA (DC,
   10-2-81) (Westates Carbon Co.)
   (restrictive specification protest filed  •
   after bid opening).
     81:81 Columbus. OH (V. 10-5-81)
   (Cantwell Machinery) (receipt by
   counsel is receipt by protestor).
     81:88 Huntsville, AL (TV. 10-5-81)
   (Municipal, & Industrial Pipe Services
   and Astor Bolden Enterprises) (unduly
   restrictive specification exception to
   time limitation).
     81:88 Fort Wayne. IN (V, 10-16-81)
   (Bates and Rogers Const.) (53 days late).
     81:94 Oneida County Sewer District.
   NY (D. 11-4-61) (C.O. Falter Const.)
   (grantee letter interpreting specifications
   starts clock).
     81:95 Fowlerville. MI (V, 11-8-81)
   (Nonnco Const) (verbal notice does not
   start appeal clock).
     81:96 Tallahassee. FL (IV. 11-10-61)
   (GS&L Mechanical Const.; Assoc. of
   Minority Contractors) (timely protest
   after termination of post bid-opening
   negotiations).
     81:99 South Seminole and North
   Orange County. FL (IV, 11-20-81)
   (DeZurik Valve Manufacturing (where
   bidder knew specifications were
   ambiguous, protest must be filed prior to
   bid opening).
     81:104   Elizabethtown. KY (IV, 12-18-
   81) Autorol Corp.) (one week means
   seven days).
     81:105   South Seminole and North
   Orange County Wastewater
   Transmission Authority. FL (IV, 12-22-
   81) (Terra Video) (seven days to protest
   to grantee).
     81:107   Colchester. CT (L 12-31-81)
   (Clark Sewer Const) (dock begins on
   responsiveness issue at bid opening).
  82:03  Fort Wayne. IN (V, 1-25-62)
(Bates * Rogers Const.) (knew or should
have know test for timeliness).
  82:05  Wawarsing. NY (IL 2-8-82) (A.
Ceston Co.) (time not tolled by further
discussions).
  82.-07  Chattanooga. TN (IV, 2-18-82)
(Spencer Turbine Co.) (protestor should
have known specification restrictive
before bid opening).

  82:09  Cobden. IL (V. 2-19-82) (R-J
Equipment Sales) (one week time
limitation).
  82:10  SaugetIL(V, 2-19-82)  (GHA
Lock Joint) (protest of specifications
after bid opening).
  82:12  Channelview, TX (VL 3-8-82)
(Euramca Ecosystems) (interlocutory
grantee decision resolved initial protest
but created grounds for second protest).
  82:19  Mt Pleasant. SC (IV, 3-31-82)
(Bird Machine Co.) (letter denying
prequalification starts clock).
  82:25  Perryville. MD (IIL 4-28-82) (J-
Vinton Schafer & Sons) (constructive
knowledge) (sua sponte review granted).
  82:26  Akron. OH (V. 5-3-62)
(Environmental Elements) (grantee
dismissal as untimely).
  8227  Eveleth. MN (V. 5-3-82)
(Gridor Const) (knew or should have
known).
  82:31  Menominee, MI (V. 6-8-82)
(Krygoski Const.) (knew pr should have
known).
  82:39  Russian River, CA (DC, 7-20-
82) (Dan Caputo Co. and Wagner Co., A
Joint Venture) (supplemental protest
raising new issues).
  82:43  Brockton. MA (1,8-16-82) •
(Tenco Hydro) (grantee has burden of
demonstrating untimeliness).
  82:44  Memphis. TN (TV, 8-16-82)
(B.F. Goodrich Co.) (protest late) (sua
sponte review granted).
  82:46  Spearfish. SD (Vm, 8-19-62)
(Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co.)
(restrictive application starts clock).
  82:47  Bedford Heights. OH (V. 8-20-
82) (Suburban Power Piping, et a/.)
(knew or should have known).
  82:54  Palm Beach. FL (IV. 10-7-82)
(Polymer Chemical Co.).
  82*0  Rochester Pure Waters District
NY (II. ll-3-82>(Schiavone Const. Co./
Cotton Dean Underground Excavation
Co.. Joint Venture) (clear manifestation
starts clock].
                                          33

-------
                TIME   LIMITATIONS
  82:64   Shady Spring PSD, WV (HI. 11-
22-82) (Davis Water & Waste Industries)
(where negotiation letters and requests
for clarification, grantee reply needed
before protestable).
  82:88   Atwood. OH (V, 12-1-82)
(Munitech] (waiver of deviation from
specifications) (appeal filed with EPA 5
days late).
  1. Cordele, GA (IV. 1-15-*)) (Tuttbt/WUta
Constructors Inc.) (written notice to supplier
of rejection).
  2. Fall River. MA (L 2-13-80) (Pasnvut
Corporation) (delay aggravated by grantee
and EPA).
  3. Hudson County Utilities Authority. N] (0.
3-31-80) (EAR Engineer* Limited) (one week
to protest and to appeal).
  4. Tacoma. WA (X 4-3-40) (Worthington
Pump Corporation) (oral notice of rejection).
  5. Little Rock. AR (VT. 4-29-40) (Autotrol
Corporation) (before bid opening).
  6. Rochester, MN (V. 7-24-80) (Darin ft
Armstrong. Ino: Krau*-Anderson/PMW
Construction: Newberg, Foster ft Paschem;
Premier Electric Construction) (notice).
  7. Toledo. OH (V. 7-28-80) (Minority Earth
Movers. Inc.) (seeking clarification before
Cling protest).
  8. Rockford. MI (V, 8-1-80) (Nagle
Construction. Inc.: Interstate Pipe
Maintenance, Inc.: Qytus Industries. Inc.)
(RA refusal to waive one week appeal limit).
  9. Cecil County, MD. (IE. 8-11-80) (Hanks
Contracting. Inc.) (one week to appeal to RA).
  10. Marquette County. MI (V. 8-14-80)
(Brumm Construction Company; O'Dovero
Construction Company) (prompt action on
actual knowledge).
  11. Whitewater. WI (V. 0-22-80) (Nage-
Hart, Inc.) (59 days after bid opening).
  12. Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority, N)
ID. 10-31-80) (Euramca Ecosystems. Inc.)
(appeal one month after grantee
determination).
  13. Dorchester County Sanitary
Commission. MD (IIL 11-5-80) (Andrews.
Miller and Associates. Inc.) (9 days after
grantee determination).
  14. Newaygo County Board of Public
 Works. MI (V. 11-7-80) (D. J. Domas. Inc.)
 (failure to file detailed statement).
  15. Bear. Creek Valley Sanitary Authority,
OR (X. 12-24-80) (Ausland Construction, Inc.)
(8 days after bid  opening).
 Time Limitations
 1. Atlanta, GA (IV, 3-21-79) (Fruin-
   Conlon Corp.)
 2. Chattanooga. TN (IV, 3-27-79)
   (Performance Systems, Inc.)
 3. Concord. NH (L 10-4-79) (Bethlehem
   Steel Corp.)
 4. Danville. KY (IV. 10-26-79) (Andrew
   Enterprises, Inc.)
 *5. Decatur. AL (IV, 3-2-79) (Johnson
   Controls, Inc.)
 6. De Kalb Sanitary District. IL (V, 2-15-
   79) (Autotrol Corp.)
 7. Detroit MI (V, 12-11-79) (Pollutech.
   Inc. and Glenn E. Wash Associates, A
   Joint Venture)
 8. Howard County, MD (TO, 2-15-79)
   (Water Pollution Control Corp.)
 9. Kansas City. MO (VII. 12-20-79)
   (Gamey Companies, Inc.) (exception
   to specifications)
 10. Laurens County, SC (IV, 7-10-79)
   (Carolina Concrete Pipe Co., et al.)
   (pipe specifications)
 11. Meridan. MS (IV. 1-15-79)
   (Mississippi  Pump and Equipment Co..
.   Inc.)
 12. Meriden, CT (I, lO-i-79) (Carter
   Construction Co.]
 13. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
   Greater Chicago, IL (V. 8-18-79)
   (Troesch Trucking Inc.)
 14. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
   Authority, FL (IV, 4-30-79) (Cobo Co.,
   Inc.)
 15. Passaic Valley Sewerage
   Commissioners, NJ ( n, 4-18-79)
   (Passavant Corp.)

 18. Plainfield. CT (1,12-11-79)
   (Greenman's Trucking, Inc.)
 17. Rocky Mount, NC (IV. 1-15-79)
   (Enviro Development Co.)
 18. City and County of San Francisco,
   CA (DC, 12-20-79) (Chemcon, Inc.)
 19. Simpsonville. KY (IV, 4-17-79)
   (Warner A. Broughman m and
   Associates)
 20. Stillwater, OK (VI, 3-1-79) (Robicon,
   Corp.)
 21. Worchester County (Ocean City),
   MD (m. 3-14-79) (Charles E. Brohawn
   and Brothers, Inc.
                                        34

-------
                TIME   LIMITATIONS
Time Limitations (§§ 35.939(b). (f)l
  1. Clenwood Springs. Colorado (VI11. 1-13-
78) (Colorado Environmental Equipment Inc )
  2. Sandusky, Ohio (V. 1-13-78) (Bay-Con
Corporation)
  3. North Little Rock. Arkansas (VI, 2-1-78)
(Environmental Equipment Corp.)
  4. Cynthiana. Kentucky (IV, 2-9-78) (lames
N. Gray Construction Co.) (Post Office delay:
risk of nondelivery)
  5. Chicago (Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago). Illinois (V. 3-12-78)
(Howard Martin Construction)
  6. Wells. Maine (1. 3-17-78) (Purcell Pump)
  7. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-21-78) (Autotrol)
  8. San Francisco. California (IX. 3-22-78) (E
& I. Inc.)
  9. Glen Ellyn. Illinois (V. 4-7-78) (Lyco-Zf)
(post-contract award)
  "10. Mt. Olive. North Carolina (IV, 5-18-78)
(Lyco-Zf) (prequalification)
  11. Newcastle. Indiana (V. 5-18-78)
(Spencer Turbine Co.)
  12. Waterford. Connecticut (I. 5-19-78)
(Mulholland Construction Co.)
  13. Bay City. Michigan (V, 6-28-78)
(Greenfield Construction Co.) (Contract No.
10 D)
  14. Urbana-Champaign. Illinois (V, 6-30-78)
(Paddock Refimte]
  15. Washtenaw County, Michigan (V, 7-13-
78) (Spence Bros.)
  16. Goose  Creek. South Carolina (IV. 7-24-
78) (Kenney  and Associates)
  17. Pepperell, Massachusetts (I. 7-28-78)
(Wescor Associates, Inc.)
  18. Washington County. Oregon (X. 7-31-
78) (North American Contractors Inc.)

  19. Bay County. Michigan (V, 8-11-78)
(Frank V. Louis Equipment Co.) (Contract No.
D
  20. Penns Grove. New Jersey (It 8-24-78)
(Pandullo Quirk Association)
  21. Oklahoma City. Oklahoma (VI. 8-25-78)
(Automatic Engineering Inc.) (subcontract
•ward]
  22. Lebanon. Pennsylvania (III. 8-28-78) (B.
F. Goodrich  General Products) (change order
as notice event)
  23. Bay County. Michigan (V. 9-1-78)
(Roese Contracting Co. Inc.) (Contract Nos. 3
and 7)
  24. Hintdale. New Hampshire (1. 9-1-78)
(Enviro Development Co. Inc.)
  •25. Bay County. Michigan (V. 9-12-78)
(Roese Contracting Co. Inc.) (Contract No. 1-
D)
  28. Grand  Rapid*. Michigan (V. 9-28-78)
(Infilco Dcgremont) (method of delivery:
bearing risk telegram)
  27. Guilderland. New York (IL 10-3-78)
(Clevepak Corp.)
   *28. Passaic Valley Sewerage
 Commissioners. New Jersey (II. 10-5-78) (BSP
 Division of Envirotech Corp, and Wheatley
 Corp.) (estoppel)
   29. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-6-78) (FMC
 Corp.)
   30. Silver City. New Mexico (VL 10-13-78)
 Enviro Development Co. Inc.)
   31. Breese. Illinois (V. 10-18-78) (Midwest
 Soil Products and Davco-Definance)
   32. Frankfort Kentucky (IV. 10-20-78)
 (Stewart Mechanical Enter./Sigmamotor Inc.)
 (subtier level protest)
   *33. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-31-78)
 (Allis-Chalmers) (linkage to proceeding
 contracts: estoppel) (see Passaic  Valley
 Sewerage Commissioners, New Jersey (II. 10-
 5-78) (BSP Division of Envirotech corp. and
 Wheatley Corp.))
   34. Urbana-Champaign. Illinois (V. 11-0-78)
 (Norton Co.)
   35. Lake County. Illinois (V. 11-17-78)
 (Envirex)          *
   36. Delaware County. Ohio (V. 11-21-78)
 (R. B. Carter)
 rime Limitations (§ 35.939(b)).
   1. Denver. (City) Colorado (VHX, 4-
 22-74) (waiver, reversed by new regula-
 tions) (Pinkard Donovan)
   2. Hudson. Wyoming  (VIXX, 8-1-74)
 (Environmental Equipment)
   3. Omaha, Nebraska (VTJ, 9-14-74)
 (Datamaster Dlv.—ACCO)
   4. Henry. South Dakota (VXXX. 9-15-
 75) (Henningsen)
   5. Oregon. Ohio (V. 11-6-75) (timeli-
 ness  as  jurisdlctional)  (Ohio Control
 Systems)
   6. Sunnyvale,  California'(IX, 12-5-
 75) (oral protest—revised by new regu-
 lations) (ABP Contractors)
   7.   Butler  County  (LeSourdesville
 Plant).  Ohio  (V,  1-7-78)  (restrictive
 specifications—subtier—grantee  final-
 ity rule) (EPCO—Hormel)
   •8. Spokane. Washington (X. 1-9-76)
 (restrictive specifications—grantee fi-
 nality rule) (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
   9. Palmer Lake. Colorado  (VIII,  1-
 16-76) (grantee  finality rule) (Dugan
 Construction Co.)
=-_ 10. Predonia, New York OX. 4-15-76)
 (Tenco Hydro-Aerosciences)
  Ul.  Denver (City and County). Colo-
 rado (VIII, 7-9-76) (Frank Briscoe)
   12.  Hancock, Michigan (V. 7-12-76)
 (grantee decision to use  negotiated
 procurement) (Maclean  Construction
 Co.)
                                        35

-------
                 TIME   LIMITATIONS
  •13. Sacramento, California (IX, 9-9-
76)    (restrictive    specifications—or
equal—grantee's finality)  (Air  Prod-
ucts te Chemicals Inc.)
  '14.  Sacramento. California (IX, 9-
13-76)  (restrictive  specifications—or
equal—grantee's finality) (Amoco  Re-
inforced Plastics)
  •IS.  North Shore Sanitary District.
Illinois (V. 9-28-76) (restrictive specifi-
cations—rejection   of   equipment-
grantee finality rule) (Keene Corp.;
Premier Electric Co.)
^ 16. Deposit. New York; OX. 10-5-76)
(Albin Construction Co.)
  •17.  Boynton  Beach/Delray Beach.
Florida (IV, 10-14-76)  (oral protest)
(Ecological Services Products)
  •18.  Concord. North  Carolina (IV.
10-14-76) (subtler—timely oral request
but untimely written) (Air Products &
Chemical Inc.)
  19. Lynn. Massachusetts (I. 10-21-
76) (A/E procurement; grantee finality
rule) (Clinton Bogcrt Associates)
  20. Baton Rouge. Louisiana (VI. 11-
5-76)  (restrictive  specifications—sub-
tier) (National Hydro Systems)

  21. Detroit. Michigan  (V. 11-10-76)
(estoppel—bidder  on second procure-
ment to challenge rejection of all bids
on first) (Lotepro Corp.)
  22. Cleveland Regional  Sewer Dis-
trict (Southerly Plant),  Ohio (V,  11-
15-76)    (restrictive    specifications)
(Powercon Corp.)
  23. Norwalk, Connecticut (I. 11-16-
75)  (letter  to State)  (Burnalli Con-
struction  Co.)
  •24.  Waterford,  Connecticut (I,  12-
28-76)  (restrictive  specifications—or
equal; finality rule) (New Ikor I)
  25. Fredonia, New York (II. 2-28-77)
(restrictive    specifications—subtler-
equipment  acceptability  determina-
tion) (National Hydro Systems)
  •26.  Waterford.  Connecticut (I. 3-4-
77)    (restrictive    specifications—or
equal) (New Ikor II)
  •27.  Dothan, Alabama (IV. 3-10-77)
(restrictive  specifications—or equal-
grantee reversed)  (Infilco Degremont)
  28. Sioux City. Iowa (VII. 3-17-77)
 (restrictive specifications—rejection of
 shop  drawings   necessary)  (Ralph
 Carter Co.; U.S. Enviro-Con)
  29. Puerto Rico Aqueduct 
-------
37

-------
38

-------
39

-------
40

-------
Subject Index
      PROCUREMENT
SUBSTANTIVE
        PROCUREMENT
                MATTERS
             -41-

-------
42

-------
     ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
     PROCUREMENT
A/E Procurement
83:04  Globe, AZ (IX1-25-83) (Brown *
  Caldwell] (prior EPA approval
  required).
83:04  Globe, AZ [Reconsideration] (DC.
  4-11-83) (Brown & Caldwell] (prices
  and identities of proposers publicly
  disclosed).
A/E Procurement

  81:17 McHenry County. 1L (V, 3-16-81)
(Pio Lombardo & Assoc.) (evaluation
criteria).
  81:39  GuamPUA(lX. 5-29-81) (John
Carollo Engineers—George Chen &
Sons) (failure to list evaluation criteria
and procedures).
A/E Pi
  1. Northwest Bergen County Sewer
Authority. NJ (IL1-10-60) (URS/MSR
Engineers, Inc.) (oral interview, cost
submission).
  2. Hudson County Utilities Authority, NJ (0.
3-31-80) (E&R Engineers Limited) (time to
protest).
  3. San Antonio, TX (VI7-15-60) (Camp
Dresser and McKee. Inc.) (terminate
negotiations with initial selectee).
  4. Vista Sanitation District/Encina Joint
Powers. CA (DC 7-30-60) (Don Todd
Associates) (cost in evaluation).
  5. Vista Sanitation District/Encina Joint
Powers, CA (DC. »-19-60) (Don Todd
Associates) (reconsideration, reevaluate
proposals).
  & Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council (Fort Myers], FL (IV, 12-3-80) (Jones,
Edmunds and Assodates/Misaimer ft
Associates) (evaluation).


 A/E procurement     .

 1. Clarksburg,' MA (I, 8-25-79) (Curran
   Associates, Inc.)
 2. Conneaut, OH (V, 7-18-79) (Hoff-
   Western)
 3. Jefferson Parish, LA (VI. 3-28-79)
   (Moore, Gardner and Associates)
 4. Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
   Board, PR (n, 3-30-79) (Technologists
   Internationa], Inc.)
5. Monterey County, CA (DC. 2-26-79)
  (Monterey Construction Surveys, Inc.)
6. Simpsonville, KY (IV, 4-17-79)
  (Warner A. Brougham HI and     .  -
  Associates)
7. West County^ Agency, CA (DC, ft-28-
  79) (R. D. Smith)
8. Muskegon County. MI (V, 7-29-79)
  (Video Media Corp.)
  Architect/Engineering Procurement
  (§ 35.937).

    '1. Knoxville, Tennessee (IV. 2-8-78) (Roy
  F Wuslon Inc.) (grantee rerankmg of
  technical committee evaluation of proposals)
    '2. East Bay dischargers Authority.
  California (IX. 2-15-78) (R.D. Smith)
  (subagreements: minority business
  enterprise)
    3. Atwaler. California (IX. 4-26-78)
  (Warren C.T. Wong & Assoc.) (price
  competition)
    4  Pcnns Grove. Ni-w )erse\ (II. ft-24-78|
  (I'.indullo Quirk Assoc.) (evn of
  proposal:))
 Architect/Engineering   Procurement
     (535.937).

   1. Bridgewater. New Jersey (II, 3-31-
 76) (Havens and Emerson. Ltd.)
   2. Berkeley -  Charleston - Dorches-
 ter, South Carolina (IV. 7-19-76) (§ 208
 grant) (Davis 
-------
     AWARD-PRIME  CONTRACT
 Award-Prime Contract
 83:59  Puerto Rico. PR (H, 10-18-63)
  (Longo—Puerto Rico. Inc.] (no right to
  public contract).

 Award—Prime Contract
  81:63 Honolulu. HI (IX. 8-12-«l)
 (Nichols Engineering & Research)
 (equipment procurement by subcontract
 instead of separate direct prime
 contracts).
  82.14 Atlanta. GA (IV. 3-15-42)
 (Ruby-Collins and John D. Stephens) (no
 award to reconstituted joint venture
 vMth sub-entities differer'. from bidder).


 Award—Prime Contract
 *1. Albuquerque, MM (VI, 2-2-79) (Kent
  Nowlin Construction Co.) (single
  bidder)
Award-Prime  Contract  
-------
 BIDS
Alternative
Bids

A. Alternate
        ""•)
84:07  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
    Greater Chicago, IL (V, 2-8-84) (A./.
    Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind., Inc., and
    Klein Const. Co.) (unsolicited
    responsive alternate bid must be
    accepted where bidder is bound
    upon its acceptance).
84:09  City of Los Cruches. MM (VI, 2-
    27-S4) (Mass Transfer, Inc.)
    (alternative requiring substantial
    redesign of project is
    nonresponsive).
84:17  Fresno County, CA (IX 4-20-84)
    (Valley Engineers, Inc. and
    McGuire 6" Hester) (IFB forbade
    bidders having an interest in more
    than one bid for same work—
    protester filed one bid as individual
    and one as part of joint venture).
84:35  Portage Sanitary Bd., Portage, IN
    (V, 9-31-64} (Cariup Const. Con.
    Inc.) (unsolicited voluntary
    alternate does not affect
    responsiveness of bid).

C Alternative
83:10  Needles. CA (IX. 2-1O-83)
   (Hefley Bros., Corp.) (principal bid not
   rendered nonresponsive by
   nonresponsiveness of alternate bid)
   (must be rational performance basis
   for grantee switching selected
   alternative).
83:3fr Bentonville, AR (VI, 6-14-63)
   (Archer Henry Const., Co.) (choice
   between equal alternatives based on
   cost).
   3. Port Austin Area Water and Sewer
 Authority. MI (V. 7-2-60) (Amado Cardenas.
 d/b/a Nashville Excavating Company) (MBE
 efforts prior to bidding).
   4. Newaygo County Board of Public Works,
 MI (V, 7-21-80) (M. D. Taddie & Company.
 Inc.) (discount applied to single contract).
   5. Rochester. MN (V, 7-24-80) (Darin &
 Armstrong, Inc.; Kraus-Anderson/PMW
 Construction: Newberg, Foster & Paschem
 Premier Electric Corporation) (MBE effort
 prior to bidding),
   6. Newaygo County Board of Pubic Works.
 Ml (V, 7-28-80) (R. S. Bennett & Company)
 (prequalifled equipment to comply with
 specifications).
   7. Ashley Valley Sewer Management
 Board, UT (Vra. 11-20-80) (Western Utility
 Contractors. Inc.) (difference between unit
 price and extended total).
  Ambiguity
  •1. Cochran, GA (TV, 9-14-79)
    (Municipal and Industrial Pipe
    Services, Ltd.y
  2. ML Pleasant, MI (V, 6-25-79)
    (Collavino Brothers Construction Co.)


    Deduct  Items

D, Deduct items
83:08 Western Carolina, SC (IV, 2-2-
  83) (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley)
  (grantee review of low bidder's deduct
  equipment).
83:15 Union City. OH (V, 3-6*83) (Mote
  Const, Co.) (deduct cannot be
  considered unlesa all bidden had
  opportunity to offer deduct).
83:36 Bentonville. AR (VL 8-14-83)
  (Archer Henry Const., Co.) (deductive
  alternates used where grantee knows
  material changes in scope of services
  may occur).
83:47 Topeka. KS (VII, 7-21-83)
  {Walters-Morgan, Inc.) (where bids on
   two separate projects opened same
•  day combined bid deduction offered
  by  bidder is unacceptable).
Alternate

  82:59  Rochester Pure Waters District,
NY (II, 11-3-82) (Schiavone Const./
Cotton Dean Underground Excavation
Co., Joint Venture) (award to low bidder
on highest cost alternate).
       Ambiguity
 Ambiguity
   1. San Buenaventura, CA (DC, 3-28-80) (A.
 A Portanova & Sons) (difference; between
 unit price and extended total).
   2. Glennville, GA (IV, 4-4-80) (J. W.  '
 Meadors and Company) (unsolicited
 discount).
Evaluation
C. Evaluation

84:03  Town of Williston, VT (1,1-25-
    84) (Cooely Corp.) (reasonableness
    of responsive bid evaluated using
    .non-responsive bids).
84:12  Town of Grantsville, MD (III, 3-
    20-84) (Mattingly Const., Inc.)
    (cannot ignore price limitation
    established by specification but not
 ..  contained in IFB).
                                     -45-

-------
BIDS
Evaluation     (CONTINUED)
84:15  Mattabassett Dist. Regional
    Sewer Auth., Cromwell, CT (1,4-12-
    84) (Peabody N.E., Inc.) (energy
    consumption figures provided in bid
    do not justify grantee inferring that
    bidder selected a specific supplier)
    (material ambiguities required
    cancelling solicitation).
84:17  Fresno County, CA (K, 4-20-84)
    (Valley Engineers, Inc. and
    McGuire & Hester) (grantee could
    consider bid on combined work of
    collection system and treatment
    plant as severable bids on separate
    parts) (cannot accept bid from
    bidder who contrary to IFB had'an
    interest in more than one bid).
84:18  Town of Milford, MA  (I, 4^20-84)
    [Euramca Escosystems, Inc.)
    (because supplier did not dispute
    A/E's equipment evaluation, EPA
    relied on A/E judgment).
84:20  City of Decorah, IA (VII, 5-1-64)
    (Humboldt Wedag) (supplier lacks
    standing to protest engineer's
     evaluation of prequalification
     submittal).
84:21  Ardmore, OK (VI, 5-4-84) (LYCO
    and Walker Process Corp.) (must
    not enforce specifications
     selectively on different bidders).
84:17  City of Leonminister; MA (I, 6-
     11-84) (R. Gioioso & Sons, Inc.)
     (nonresponsive bids may be used in
     evaluating reasonableness of the
     only responsive bid).
84:34  Glens Falls, NY (II, 8-30-84)
     (Dorr-Oliver, Inc.) (communications
     between grantee and bidder after .
     bid opening relating to
     responsibility are permissible).
84:38  Austin, TX (VI, 9-6-84) (Olson
     Const., Inc.) (base bid evaluation
     with adjustments for equipment
    Substitutions).

 84:40 City of Lancaster, PA (III, 10-1&-
     84)  (Parkson Corp.) (engineer had
     rational performance reasons for
     rejecting equipment offered).

 Bid Evaluation
 83:04  Globe, AZ [Reconsideration] (IX.
    4-11-83) (Brown & Caldwell] (must
    clearly state method and criteria).
 83:08  Western Carolina, SC
    [Reconsideration] (IV, 5-6-83)
    (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley) (no right to
    contract but right to be fairly judged
    under performance specifications).
83:11  LaPorte. TX (VI, 2-18-83) (/«w
  Lovelace CosnL, Co.) (estimated
  quantities of work must be
  reasonable) (award of unit price
  contract may not be based on total
  prices on alternative means of
  performance).
83:21  Chester, CT (1, 4-7-83) (Maple
  Hill Coast. Co.) (deference to exercise
  of discretion by public official).
83:24  Oklahoma City, OK
  [Reconsideration]  (VL 5-23-83)
  (Fiberglass Engineered Products. Inc. I
  (ambiguous experience clause
  requirement).
83:27  Port Arthur, TX (V. 5-12-63)
  (RobertBotsovr, Inc.) (IFB unclear as
  to tew alternative  and deduction to be
  evalauted—harmless error).
83:30  St. AlbaiM. WV (TO. 5-27-83)
  (Ralph B. Carter Co,) (must be dearly
  stated method).
83:38  Bentonvilie. AR (VI. 8-14-83)
  (Archer Henry Coast, Co.)
  (ambiguous IFB description harmless
  error if no reliance by bidder).
83:46  Casper, WY (Vm. 7-6-63)
  (Sbawaee Const. Inc.) (must award
  based on stated criteria).
83:48  Heber Spring, AR (VI. 8-2-63)
  (Trigon Engineering Co.] (operation
  ftmfr mjfrir^afl^nfl^ COStS, COSt-
  effectiveness considered).
83:51  Santa Barbara. CA (IX 8-15-831
  (Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
  Co.) (failure to follow evaluation
  criteria by waiving specifications).
83:80  Tri-City. OR (X, 10-20-83)
  (DonaldM. Drake Co.) (bid evaluated
  on component item amounts not
  summary total).


Bid Evaluation

  81:31   Gildford County. MI (VIE, 4-
28-81) (Baltrusch Const.) (separate bid
schedules erroneously combined to
determine low bidder).
  82:66  Smyrna, TN (IV, 11-29-82)
(Charles Finch Co. and Waterman
Industries) (bid rejection must be based
on  performance not  just physical
differences).
  82:67  Cullman. AL (TV, 11-30-62)
(Cal Corp.; Encore Corp.; and Drew and
Assoc.) ("performance" refers to
minimum needs, not best facilities but
adequate ones).
                                      -46-

-------
BIDS
Evaluation    (CONTINUED)
Evaluation of Bid*
  81:02  Little Blue Valley. MO (VTL 1-
8-81) (Eby Const) (evaluation factors
not in IFB).
  81:17  McHenry County Board EL (V.
3-16-81) (Pio Lombardo ft Assoc.) (A/E
evaluation to be based on performance
criteria not local preference).
  81:39  Guam PDA (DC. 5-29-61) Qohn
Carollo Engineers—George Chen &
Sons) (failure to list evaluation criteria
and procedures).
  81:62  Cobb County. GA (TV. 8-11-81}
(American Bioreactor Corp./BAV)
(single base method of evaluation
prohibited).
  82:47  Bedford Heights. OH (V. 8-20-
82] (Suburban Power Piping, et aJ.)
(subcontractor listing errors not basis
for rejection unless IFB clear).
  82:59  Rochester Pure Water District
NY (n. 11-3-82) (Schiavone Const./
Cotton Dean Underground Excavation
Co.. Joint Venture) (award to low bidder
on highest cost alternate).

 Evaluation of Bids
  1. Mount Holly Sewerage Authority. N] (II.
 2-8-80) (Neshaminy Constructors. Inc.)
 (deletion of alternate item).
  2. Tacoma, WA (X. 4-3-80) (Worthington
 Pump Corporation) (acceptance of equipment
 of different tize).
  3. Soldotna, AK (X 4-25-80) (Interstate
 Company) (MBE documents as to positive
 efforts).
  4. Stanford. CT (L 5-28-80) (C H.
 Nickerson ft Co.) (zero unit price, identical
 price for alternates).
  5. Moorhead, MN (V. 0-3-80) fWaldor
 Pump & Equipment Company) (cost and
 performance basis).                  t
  6. Newaygo County Board of Public Works.
 MI (V. 7-Z1-80) (M. D. Taddie * Company.
 Inc.) (discount).
  7. Newaygo County Board of Public Works,
 MI (V, 7-28-80) (R. S. Bennett ft Company)
 (equipment efficiency and operating costs).

 Evaluation of Bida
 1. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
   OH (V. 8-14-79) (Water Pollution
   Control Corp.)
 2. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
   OH (V, 9-18-79) (Passavant Corp.)
 3. Cleveland Regional Sewer District.
   OH—Reconsideration (V,  10-18-79)
   (Water Pollution Control Corp.) (Per
   Norton Co.)
 4. Cleveland Regional Sewer District,
   OH—Clarification (V. 12-28-79)
   (Water Pollution Control Corp.) (O
   and M Costs)
5. Cochran. GA (TV, 9-14-79) (Municipal
  ft Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
6. Hannibal. MO (VTI. 6-7-79) (U.S.
  Enviro-Con. Inc.) (equipment listing)
7. Mt Pleasant MI (V, 6-25-79)
  (Collavino Brothers Construction Co.)
8. Passaic Valley Sewerage
  Commissioners, N] (H 4-13-79)
  (Passavant Corp.) (adequate basis for
  evaluation provided in IFB)
9. Portage, MI (V. 12-31-79] (Tom
  Robinson ft Son. Inc.)
10. West County Agency, CA (DC, 6-28-
  79) (R. D. Smith)
11. Wood County Parks and Recreation
  Commission. WV (ffl. 3-15-79) (GAL
  Construction, Inc. (tied contracts)

Evaluation of Bids (but see Responsibility:
Responsiveness; Formal Advertising:
Negotiation: Mistake: Rejection of All Bids:
A ward Prime Contracts).
  \. New York City. New York (II. 1-12-78)
(Schiavone Construction Co.) (mistake:
bidder intent test)
  2. North Little Rock. Arkansas (VI. 2-1-78)
(Environmental Equipment Corp.) (subtier
selection by grantee: price)
  3. Kitsap County. Washington (X. 2-3-78)
(Will Construction Co.. Inc.) (equipment
listing—matter of responsibility)
  4. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-6-78) (Mautz &
Oren. Inc.)
   '5. Chicago (Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago) Illinois (V. 3-12-78)
(Howard Martin Construction) (waiver under
local procedures)
  6. Fairfax County. Virginia (111. 3-17-78)
(John W. Cowper Co.. Inc.) (subcontractor
listing)
  7. Snyderville. Utah (VIII. 4-17-78)
(Jacobsen Construction Co. Inc.) (base
bidding)
  8. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority.
Florida (IV. S-18-78) (Enviro Development
Co. and Poole & Kent Co ) (equipment  listing)
  9 Newcastle. Indian* (V. 5-18-78) (Spencer
Turbine Co ) (fundamental federal
procurement principles)
  10. Onondaga County. New York (II, 6-30-
78) (Zimpro. Inc.) (offering competitor's
system, patent infringement allegation)
  11 Miami-Dade Water and  Sewer
Aulhiinty. Florida (IV. 7-13-78) (Ed. L.
Nozulek Inc ] (prime's listing of previous!;,
unaccepted equipment)
  12 Wdshtonaw County. Michigan (V. 7-13-
~H| (Spence Bros ) (implementing the
specification by Ms terms; award to low
tiidiii-r)
  13 Washington County. Oregon (X. 7-31-
78) (North American Contractors Inc.) (base
bidding, use of multiple schedule)
                                        -47-

-------
BIDS
Evaluation    (CONTINUED)
  14. San Francisco. California (IX, 8-9-78)
(Sldttery Assoc.. Fischbach and Moore Inc.
and Mornson-Knudsen Co  Inc.. joint venture)
(minonly business enterprise-local
requirements)
  15. Southern Clinton County. Michigan (V.
6-11-78) (A. Z. Shmina) (subcontractor
listing)
  16. Bay County. Michigan (V. 9-12-78)
(Roese Contracting Co Inc.) (Contract No. 1-
D)
  17. Grand Rapids. Michigan (Vw9-26-78)
llnfilco Degremonl) (life-cycle cost
acceptdblel
  18. Guilderland.  New York (II. 10-3-78)
(Clrvt'pdk Corp ) (brfse bidding)
  19 Bruese. Illinois (V. 10-18-78) (Midwest
Soil Products dnd D
-------
BIDS
Irregularities
D. Irregularities

84:07  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
    Greater Chicago,  IL (V, 2-6-84) (A./.
    Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind., Inc., and
    Klein Const. Co.] (minor
    irregularities must be waived).
Late
 E. Late

 84:57  Neenah-Menasha Sewerage
     Commission (V, 12-31-84) (Flour
     Bros. Const. Co.) (time for
     submitting bids may not be
     extended after deadline has passed)
     (failure to submit bid on time may
     not be waived by grantee).
  (A) Late:
  1.  Rawlins. Wyoming  (VIII,  11-16-
 77) (Wind River Constructors Inc.)
 1. Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
   Board, PR 01. 3-30-79) (Technologists
   International, Inc.)

Mistake

F. Mistake

84:26  Riverton, WY (VIII,  7-13-84)
    (Martel Construction Co., Inc.)
    (where numerical bid differed from
    words, grantee properly permitted
    correction to intended  bid without
    regard to reconciliation clause) (bid
    remained lo.w even after correction).
84:28  Riverton, WY [Reconsideration]
    (VIII, 7-13-84) (Martei Construction
    Co., Inc.) (because there was no bid
    displacement, information outside
    the bid could be considered).
84:27  Metropolitan Sewer Dist.,
    Cincinnati, OH (V, 7-18-84)
    (Parkson Corp.) (extension price
    listed in unit price space causes
    ambiguity in bid price  requires
    rejection rather than correction).
84:30  County of Erie, NY (II, 8-16-84)
    (Amadori Const. Co.] (words over
    numerals reconciliation clause
    cannot be applied to conflict with
    bidders clear intent).
84:43  Chippewa Township, PA (III, 10-
    24-84) (Modany Bros.,  Inc.) (where
    bid contained discrepancy in lump
    sum and unit price and bidder
    requested his bid be withdrawn or
    that he be awarded the contract at
     the higher amount, the bid was
    nonresponsive due to ambiguity).
84:56   City of Fort Lauderdale, FL (IV,
    12-27-84) (Gray Engineering Group,
    Inc.] (where difference between unit
    lump sum price and bidder
    acknowledges he intended the
    higher lump sum amount he cannot
    elect to take the contract at the
    lower mistaken a'mount).

Mistake
83:10   Needles, CA (IX, 2-10-03)
  (Hefley Bros.. Corp.} (where bidder
  alleges mistake he cannot waive right
  to have bid rejected unless absent
  mistake he would be low bidder).
33:36   Bentonville, AR (VI. 6-14-63)
  (Archer Henry Const., Co.) (correction
  of math error displacing another
  bidder) (bidder cannot compel upward
  correction of competitor's bid).
83:45   Casper. WY (VIIL 7-3-83)
  (Shawnee Const, Inc.) (not
  necessarily require finding bid
  nonresponsive,  bidder must be given
  chance to verify apparent mistake).
83:60   Tri-City. OR (X 10-20-83)
  (Donald M. Drake Co.) (where
  mistake not claimed reconciliation
  clause waived].

 Mistake
   81:05  Puerto Rico Aqueduct and
 Sewer Authority.  PR (IL 1-29-81)
 (Redondo Const.) (withdrawal of
 mistaken bid not protestable).
   81:48  Cleveland, MS (IV. 7-1-81)
 (Roland  Pugh Const) (corrected bid
 displaced bidder,  intent ascertainable
 from bid).
   81:67  Wanaque Sewerage Authority,
 NJ (II. 8-19-81) (A. Cestone Co.)
 (corrected unit price bid displaced low
 bidder).
   82:30  Panorama Village, TX (VL 5-
 21-82] (Ranger Const.) (unit price
 extensions may be corrected if intent
 clear from face of bid).

Mistake
  1. San Buenaventura, CA (DC. 3-28-60) (A.
A. Portanova ft Son*) (unit price corrected).
  2. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation
District CA (DC 5-0-40) (Buidlck
Contractors, Inc.) (State law).
  3. Marqnette County. MI (V. 8-14-40)
(Bnunm Construction Company; OTDorero
Construction Company) (change order to
cover bid mistake).
  4. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
OH (V. 9-t-W) (D. E. Williams Electric, me)
(upward adjustment relief as State law issue).
  5. Ashley Valley Sewer Management
Board. UT (VUL 11-20-40) (Western Utility
Contractors. lac.) (unit price corrected).
                                     -49-

-------
BIDS
Mistake    (CONTINUED)
 MisUk*

 1. Jackson, CA (DC. 7-5-79) (Joseph R.
   Ramos Pipeline Engineering]
   (mathematical errors)
 *2. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
   Greater Chicago. IL (V. 10-11-79)
   (Morrison-Knudson-Paschen)
 *3. Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside, CA
   (DC. 7-23-79; errata 9-21-79)) (Radco
   Construction, Inc.)
 4. Newton. IA (Vn, 12-6-79) (Municipal
   and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)

 Mistake.
   1. Denver (City), Colorado (VIII, 4-
 22-74) (Plnkard Donovan)
   2. Omaha. Nebraska  (VII,  9-14-74)
 (offensive  use)  (Datamaster  Div.—
 ACCO)
   3.  Davenport, Iowa  (VII.  4-11-75)
 (Lametti & Sons)
   4. Fresno,  California (IX,  7-10-75)
 (Dorfman Construction Co.)

   5. Clark  County (Las Vegas), Sani-
 tary District (No. 1). Nevada (IX. 12-
 24-75) (Bovee  &  Crail Construction
 Co.)
   6. Bergen County, New Jersey (II. 9-
 28-76) (Wm. L.  Crow-Wolff & Munier.
 Joint Venture)
   7.  Bradford,   Vermont  (I.  3-4-77)
 (Cummings)
   8. Puerto Rico Aqueduct  & Sewer
 Authority (II, 3-31-77) (Blythe Indus-
 tries Inc.)
   •9. Middlesex  (Bound Brook Pump
 Station), New Jersey (II. 6-3-77) (Cam-
 penella  Construction Co.)
   10.  Middlesex  (Sayreville   Relief
 Pump Station). New Jersey (II. 6-9-77)
 (Terminal Construction Co.)
   11.  Corvallis.  Oregon (X.  12-6-77)
 (Prank Coluccio Construction Co.)
 Negotiated Procurement (§535.936-18
     and  35.937-5).
   •1. Spokane, Washington (X, 1-9-76)
 (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
   2.   Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester,
 South  Carolina (IV,  7-19-76) (§208
 grant) (Davis & Floyd Engineers, Inc.)
   3. Rhode Island Statewide Planning
 Program (I, 4-26-77) (§208 grant) (C.
 E. McGuire Inc.)
   4.  Bradford,   Vermont  (I,  6-6-77)
 (Carvel  Co.)
  MODIFICATION

  A Modification
   1 Momnouth. OR (X, 8-21-80) (Chinook
  Pacific Corporation) (limiting time to accept
  bid).
  l. Hardstown, KY (IV, 1-3-79) (E. H.
    Hughes Co.) (I)
  2. Detroit, MI (V, 12-11-79) (Polutech,
    Inc. and Glenn E. Wash Associates, A
    Joint Venture'
3. East Bay Dischargers Authority, CA
  (DC, 11-16-79) (Brantley Instruments)
  (Contra Costa Electric, Inc.)
*4. Kansas City. MO (VII. 12-20-79)
  (Carney Companies] (exception to
  method of tunnelling)
  (B) Modification:
  1.  Gainesville-Alachua County * •  •
Board, Florida (IV.  7-10-75)  (Grum-
man Ecosystems)
  2. Monroe, Washington (X, 12-31-75)
(Will Construction Co.)
  3.  Concord, North  Carolina (IV.  10-
8-76) (Mercury Construction Corp.)
  4. Gary, Indiana (V, 10-19-76) (Pora
Construction Co.; and  the Robinson
Group, Inc.)
  5.  Lynden, Washington (X, 5-16-77)
(oral) (Arcomm Construction Co.)
Qualified
G. Qualified

84:07 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
    Greater Chicago, IL (V, 2-6-84) (A./.
    Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind.. and Klein
    Const. Co.) (bid calling itself
    "voluntary alternate if acceptable"
    is not qualified or ambiguous).

 F. Qualified
 83:46  Palatine. IL (V, 7-19-83) (Di
   Paolo-Rossetti, Joint Venture) (offer to
   deduct amount if given two separate
   contracts is a conditional bid).
 83:51  Santa Barbara, CA (DC, 8-15-83)
   (Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
   Co,) (warranty provisions).

 Qualified

   81:22  Corvallis, OR (X. 4-10-81)
 (Environmental Pollution Control, Inc.)
 (bid reserved right to substitute
 equipment).


 Seal

  H. Seal

  84:28  Libby, MT (VHI.  8-9-64)
     [Transamerican Contractor. Inc.)
     (defects, seal and attestation relate
     to authority of agent which may be
     established after bid opening).


 Severable


  1.  Severable

  84:17  Fresno County, CA (IX. 4-20-84)
     (ValleyEngineers, Inc. and
  '  McGuire 8" Hester)  (bid on
     combined collection system/
     treatment plant Severable into bids
     on separate parts).
                                     -50-

-------
BIDS
Signature
 ].  Signature

 84:28  Libby, MT (Vffl, 8-9-84)
     (Transamerican Contractors, Inc.)
     (defects in signature, seal and
     attestation relate to authority of
     agent which may be established
     after bid opening).
Unbalanced


G. Unbalanced
83:86  Boston. MA (1,12-9-63)'
  (Schiavone Const., Co.) (penny
  bidding not per se unbalanced and
  nonresponsive).

Unbalanced

  81:53  Timmonsville. SC (IV, 7-17-81)
(Quality Sanitary Services) (not
automatically nonresponsive—depends
•whether award will result in lowest
cost).

C. Unbalanced
  % Glennville. GA (TV, 4-t-flO) (J. W.
Meadors and Company) (not automatically
rejected).
  r Branford. CT (L 5-28-«0) (C H.
Nlcfcerson & Co.) (zero unit price deduct).

  (C) Unbalanced:
  1.  Omaha, Nebraska  (VII. 9-14-74)
(Datamaster Division—ACCO)
  •2.     Philadelphia,    Pennsylvania
(Northeast Plant) (III.  12-6-76) (Sov-
ereign Construction Co.)
  3. Bridgewater, New Jersey (II, 12-:: •
77) (Lombardo Contracting Co.)
  •4. Ramsey. New Jersey (II, 12-'J-77'
(P. &t A. Construction Co.)
BID  SHOPPING

Bid Shopping
83:13  Sandpoint, ID (X 3-3-83) (Lydig
  Const.. Co.) (subcontractor listing as
  material term).

Bid Shopping
  81:20  Tupelo. MS (TV, 4-7-81) (Jesco.
Inc.) (ambiguous equipment listing
requirement).
  82:02  Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (HI. 1-22-82) (R&M Assoc.) (listing
prequalified subcontractors was not to
prevent bid shopmna) (reversed 81:83).
  82:16  Ottawa County. OH (V. 3-16-
82) (Munitech) (substantial deviation).
  82:21  Fallbrook Sanitary District, CA
(IX, 4-6-82) (Metro-Young/Lopez Const.,
A Joint Venture) (controlling state
statute).
  82:23  Passaic Valley. NJ (U. 4-20-82)
(Rochester Pump and Machine, Inc.) (not
limited by EPA).

Bid Shopping
  1. Hastings. ME (VH. 3-7-80) (Morton
Construction Company, Olson Contraction
Company) (failure to list MBE subs).
  2. lohnson County. KS (VH. 4-l-*H (Sharp
Brothers Contracting Company) (failm to Us*
MBE subs).
  3. Tacoma. WA (X 4-3-80) (Worthmfton
Pump Corporation) (equipment substitution).
  4. Glennville. GA (IV, 4-4-60) (J- W.
Meadors and Company) (Failure to Hst
suppliers).
  5. Port Austin Area Water and Sewer
Authority. MI (V. 7-2-80) (Amado Cardenas,
db.a. Nashville Excavating Company)
(failure to list MBE subs).
  ft. County of Nassau. NY (U. 8-7-80)
(Komline-Sandenon Engineering
Corporation) (substitution for listed
eqoipment).
  7. San Jacinto River Authority
(Woodlands], TX (VL10-3-30) (Industrial
Contractors, Inc.] (listing of MBE subs).
  S. DuPage County (Department of Public
Works). IL (V, 12-15-80) (Paschen
Contractors. Inc.) (failure to list subs).
  9. Pierce County. WA (X12-23-*)) (Frank
Comedo Construction Company) (failure to
list subs).

  Bid Shopping
  1. Caldwell. ID (X 11-1-79) (Neilson S
    Co.) (subcontractor listing)
  2. Hannibal, MO (VII. 6-7-79)  (U.S.
    Enviro-Con, Inc.) (subcontractor
    listing)
  3. Mt. Pleasant, MI (V, 6-25-79)
    (Collavino Brothers Consfruction Co.)

  Bid Shopping (The Administrator, on June 29.
  1978. submitted a report to congress entitled.
  Waste Water Treatment Contracting and Bid
 Shopping which concluded  that among other
 things. EPA would not impose a procurement
 standard upon grantees with the effect of
 preventing bid shopping, see 40 C.F.R.
 5 35.938-4(h)(6). as amended by 43 FR 44080.
 September 27. 1978).

   •1. Fairfax County. Virginia (III. 3-17-78)
 (John W. Cowper Co. Inc.) (failure of low
 bidder to name preapproved supplier)
                                     -51-

-------
   BID   SHOPPING  (CONTINUED)
 Bid Shopping.
  •I. Hollywood, Florida (IV,  3-13-74)
 (Morganti-South Inc.)
  2. Jacksonville, Florida (IV,  8-12-74)
 (Adrian Construction Corp.)
  3. Washington  Suburban  Sanitary
 Commission. Maryland (III. 10-15-75)
 (Volpe Construction Co.; and  John C.
 Grimberg Co.)
  4. Winter Haven. Florida (IV, 11-26-
 75) (Griffin Construction Co.)
  •5. Miami-Bade  Water  and Sewer
 Authority.   Florida   (IV,   3-11-76)
 (George Hyman Construction Co.)
  *6. Upper Occoquan Sewer Authori-
 ty  (Manassas Park),  Virginia (III, 6-
 24-76) (Savoy Construction Co.)
  7. Amherst.  New York (II, 7-2-76)
 (Air Products & Chemicals Inc.)
  8. York.  Pennsylvania (III.  4-22-77)
 (Union Carbide Corp.)
  •9. St.  Paul (Metropolitan Waste
 Control  Commission), Minnesota (V,
 5-3-77) (Palco;  and Kraus-Anderson)
  BIDDERS
Bidden
33:06   Western Carolina. SC (IV. 2-2-
  83) (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley) (where
  specification* required supplier to
  submit equipment for review through
  prime contractor grantee may refuse
  to review equipment directly offered).


Bidders

  82:14  Atlanta. GA (TV, 3-15-82)
(Ruby-Collins and John D. Stephens) (no
award to reconstituted joint venture
with sub-entities different from bidder).
BONDS
 Bonds
 83:02  Columbus, OH (V. 1-12-83)
   (Cobey Metro—Waste Compositing
   Systems. Inc.} (5 year bond not unduly
   restrictive if available at
   nonburdensome cost).
 83:03  Columbus. OH [Reconsideration)
   (V, 6-6-83) (Cobey Metro—Waste
   Composting System. Inc.] (review of
   numerous EPA decisions concerning
   bonds) fmust Drove rational basis for
   bond requirement it protestor shows
   effect on competition) (5 year bond
   requirement deemed reasonable).
 83:41  MDS, Chicago, IL (V, 6-24-83)
   (Premier Electrical Const. Co.)
   (summary dismissal of protest where
   bid bond not extended).
Bonds

84:03  Town of Williston. VT (1,1-25-
    84) (Cooley Corp.) (failure to include
    bid bond with bid is nonresponsive)
    (bid bond with no stated penal sum
    is nonresponsive).
84:08  City of Toronto. OH (TV. 2-2-84)
    (J.L. Cavanaugh Co.. Inc.]
    (subcontractor's warranty may be
    furnished post-bid opening absent
    subcontractor listing requirement).
84:16  Back River Waste Water
    Treatment Plant, MD (ID. 4-17-84)
    (fames A. FedeHine, Inc.. H.A.
    Harris Co.) (bid guarantee not
    furnished with bid in proper form
    and amount renders bid
    nonresponsive).
84:19  Clinton County. NY (IL 4-30-84)
    (Compost Systems Co.) (requiring
    performance guarantee for
    liquidated damages in amount of
    bid price is not undue restriction on
    competition).
84:32  Bayshore Regional Sewerage
    Authority, N] (0. 8-30-84) (RAM
    Engineering, Inc.) (five year
    performance bond in lieu of five
    year experience is not unduly
    restrictive where such bond is
    available at reasonable price).
82:44  Pepper's Ferry. VA (III. 10-29-64)
    (RDP Co.) (subcontractor protest of
    bonding requirement dismissed as
    untimely).
 Bonds

   81:49  Los Angeles County. CA (IX. 7-
 1-81) (Dresser Industries) (performance
 bond demonstrates responsibility)
   81:56  New Castle. IN (V. 7-22-fl!)
 (Ralph Reed and Sons) (single vs.
 incremental performance bonds).
   81:87  Cridersville. OH (V, 10-16-811
 (Miami Valley Contractors) (no appeal
 bond required to protest).
   82:02  Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority.
 PA (III. 1-22-82) (R&M Assoc.)
 (submission of bond in lieu of
 experience) (reversed 81:83).
   82:13  Philadelphia. PA (III. 3-16-82]
 (Willard. Inc.) (two bonds if bid on
 separate contracts, one if bid covers
 both) (performance bond guaranteeing
 lowest energy costs).
   82:43  Brockton. MA (I. 8-16-82)
 (Tenco Hydro) (experience bond must
 be  accepted in lieu of specified
 experience) (bond language generally
 unacceptable to sureties unduly restricts
 competition).
                                       -52-

-------
BONDS
'(continued)
  82:57   Cape May County MUA. NJ (II.
11-1-82)  (American Bioreactor Corp.
and Fairfield Service Co.) (bond not
acceptable alternative in lieu of
construction meeting specifications).*  -.
  82:63   Elk Pinch. WV (III. 11-18-82)
(Kappe Assoc.) (nondiscriminatory
performance bond requirement, standing
of subcontractor).
  1. Norwich. CT (I Z-l-SO] (Fantonl
Company) (bid bond not signed by principal).
  2. Cecil County. MD (OL 8-11-80) (Hanks
Contracting. Inc.) (bid bond not submitted).
  S. Pierce County. WA (X12-23-80) (Frank
Cohiccio Construction Company) (bid bond
as a percentage of bid).
                            Bonds (§§ 35.935-3 and 35.936-13
                            (bid  bond)  (Harry  Pepper  &  A  •>
                            ciates)
                              4. Bradford.  Vermont  (I.  6 6 77,
                            (Carvel Co.)
                              5. dimming. Georgia (IV, 9-23-77)
                            (performance  bond)  (Newkirk  Co:.-
                            struction Co.)
                              6. Kansas City. Kansas (VII. 11-17-
                            77)  (experience  bond)  (Nichols  E:i_:-
                            neering  and  Research  Corp.;  aiv.l
                            Zimpro, Inc.)
                              •7. Passaic Valley Sewerage Convr-!-,-
                            sioners. Newark.  New Jersey  (II.  12-
                            10-77) (experience bond)  (BSP DIM-
                            sion of Envirotech Corp.)
 Bonds (§§ 35.936-13(c) and 35.936-22).

   1. West Bend. Wisconsin (V. 3-3-78)
 (Oliver Construction Co. Inc.) (bid—goes to
 responsiveness)
   •2. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-21-78)
 (Auiolrol) (performance: combined 200%
 bond requirement)

   '3. San Francisco. California (IX. 3-22-7H|
 (E 4 I. Inc.) (experience)
   4  Front Royal. Virginia (111. 4-21-78) (Lyro-
 Zfi (prequalificationl
   5. S.in Francisco California (IX. 8-17-781 |K
 S 1. Inc.) (performance)
   "6  Passaic Valley Sewerage
 Commissioners. New jersey (II. 10-5-78) (BSP
 DivisionT>f Enurotech Corp . and Wheatlev
 Corp.") (warranty and performance bond—
 ambiguity: operation and maintenance costs|
 [Note.—The first determination in this matter
 was issued 12-10-77 and was affirmed in
 CCnVf'M v. U.S. EPA. 452 F.Supp. 69 (D.N I
 1978||.
   7. Silver City. New Mexico (VI. 10-13-78)
 (Enviro Development Co. Inc.) (experience!
   8. Concord. North Carolina (IV. 10-24-78)
 (EDC/Enviro Development Inc.) (5 year-
 justification)
   '9. Chattanooga Tennessee (IV. 11-2-78)
 (Philadelphia Gear) (5 year period: cost)
   10. Riianna Water and Sewer Authority
 Charlottesville. Virginia (111. 11-2-78)
 (National Hydro Systems)
                             Bonds
                             •1. De Kalb Sanitary Pistrict IL (V, 2-
                                15-79) (Autotrol Corp.) (performance
                                bond)

                              2. Hannibal, MO (VH, 6-7-79) (U. S.
                                Enviro-Con, Inc.) (experience bond)
                              3. Howard County, MD (ffl, 2-15-79)
                                (Water Pollution Control Corp.)
                                (performance bond)
                              4. Newton. IA (VH, 12-6-79) (Municipal
                                and Industrial Pipe Services. Ltd.) (bid
                                bond)
                              5. Seaford, DE (ID. 1-8-79) (National
                                Hydro Systems, Inc.) (experience
                                bond)
                                       -53-

-------
 BUY  AMERICAN
 BuyAi
   81:49  Los Angeles County, CA (ES, 7-
 1-81) (Dresser Industries) (preference
 depending upon delivered price).
   81:58  Ashland. KY (IV, 7-27-81)
 (Fairbanks Morse Pump) (domestic
 preference) (reversed by reconsideration
 81:79),
   81:79  Ashland, KY (TV, 10-1-81)
 (Fairbanks Morse Pump) ( domestic
 preference mandatory).
   82:23  Passaic Valley. NJ (H, 4-20-82)
 (Rochester Pump and Machine) (price
 comparison by informal negotiation
 after bid opening).
   82:38  Fulton. NY (fl, 7-16-82) (LOC
 Pump and Equipment) (refers to place o£
 manufacture not to design features).

 Buy American Act Requirements
 *1. Concord, NH (1, 4-18-79) (Passavant
   Corp.) (construction materials)
 2. Concord, NH (L 10-4-79) (Bethlehem
   Steel Corp.) (6% preference)
 3. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
   Authority, FL (W. 10-3-79) (Radiation
   Dynamics)
 4. Newton, IA (VII, 12-8-79) (Municipal
   and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
   (protestant must prove jurisdiction)
     A'nencan Act Requirements (Re-
    cently made  applicable by Section
    215  of the  Clean Water Act  of
    1977; Pub. L. No. 05-217).
COMPETITION
 Competition
 84:21  Ardmore, OK (VI. 5-4-84) (LYCO
     and Walker Process Corp.) (to
     obtain maximum open free
     competition specification must be
     performance based when possible).

 Competition

 .4. General
   81:92 Hallandale. FL (IV, 11-3-61)
 (Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services.
 Interstate Pipe Maintenance: and
 Polymer Chemical Corp.) (sufficient
 competition on single material
 distnbuted by independent sources).
B. Free and open
  81:02  Little Blue Valley. MO (VII. 1-
8-81) (Eby Const.) (award to low
responsive responsible bidder).
  81:17  McHenry County, IL(V. 3-16-
81) (Pio Lombardo & Assoc.) (local
preference impermissible A/E
evaluation criterion).
  81:19  Phoenix. AZ (IX. 3-27-81)
(TCK Const aad MM. Sundt Const) (no
unfair advantage  from supplier
substitution).
  81:43  Honolulu, HI (DC 8-11-81)
(Hawaii Concrete Products) (disguised
sole source).
  81:80  Sacramento County, CA (EC
10-2-31) (Westates Carbon  Co.) (unduly
restrictive experience requirement).
  82:17  Lummi Indian. WA (X. 3-28-
82) (Walker Processing Corp.) (approval
of only one supplier not proof of
violation).

C. De Facto
  82:34  Monterey. CA (IX 6-24-32)
(Frank M. Booth. Inc.) (competition
where one manufacturer exists but
others can meet specifications).

Cofnpatttioii
A. General
  1. Odessa, TX (VL 2-4-80) (Cifford-Hill and
Company) (tingle pip* material).
  2. Tolleson. AZ (K. 3-17-60) (Hydro
Conduit Corporation) (single pipe material).
  3. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
OH (V. 10-14-80) (Id Americas. Inc.) (single
material for carbon columns).  .
B. De Facto
  1. Alma. N? (YD. 9-4-90) (William
Anderson Company. Inc.) (4 of 8 bidden bid
no charge for sealant).
C Free and Open
  1. Cordele. CA (IV, 4-10-80)  (Ralph Healey
ft Associates, Inc.)  (manufacturers only).

 Competition

 A General
 1. Atlanta, GA (IV, 3-21-79) (Fruin-
  Conlon Corp.)
 2. Chattanooga, TN (IV, 3-27-79)
  (Performance Systems, Inc.)
 *3. De Kalb Sanitary District, IL (V, 2-
  15-79) (Autotrol Corp.)
 4. Gainsville. GA (IV, 6-15-79) (National
  Hydro Systems, Inc. (IT))  (supply of
  equipment)
                                     -54-

-------
COMPETITION     (CONTINUED)
5. Laurens County, SC (TVY7-10-79)
   (Carolina Concrete Pipe Co., et al)
   (pipej
B. DeFacto
•1. De Kalb Sanitary District IL (V, 2-
   15-79] (Autotrol Corp.)
C. Free and Open -  -
1. Passaic Valley Sewerage
   Commissioners, N] (H. 4-13-79)
   (Passavant Corp.)
Competition  {e.g. |§ 35.936-3. 35.936-13: see
;T ulia. whether an acceptable  level of
  I'Tipetttion. in fact, occurred):

   1  Chester. South Carolina (IV  3-29-78)
  ..•.lima Concrete Pipe Co | (single p.pe
  • vri.il selection — vitrified cl.iv I
   J CumbcrUnd County.  New jersev (II. 3-
 •I-"8) (Dorr-Oliver Inc.) (ultimately
  >nconformmg. prequalified equipment
 - ipplier)
  ) Newton. North Carolina (IV. 4-25-78)
 (..irolma Concrete Pipe Co.) (pipe material
 - .pction limited to 3 types — vitrified clay.
  -I'd reinforced concrete or ductile iron)
   4. Olympia. Washington (X. 5-30-78)
 'Vntech Division of Houdaille Industries
 I-K. ) (project design exclusion, f 35939(j)(5) —
 >m-Mie oxygenation generation system for
 ^iudge treatment)
  "5. Onondaga County. New York (II. 7-11-
 ~H| (Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries
 l-ii. ) (project design exclusion. § 35.939(])(5)—
 I'f-sile oxygenation generation system for
 Mudge treatment: licensee — licensor
 '< Intionship as permitting competition)
  0 Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-6-78) (FMC
 < >>rp ) (project design exclusion:
 * 15 939(j)(5)— closed tank  nitrification
 ^ Mem)
  I B) General—Free and Open.
  1. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-21-78) (Autotrol)
(["idling biological disc equipment—salient
pi-rformance requirements)
  2. Newcastle. Indiana (V. 5-18-78) (Spencer
1 urbine Co.) (approval of offered equipment
iii-ms as controlled by specification)
  3. Onondagd County. New York (II. 6-30—
7H| (Zimpro Inc.) (bidding competitions
svstem)

    '4. Onondaga County. New York—
  Reconsideration (II. 7-19-78) (Zimpro Inc )
  (F.I'A competitive process and overview)
    '5. Pnnce William County. Virginia (Hi. 8-
  4-78) (Spencer Turbine Co.)  (approval of
  offered equipment under rational basis
  analysis)
    '6 Breese. Illmios (V. 10-18-78) (Midwest
  Soil Products and Davco-Defiance)
  (functional equivalency—carbon steel to
  solid stainless steel pump shaft)
    7. Frankfort. Kentucky. (IV. 10-18-78)
  (Passavant)
    8. Fairfield. New Jersey (II. 10-20-78) (Loc
  Pump) (salient performance  requirements as
  standard: functional equivelency—rubber
  gasket to metal-to-metal connection of pump
  al discharge pipe)
    •9. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 11-2-78)
  (Philadelphia Gear) (functional equivalency—
  parallel to right angle shaft for design of
  aerator speed reducer driver)

 Competition (§35.S -5).
   (A) DeFacto:
   1. Cleveland Regional  Sewer District
 (Southerly Plant). Ohio (V.  11-15-76)
 (Powercon Corp.)
   2. Hope. Arkansas (VI, 9-1-77) (pipe)
 (Hydro  Conduit: Choctaw Culvert  (Di-
 vision  of  Choctaw  Inc.):  Jonesboro
 Concrete Pipe Co.)
   3. Contra Costa County,  California
 (IX, 10-25-77) (Annco Steel)
   (B) General—free and open:
   1. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Au-
 thority, Florida  (IV. 3-H-76) (George
 Hyman  Construction Co.)
   2, Upper Occoquan Sewer Authority
 (Manassas Park).  Virginia (III,  6-24-
 76) (subcontractor listing) (Savoy Con-
 struction Co.)
   3. Chatham  County (Isle of Hope).
 Georgia (IV. 7-8-76) (pipe) (Kyle-Gif-
 ford-Hill Inc.)
   4. Westchester County, New  York
 (II, 9-7-76) (Union Carbide Corp.)
                                          -55-

-------
  COMPETITION    (CONTINUED)
  5. Bfrpen County. New Jersey (II. 9-
 28-76) (Wm. L. Crow-Wolff & Municr,
 Joint Venture)
  6.  Greenwood  (Rocky-Coronaca),
 South Carolina (IV.  10-6-76)  (pipe)
 (Metromount Materials; Carolina Con-
 crete Pipe Co.: Wallace Concrete Pipe
 Co.. Inc.;  South Carolina Pipe Associ-
 ation: Amoco Reinforced  Plastics Co.)
  •7.  Palm Beach County, Florida (IV,
 10-8-76) (pipe) (Price Brothers)
  •8.  Waterford, Connecticut (I. 3-4-
 77) (Loc Pump and Equipment)
  9. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
 Authority (II. 3-31-77) (Blythe Indus-
 tries, Inc.)
  10.  Pasadena. Texas (VI.  4-1-77)
 (Union Carbide Corp.)
  11.   Parsippany-Troy  Hills.  New
 Jersey (II. 7-8-77) (Frank Briscoe)
  12.  Jackson, Mississippi (IV, 8-19-77)
 (pipe) (American Cast Iron Pipe Com-
 pany)
  13.  Cheektowaga. New  York (II. 8-
 31-77) (Amadort Construction Co.)
  14.  Orange County. California (IX,
 11-2-77)   (Pentech  Division   of  Hou-
 daille Industries)
  15.  Ramsey. New Jersey (II. 12-2-77)
 (P. & A. Construction Co.)
  •16.  Passaic Valley  Sewerage Com-
 missioners, Newarjt,  New  Jersey (II,
 12-10-77)  (BSP Division of Envirotech
 Corp.)
CONFLICT  OF
         INTEREST
Conflict of Interest

83:29  Fargo, ND (VIE. 5-18-83H Von
  Bergen SrMarkson, Inc^ The Gray
  Engineering Group, Inc. &
  Conaervatek. Inc.) (Code of Conduct
  raus* be maintained by grantee)
  (potential conflict where City official
  engaged in contracting business).

Conflict of Interest
  81:01   N.Y. State DEC, NY 0L 1-7-81)
(Sweda Enterprises] (Firms representing
other clients, not protestable).

 Conflict of Interest
  1. Southwest Florida Regional Planning
 Council [Fort Myers], PL (IV, 12-3-60) (Jones.
 Edmunds  and Associates/Mlssimer &
 Associates) (A/E with contracts to assess
 and to inspect seawalls).
 Conflict of Interest

 1. Miama-Dade Water and Sewer
   Authority, FL (IV, 10-3-79) (Radiation
   Dynamics, Inc.)

Conflict of Interest.

  •1. Newton. North Carolina (IV. 4-25-78)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.] (personal—
competitor supplier's counsel as counsel for
grantee consultant)
Conflict of Interest
  1.  Atlanta.  Georgia
(Mayer & Associates)
Davis-Bacon Act.
(IV.  5-11-77)
 DESCRIPTIVE  LITERATURE
 Descriptive Literature Requirement (Test
 Data, etc.)
  81:47  lasonville. IN (V, 6-30-81)
 (Hinde Engineering] [incorrect
 information submitted late).
  82:12  Charmelview. TX (VI. 3-«-«2)
 (Euramca Ecosystems) (must allow 30
 days for submitting data).

 Descriptive  Literature  Requirement
    (.see also. Responsiveness; Respon-
    sibility.)
  1. South Portland. Main (I. 10-7-75)
 (Pizzagalli Construction Co.)
  2. Upper Occoquan Sewer Authority
 (Manassas Park). Virginia (III. 11-13-
 75) (John C. Grimberg)
  3. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Au-
 thority. Florida (IV. 9-27-76) (Altman-
 Myers Construction Inc.)
  4. Norwalk, Connecticut (I, 7-22-77)
 (Primiano Construction Co.)
                                    -56-

-------
                DESIGN   DECISIONS
System Design

1. Kansas City, MO (YE, 12-20-79)
  (Carney Companies) (tunnelling)
2. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
  Greater Chicago, H. (V, 8-16-79)
  (Troesch Tracking, Inc.)

System Design. Choice of (eg.. §§ 35.917 and
35 939(|)(5)| (gfp also Ei>i;inpcring /udf>mi'nt.-i:
       tion; .\'on-Rf>±!,'i('tn r Spat ificulioiii>/.
  1. Olympm, Washington (X. 5-30-78)
(Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries.
Inc.)
  2. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
(Westerly Plant). Ohio (V. 6-14-78)
(Mclaughlin & Associates) (v restrictive
specification)
  *3. Onondaga County. New York (II. 7-11-
78) (Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries.
Inc.)

System  Design,  Choice of (§§35.917
    and 35.939(j)<5»  (See  also.  Engi-
    neering Judgment).
  1. Hudson, Wyoming  (VIII. 8-1-74)
(Environmental Equipment Co.)
  •2.  District   of  Columbia   (Blue
Plains) (HI. 2-20-75) (submerged tur-
bine aerators vs. without turbines)
(Kenics Corp.)
  3. St. Joseph, Missouri (VII. 2-20-76)
(specification amendment  which  de-
letes use  of  a  performance  method)
(Turzillo Contracting Co.)
  4. Appleton, Wisconsin (V, 5-17-76)
(engineering  judgment) (Philadelphia
Mixers)

  5. Sacramento, California (IX. 10-6-
76)  (specifying   O.  & M.  factors-
energy  efficiency) (Air Products and
Chemicals Inc.)
  6. Oxnard, California (IX. 12-1-76)
(specification for' digester prestress-
ing) (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
  7. Orange County,  California (IX,
11-2-77) (oxygen generation facilities
vs. alternate system) (Pentech Divi-
sion of Houdaille Industries).
Time Limitations (§ 35.939(b)).
  1. Denver, (City) Colorado (VIII. 4-
22-74) (waiver, reversed by new regula-
tions) (Pinkard Donovan)
  2. Hudson. Wyoming (VIII,  8-1-74)
(Environmental  Equipment)
  3. Omaha, Nebraska (VII. 9-14-74)
(Datamaster Div.— ACCO)
  4. Henry,  South Dakota (VIII. 9-15-
75) (Henningsen)
  5. Oregon, Ohio (V. 11-6-75)  (timeli-
ness as jurisdictional)  (Ohio Control
Systems)
  6. Sunnyvale, California  (IX.  12-5-
 75) (oral protest—revised by new regu-
 lations) (ABP Contractors)
  7.  Butler   County  (LeSourdesville
 Plant), Ohio (V, 1-7-76) (restrictive
 specifications—subtler—grantee  final-
 ity rule) (EPCO—Hormel)
  •8. Spokane, Washington (X, 1-9-76)
 (restrictive  specifications—grantee fi-
 nality rule) (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
  9. Palmer  Lake. Colorado (VIII. 1-
 16-76) (grantee finality  rule)  (Dugan
 Construction Co.)
  10. Predonia. New  York (II,  4-15-76)
 (Tenco Hydro-Aerosciences)
  11. Denver (City and County).  Colo-
 rado (VIII. 7-9-76) (Prank Briscoe)
  12.  Hancock, Michigan (V,  7-12-76)
 (grantee  decision to  use negotiated
 procurement) (Maclean  Construction
 Co.)
  •13. Sacramento, California (IX, 9-9-
 76)    (restrictive   specifications—or
 equal—grantee's  finality)  (Air Prod-
 ucts & Chemicals Inc.)
  •14.  Sacramento, California  (IX, 9-
 13-76)  (restrictive  specifications—or
 equal—grantee's finality) (Amoco Re-
 inforced Plastics)
  •15.  North Shore  Sanitary  District.
 Illinois (V. 9-28-76) (restrictive specifi-
 cations—rejection   of  equipment-
 grantee finality  rule) (Keene Corp.;
 Premier Electric Co.)
  16. Deposit. New York (II.  10-5-76)
 (Albin Construction Co.)
  •17.  Boynton Beach/Delray Beach,
 Florida (IV.  10-14-76) (oral  protest)
 (Ecological Services Products)
  •18.  Concord.  North Carolina (IV,
 10-14-76)  (subtler—timely oral request
 but untimely written) (Air Products &
 Chemical  Inc.)
  19.  Lynn, Massachusetts  (I, 10-21-
 76) (A/E procurement; grantee finality
 rule) (Clinton Bogert Associates)
  20. Baton Rouge. Louisiana  (VI. 11-
 5-76)  (restrictive  specifications—sub-
 tier) (National Hydro Systems)

  21. Detroit.  Michigan (V. 11-10-76)
(estoppel—bidder  on second procure-
ment to challenge rejection of all bids
on first) (Lotepro Corp.)
  22. Cleveland Regional Sewer  Dis-
trict (Southerly  Plant),  Ohio  (V. 11-
 15-76)    (restrictive    specifications)
(Powereon Corp.)
  23.'Norwalk, Connecticut  (I. 11-16-
75)  (letter to State)  (Burnalli  Con-
struction Co.)
  •24. Waterford. Connecticut  (I, 12-
28-76)  (restrictive   specifications—or
equal; finality rule) (New  Ikor I)
                                     -57-

-------
DESIGN

DECISIONS       (CONTINUED)
  25. Fredonia, New York (II. 2-28-77)
(restrictive   specifications—subtler-
equipment  acceptability   determina-
tion) (National Hydro Systems)
  •26. Waterford, Connecticut (I. 3-4-
77)   (restrictive    specifications—or
equal) (New Ikor II)
  •27. Dothan, Alabama (IV. 3-10-77)
(restrictive  specifications—or  equal-
grantee reversed) (Infilco Degremont)
  28.  Sioux  City. Iowa (VII. 3-17-77)
(restrictive specifications—rejection of
shop   drawings  necessary)  (Ralph
Carter Co.; U.S. Enviro-Con)
  29.  Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sev.tr
Authority (II. 3-31-77) (carbon cops -o
local  EPA office) (Blythe Indus'..-.^
Inc.)
  30. Pasadena, Texas (VI. 4-1-77) (re-
strictive      specifications—Subtler—
grantee finality  rule) (Union  Carbide
Corp.)
  31. York. Pennsylvania (III. 4-22-77)
.(grantee finality  rule stated) (L"n:u:i
Carbide Corp.)
  32.  Marion, North Carolina (IV, 5-
17-77) (restrictive  specifications—ad-
mission  against  interest),  (Carolina
Concrete Pipe)
  33.  Bernice, Louisiana (VI, 6-1-77)
(restrictive   specifications—subt :i-r—
performance data)  (National  Hyuio
Systems)
  34. Bradford, Vermont (I.  6-6-77) (no
simultaneous mailing; contract action
as irrantee's final act) (Carvel Go.)
  35.  Daytona Beach, Florida (IV,. 6-
14-77) (letter of intent to  file—su-M1-
quent- untimely  filing) (Key  Po-.\or
Systems)
  36. San Francisco.  California (IX. 6-
20-77) (A/E procurement—Newspaper
column  as notice)  (McKee-Berger-
Mansueto)
  37.   Parsippany-Troy  Hills.   New-
Jersey  (II.  7-8-77) (knowledge of
grantee finality from totality of facts)
(Frank Briscoe)
  38. Cayce. South Carolina (IV, 7-18-
77)  (restrictive  specifications—P'P^
(Southeastern Concrete)
  39.  Canonsberg-Houston  Joint  Au-
thority,  Pennsylvania  (III,  7-2-7 <)
(National Hydro Systems)
  40.  Cranberry Township,  Peiinsy'va'
nia (III, 9-30-77) (restrictive specu'i"a-
tions—preapproval) (Bay-Con Corp.'
  41.  Pepperell,  Massachusetts (I. i1"
22-77) (not decisional—statement ol
notice rule) (Catamount Co.)
                                     -58-

-------
E.E.O.
E.E.O.

83:12  Le Clarie, IA (VII. 2-23-83) (C.
  Iber&Sons, Inc.) (submittal of
  documents after bid opening).

E.E.O.

  81:59  Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission, OR (X. 4-29-
81) (Hyland Brothers Const, and Assoc.)
(responsibility, not responsiveness).
  81:95  Fowlerville. MI (V. 11-9-61)
(Normco Const.) (responsiveness, not
responsibility).
  81:101  Chicago MSD, IL (V, 12-16-81)
(Walsh Const) (responsibility, not
responsiveness).

  82:04  Westport.  SD (VIII. 2-3-82)
(H.F. Jacobs and Sons) (responsibility.
not responsiveness).

  E.E.O.

  1. Skagit County, WA (X, 5-4-79)
    (Glantz Supply, Inc.)
  2. Meriden. CT (1.10-10-79) (Standard
    Engineers and Constructors, Inc.)

  Equal Employment Opportunity (40 C.F R.
  Part 8) (\otice- the President, through
  Executive Order 12086 (October 5. 1978).
  transferred ail primary contract compliance
  responsibilities and functions from pre\iously
  designated contract compliance agencies (e g
  EPA) to the Department of Labor. EPA
  contract compliance activities are being
  integrated into the Department of Labor
  Accordingly. Part 8 no longer reflects the
  obligations and responsibilities of EPA as a
  primary contract compliance agency for
"contract compliance functions under the
  construction grants program) [see a/so.
  Responsiveness. Mmont\ Business
  Enterprise}.

   1. Sandusky. Ohio (V. 1-13-78) (Bay-Con
  Corp.) (certification)
    '2. West Cosh en. Pennsylvania (III. 3-2-78)
  (Philips Bros. Electrical Contractors) (EO
  11246—Philadelphia  Imposed Plan)
    '3. San Francisco. California (IX. 8-9-78)
  (Slaltery Assoc., Fischbach and Moore Inc.
  and Mornson-Knudsen Co. Inc.. joint venture)
  (Minority business enterprise-local
  requirements)
Equal  Employment Opportunity, (40
    CFR Part 8) (see also. Responsive-
    ness, but see Minority Business En-
    terprise').
  1.     Philadelphia.    Pennsylvania
(Southwest Plant) (III.- 2-28-75) (EO
11246—Philadelphia   Imposed   Plan)
(Air Products 
-------
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement

  1. St. Petersburg. FL (IV, 1-10 -BO)
(Municipal and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
(limiting grant eligibility in rebiddlng).

  2. Checotah. OK (VI. 6-18-80) (Sherman
Machine and Iron Works. Inc.) (limiting
additional cost if equipment reprocured).


 Enforcement

 1. Glenbard Waatewater Authority,  TL
   (V, 4-&-T9) [USEMCO, Inc)
 •2. ML Pleasant, MI (V, 6-25-79)
   (Contracts 2 & 3) (Collavino Brothers,
   Construction Co.)

Enforcement.

  '1. Knoxville, Tennessee (IV. 2-8-78) (Roy
F Weston Inc.) (A/E procurement-EPA
rcmdnd authority)
  2. Wells. Maine (I. 3-17-78) (Purcell Pump)
(barring grantee rejection of equipment)
  "3. Cumberland County. New Jersey (II. 3-
31-78) (Dorr-Oliver Inc.) (Technical
nonrestrictive specification requirement  in
post-contract context)
  4. Ml. Olive. North Carolina (IV. 5-18-78)
(Lycc-Zf)
  5. Washtenaw County. Michigan (V. 7-13-
78) (Spence Bros.) (award to low base bid or
readvertise)
  *6. Washington County. Oregon (X. 7-31-
78) (North American Contractors Inc.) (EPA
directed rejection of all bids and negotiation
on rebid)
  7. Chester. South Carolina (IV. 8-7-78)
(Preston Carroll Construction Co.) (EPA
directed rejection of all bids: accelerated
reprocuremen! by negotiation approved)

  8 San Francisco California (IX  H-17-7B) (E
& I  tnc ) (rational basis justification for
performance bond]
  9 Newcastle Indiana—Reconsideration (V.
5-23-78) (requesl of Newcastle. Indi.ina)
(retrofit items procured to Lunform to
determination)
  10 Oklahoma CiU Oklahoma (VI  B-2S-7H)
(Automatic Engineering Inc ) (award to other
subcontractors or reprocure at no rMra rest
to EPA)
  11 Chatanooga Tennessee (IV. 9-20-78)
(Passavant Corp )
  12 Concord. North Carolina (IV. 10-24-78!
(EDC/'Envtro Development Inc )

Enforcement
   1. Lexington. Virginia (III. 8-14-74)
(bond) (Hydro-Systems Inc.)

   2. Grand Forks. North Dakota ivm.
 8-15-74) (Komline-Sanderson)
   3. Lake Charles,  Louisiana  (VI. 12-
 15-74) (Flygt Corp.)
  4. Tonawanda. New York (II. 8-1-75)
(Ingersoll-Rand)
  5.  Clark Co. (Las  Vegas) Sanitary
District (No. 1) Nevada (IX, 12-24-75)
(alternative) (Bovee & Crail Construc-
tion Co.)
  •6. Spokane, Washington (X. 1-9-76)
(BBR Prestressed Tanks Inc.)
  7.  Palmer Lake. Colorado (VIII, 1-
16-76) (Dugan Construction Co.)
  8. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Au-
thority. Florida CIV. 3-11-76) (George
Hyman Construction Co.)
  9.  Sioux City.  Iowa (VII,  7-12-76)
(U.S. Enviro-Con Inc.)
  10. Sacramento. California (IX, 9-9-
76) (Air Products & Chemicals Inc.)
  11. Bergen County.  New  Jersey (II,
9-28-76)   (Wm.   L.   Crow-Wolff  &
Munier, Joint Venture)
  12. Palm Beach County, Florida (IV.
10-8-76) (Price Brothers)
  13.   Philadelphia,    Pennsylvania
(Northeast Plant) (III. 12-6-76)  (Sov-
ereign Construction Co.)
  14. Watcrford. Connecticut (I, 12-28-
76) (New Ikor I)
  15. Bradford. Vermont  (I.  3-4-77)
(Cummings)
  16. Waterford,  Connecticut (I. 3-4-
77) (New Ikor II)
  17. Sioux City.  Iowa (VII. 3-17-77)
(Ralph B. Carter Inc.: and U.S. Enviro-
Con Inc.)
  18. Put'i to Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
Authority (II. 3-31-77) (Blythe Indus-
tries Inc.)
  19. Delano. California  (IX.  4-8-77)
(specification  revision)  (Hydro  Con-
duit  Corp.  and  Cen-Vi-Ro Concrete
Pipe & Product* Co.. Inc.)
  •20. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (VI,
5-18-77) (Ingersoll-Rand I)
  21. Miami-Dade  Water  and Sewer
Authority, Florida (IV, 5-25-77)  (Mor-
eanti  South-Wolff  & Munier  Joint
Venture and Intercounty Construction
Corp.)
  22. Watertown.  New York (II, 7-5-
77) (Vincent J. Fasano, Inc.)
  23. Oklahoma City. Oklahoma (VI,
7-13-77) (Ingersoll-Rand II)
  24. Toms Brook—Maurertown. Vir-
ginia (III.  9-20-77) (National Hydro
Systems)
  25. McFarland. California (IX.  9-29-
77) (Lagoon Aeration Corp.)
  26. Cranberry Township,  Pennsylva-
nia (III, 10-20-77) (Bay-Con Corp.)
  27. Contra Costa County. California
(IX. 10-25-77) (Armco Steel)
  28. Loxahatchee River Environmen-
tal Control District. Florida (IV.  11-3-
77) (Guy Villa & Sons Inc.)
  29. Brick  Township. New Jersey (II,
11-22-77) (P. & A. Construction Co.)
  3J). Bridgewater. New Jersey (II,  12-
2-77) (Lombardo Contracting Co.)
  31. Ramsey, New Jersey (II. 12-2-77)
(P. & A. Construction Co.)

   32.  Corvallis,  Oregon  (X.  12-6-77)
 (Frank Coluccio Construction Co.)
   33. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-
 sioners, Newark,  New Jersey (II,  12-
 10-77) (BSP Division of  Envirotech
 Corp.)
                                       -60-

-------
ENGINEERING   JUDGMENT
Engineering Judgment
84:07  Metropolitan Sanitary Chat of
    Greater Chicago. IL (V. 2-6-84) (A./.
    Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind. Inc.. and
    Klein Const Co.) (technical
    feasibility of equipment offered).
84:08  Western Carolina Regional
    Sewer Authority, Greenville. SC (IV.
    2-17-84) (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley)
    (EPA compares engineer's minimum
    performance requirements with his
    reasons for rejecting supplier).
84:18  Town of Milford. MA (I, 4-20-64)
    (Euramca Ecosystems, Inc.)
    (rational basis for denying
    prequalification of a proposal not
    meeting specifications).

Engineering Judgment
83:20  Los Angeles. CA (IX, 3-28-64)
  (Solar Turbiaes, Inc.) (basic design
  decision not protestaole where baaed
  on performance needs).
83:23  Jerseyville.  IL (V, 4-14-83) (Clow
  Corp.) (must show rational basis foe
  using brand name specification}.
83:30  St. Albans.  WV (III. 5-27-83)
  (Ralph 3, Carter Co.) (performance  *
  tests of equipment).
83:37  Central Valtey. UT (Vffl. 8-17-83)
  (American Surfpac. Inc.} (choice of
  filter media not basic design and may
  be protested).
83:55  Brazos River. TX (VI. 9-23-83)
  (Jeffery Manufacturing Div.]
  (technical features need not be only
  choice available if rational) (reliability
  requirements consideration).
   81:08  Morgantown,WV (HL 2-1-81)
 (Clow Co.) (sole sourcing must be baaed
 on minimum needs).
   81:58  Ashland. KY (IV, 7-27-81)
 (Fairbanks Morse Pump) (speculative
 maintenance problems).
   81:61  Southington. CT [L 8-7-81)
 (Chemcon) (pump design).
   81:69  Houma. LA (VI, 8-18-41)
 (Hydromatic Pump) (cooduaory
 representations).
   81:74  Tifton. GA (IV. 9-1-81)
 (Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services)
 (deference to engineer's judgment).
   81:83  Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority.
 PA (m, 10-13-81) (RAM Asaoc.) (ability
 to develop test data).
  81:86  Huntsville, AL (IV. 10-15-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services.
and Astor Bolden Enterprises) (selection
of single material grout).
  8149  Harford County, MD (III. 10-
19-61) (Schuylkill Products) (excluaioo
of a specific manufacturing process).
  81:92  Hallandale. FL (IV. 11-3-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services;
Interstate Pipe Maintenance; and
Polymer Chemical Corp.) (use of single
material grout).
  81:100  Harriman. TN (IV, 12-9-81)
(Municipal * Industrial Pipe Services)
(best able to restore technical matters
and evaluate specific project
requirements).
  82412  Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority.
PA (1IL 1-22-82) (RAM Assoc.) (bond
submittal in lieu of experience).
  82.-08  Tangier. VA (III. 2-11-82)
(Ultraviolet Purification Systems)
(excess capacity requirement is rational
where design is experimental).
  82:07  Chattanooga. TN (IV. 2-18-82)
(Spencer Turbine Co.) (cast iron to
insure reliability and performance).
  82:10  SaugetlLfV. 2-19-82) (GHA
Lock Co.) (deference to technical
judgment of grantee).
  8Z18  Miami-Dede Water & Sewer
Authority. FL (IV. 3-31-81) (Worthingtoa
Group) (requiring heavy duty pump).
  82:44  Memphis. TN (TV. 8-16-82) (
B.F. Goodrich Co.) (exclusion of plastic
media bio Miter not rational).
  82:45  Dumas, AR (VL 9-7-62) (Hmde
Engineering) (deference to engineer is
not absolute).
  82:57  Cape May MUA.NJ (11,11-1-
82) (American Bioreactor Co. and
FairfieW Service) (baic project design).
  82rtl  El Dorado. KS (VH. 11-16-82)
(Ouraler Brothers Const.) (must be
rationally based).
  82£7  CuHmaiLAL ffV. 11-30-831 [Cal
Corp^ Encore Corp^ and Drew aid
Assoc.] (deference to engineer's action
not absolute).
                                     -61-

-------
       ENGINEERING   JUDGMENT
                                    (CONTINUED)
 Engineering Judgment
  1. East Bay Discharger* Authority. CA (IX
 1-30-60) (Capital Controls Company)
 (rational basis to reject proposed equal).
  2. Odessa, TX (VI2-4-60) (Gifford-Hill and
 Company) (rational basis for single material).
  3. Whitehall NY (0. 2-5-40) (Davis Water
 ft Waste Industries. Inc.) (salient requirement
 to meet minimum need).
  4. ToUeson, AZ (IX 3-17-80) (Hydro
 Conduit Corporation) (justification for single
 material).
  5. Puyallup. WA (X 4-24-80) (Rodding-
 deaning Machines. Inc.) (requirement based
 on performance need).
  6. Moorhead. MN (V. 6-3-W) (Waldor
 Pump ft Equipment Company) (consultant's
 judgment to be rationally based).
  7. Clarksville. TN (IV. 6-5-80) (Penetryn
 Systems. Inc.) Qualification for single
 material).
  8. Cowry Sanitation Districts of Los
 Angeles County. CA (DC. 6-28-60) (mgersoll-
 Rand Co.) (rational performance related
 basis).
  9. Richmond. VA (ID. 7-1-80) (Lane
 Construction Company; Clevepak
 Corporation) (equipment rejection for   •
 performance needs has rational basis).
  10. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
 OH (V. 10-14-60) (Id Americas. Inc.) (single
 material requirement has rational basis).

 Engineering Judgment
 1. Batesville, AR (VI, 1-12-79) (Hinde
    Engineering Co.)
 2. Cape May County, N] (H, 8-31-79]
    (Clow/Envirodisc Corp.)
 3. Chattanooga, TN (IV, 3-27-79)
    (Performance Systems, foe.)
 4. Cleveland Regional Sewer District.
    OH—Clarification (V, 12-28-79)
    (Water Pollution Control Corp.)
 5. Concord, NH (1,4-18-79) (Passavant
    Corp.) (Buy American)
 6. Concord. NH (1,10-4-79) (Bethlehem
    Steel Corp.) (Buy American)
 7. GaihavUle, GA (IV, 8-15-79) (National
—Hydro ^ystems. Inc. (II))

 8. Kansas City, MO (VD, 12-20-79)
    (Carney Companies) (alternate  -
    method for tunnelling)
  *9. La'urens County, SC (IV, 7-10-79)
    (Carolina Concrete Pipe Co. et al.)
    (justification for limiting choice of
    materials)
 11. Meriden, Ct (1,10-10-79) (Standard
    Engineers and Constructors, Inc.)
 12. Miami-Dade  Water and Sewer
    Authority, FL  (IV, 10-3-79) (Radiation
    Dynamics, Inc.)  ._
13. Monterey County, CA (K, 2-28-79)
  (Moneterey Construction Surveys,
  Inc.)
14. Skagit County. WA (X, 5-4-79)"
  (Glantz Supply, Inc.)

 Engineering judgment (And SUP. \iin-
 Restrictive Specifications]

   1. Turlock. California (IX. 3-6-78) (Rega
 Inc.) ("or equal" judgment).
   '2. Chester. South Carolina (IV. 3-29-78)
 (Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.) (single pipe
 material selection)
   3. Cumberland County. Now Jersey (H. 3-
 31-78) (Dorr-Oliver Inc ) (nonrompK inp
 prc.ipproved supplier)
   4 Front Royal. Virginia (III. 4-21-78) (Lyco-
 zn
   5. Olympia. Washington (X. 5-30-7HI
 (Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries
 Inc ) (proiecl design issui>-<*\>nen;ilnn sludpe
 tiiMlment system)
   6 Cleveland Regional Sower District
 (Westerly Plant) Ohio (V. 9M4-7B)
 (Mr.Laughhn ft Associates)
   '7..Pnnce William Count\. Viryinid (111 8-
 4-7'8l ISpenrer Turliini- Comp.in\ | I .n i-q;i.i!
 deiiTniiiiiitKin ri-Mt'wed on r.iin'!'.,il '.,.i-,-^
 si.ind.irdl
   H Wiiu hebliT New H.impsh.n (I o-l-'pi
 (Knxiro Dt-velopmpnt Co. Ini. |
   9 Indianapolis. Indiana (V 10-6-7H] (Allis-
 Chalmers) ("or equal" decision)
   '10. Breese. Illinois (V. 10-18-78) (Midwest
 Soil Products and Davco-Defianne) (Rdiional
 b.isis standard)
   11. Fairfield. New Jersey (II. 10-20-78) fl.oc
 Pump)
   12. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-31-78)
 (Allis-Chalmers) ("or equal" decision!.
   13 Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 11-2-78)
 (Philadelphia Gear)
   14. Urbana-Champaign. Illinois (V. 11-9-78)
 (Norton Co.) (rational basis standard)
   15. Waterford. Connecticut (1. 11-17-78)
 (Purcell Pump)

 Engineering Judgment.
    1. Hudson. Wyoming  (VIII. 8-1-74)
 (Environmental Equipment Co.)
    2. Grand Porks, North Dakota (VIII,
 8-15-74) (Kornline-Sanderson)
    3. Lake Charles,  Louisiana (VI. 12-
 15-74) (Flygt Corp.)
   4. Englewood and Littleton, Colora-
 do (VIII, 2-10-75)  (Air Products and
 Chemicals Inc.)
   5. District  of Columbia (Blue Plains)
 (III. 2-20-75) (Kenics Corp.)
   6. Appleton. Wisconsin (V. 5-17-76)
 (Philadelphia Mixers Corp.)
   •7. Chatham  Co.. (Isle of  Hope),
 Georgia  (IV, 7-8-76)  (Kyle-Gilford-
 Hill Inc.)
                                       -62-

-------
        ENGINEERING  JUDGMENT
(CONTINUED)
  8. Sioux City. Iowa (VII, 7-12-76)
(U.S. Enviro-Con)
  9. Sacramento. California (IX. 8-12-
76) (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
  10. Miami-Dade Water  and Sewer
Authority.  Florida   (IV,  9-27-76)
(Altman-Myers Construction Co.)
  11. North Shore Sanitary District, Il-
linois (V, 9-28-76) (Keene Corp.: and
Premier Electrical Construction Co.)
  12. Cleveland Regional  Sewer Dis-
trict (Southerly Plant). Ohio (V. 11-
15-76) (Powercon Corp.)
  13. Oxnard. California (IX. 12-1-76)
(BBR Prestressed Tanks)
  14. Fredoma, New York (II, 2-28-77)
(National Hydro Systems)
  15. Waterford, Connecticut (I, 3-4-
77) (Loc Pump and Equipment)
  16. Dothan,  Alabama (IV,  3-10-77)
(Inf ilco-Degremont)
  17. Delano. California  (IX. 4-8-77)
(Hydro Conduit Corp. and Cen-Vi-Ro
Concrete Pipe 
-------
  EXPERIENCE  REQUIREMENTS
Experience Requirements
84:29  City of New York. NY {H. 8-15-
    84) (Terminal Const. Corp.. and
    FairfieldService Co.) (bond permits
    flexibility in accepting manufacturer
    with less experience but does not
    require grantee to accept unproven
    designs and untested equipment).
84:34  Glens Falls. NY (II. 8-30-84)
    (Dorr-Oliver. Inc.) (matter of
    responsibility not responsiveness)
    (affirmative determination that
    bidder has sufficient experience
    based on its principal officer's
    experience  from former working
    with a competitor).
 Experience Requirement*
 83:02  Columbus. OH (V. 1-12-aa)
   (Cobey Metro—Waste Composting
   Systems. Inc.] (experience clause
   justified by complexity of the
   equipment and innovative technology)
   (supplier standing under Part 35 to
   challenge clause and determination of
   inadequate experience).
 83:03  Columbus. OH [Reconsideration]
   (V. 6-8-83) (Cobey Metro—Waste
   Composting System. Inc.] (only must
   prove rational basis for experience
   requirement if protestor shows
   competition affected).
 83:24  Oklahoma City, OK (VL 4-29-83)
   (D.J. Domas. Inc.) (general clause
   requiring experience installing similar
   equipment—no bond alternative).
 83:24  Oklahoma City. OK
   [Reconsideration) (VL 5-23-«3)
   (Fiberglass Engineered Products* Inc. I
    (requiring unspecific period of
    experience is ambiguous).
  33:38  Sacramento, CA (VIII, 6-17-83)
    (Power Machine Co.) (must be
    justified).
Experience Requirements
  81:77  Carrboro. NC (IV. 9-23-81)
(Clevepak Corp.) (award to newly
formed corporation—experience
requirements discouraged).
  81:80  Sacramento County.CA (IX.
10-2-81) (Westates Carbon Co.) (unduly
restrictive).
  81:83  Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (III. 10-13-81) (R&M Assoc.) (test
results or installation listing).
  82:02  Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (III, 1-22-82) (R*M Assoc.) (bond
 submittal in lieu of experience)
 (reconsideration).
   82:83   Brockton. MA (I, 8-18-82)
 (Tenco Hydro) (may be justified during
 protest—must permit bond in lieu).
Experience Requirement*
  1. Orange County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County. CA (IX 5-22-80) (Ralph B.
Carter Co.: Komline-Sanderson Engineering
Corp.) (experience as prequalification factor).

Experience Requirements

1. Barnstable, MA (I, 8-24-79)
  (Chemcon, Inc.)
2. De Kalb Sanitary District H (V, 2-15-
  79) (Autotrol Corp.) (RED equipment)
3. Howard County, MD 0H, 2-15-79)
  (Water Pollution Control Corp.)
4. Seaford, DE (IB. 1-8-79) (National
  Hydro Systems, Inc.),

Experience Requirements (§ 35.936-13(c))
(see Bonds: Non-Restrictive Specifications],
  •1. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-21-78)
(Autotrol) (rotating biological discs—100%
performance and 100% process guarantee
bonds: specifications waived)
  '2. San Francisco. California (IX 3-22-78)
(E 4 !. Inc.) (bar screen equipment—prior
supply of equipment: no provision for bond:
no prior justification)
  3. Front Royal. Virginia (HI. 4-21-78) (Lyco-
Zll (clarifier and related equipment:
performance data prequalification
requirement)
  4. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority.
Florida (IV. 5-18-78) (Enviro Development
Co. and Poole & Kent Co.) (sludge dewatenng
system—bond in lieu of experience
requirement: responsiveness)
  5. San Francisco. California (IX. 8-17-78) (E
& I. Inc.) (bar screen equipment—175% bond
in lieu of experience)
  6. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-6-78) (FMC
Corp )
  7 Silvrr City. New Mexico (VI. 10-13-78)
(F.nviro Development Co. Inc.)
  8. Fairfield. New Jersey (II. 10-20-78) (Loc
Pump) (submersible pumps—list of
installations  required in lieu of operating
data)
  9. Concord. North Carolina (IV. 10-24-78)
(EDC/Enviro Development Inc.) (sludge
dewatermg system—5 years: procedures for.
written justification requirement)
  10. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 11-2-78)
(Philadelphia Gear) (oxygen generation and
oxygenation system—5 years: overlap with
warranties: justification)
  11. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Charlottesville. Virginia (III. 11-2-78)
(National Hydro Systems) (3 year: warranty
bonds: justification)

  •1. Butler Co. (LeSourdsville Plant)
Ohio (V, 1-7-76) (EPCO—Hormel)
  2.  Bemice.  Louisiana  (VI,  6-1-77)
(National Hydro Sy-stems)
  3.  Kansas City. Kansas (VII, 11-17-
77) (Nichols Engineering & Research
Corp.; and Zimpro)
  4. Amherst. New York (II, 11-22-77)
(Smith & Associates)
  *5. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-
sioners,  Newark, New Jersey (II.  12-
10-77) (BSP Division  of  Envirotech
Corp.)
                                    -64-

-------
    FORMAL


   ADVERTISING

   81:38  Indianapolis, IN (V, 5-27-81)
  (American Digital Systems) (may be
  used to procure SSES contractor).
   82:06  Santa Fe. MM. (VL 2-18-62)
  (Mesa Grande) (verbal IFB amendment).
   82:83  Elk Pinch PSD. WV (ffl. 1-18-
  82) (Kappe Assoc.. Inc.) (communicate
  addenda in time for bid preparation).
   82:88  Atwood. OH (V, 12-1-82}
  (Munitech)  (bidden on equal footing).
    1. Springfield. Missouri (VII. 1-24-78)
  (Armco Steel Corp.) (local preference rules
  for supply of materials)
    2. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-6-78) (Maulz &
  Oren. Inc.) (waiver of bid irregularities)
    3. Snyderville. Utah (VIII. 4-17-78)
  (JHCobsen Construction Co. Inc.) (supplier
  price and delivery data)
    4. Washlenaw County. Michigan (V. 7-13-
  7H| (Spence Bros.) (bid evaluation—base vs
  allrrnale bid)
    5 Washington County. Oregon (X. 7-31-78)
  (North American Contractors Inc )
  (explanation of method of contract award.
  award to low bidder)

   6. Greenville. Texas (VI. 12-7-78) (R. B
  Carter)
   7. Portage. Michigan (V. 12-20-78)
  (lacobelli Construction Inc ) (reject 8 of 10
  contracts)
  1. Grand Forks, North Dakota (VIII.
8-15-74) (Komli'ne-Sanderson)
  2. Henry. South Dakota (VIII. 9-15-
75) (in-state) (Henningsen  Construc-
tion Co.)
  3. South Portland. Maine (I. 10-7-75)
(Pizzagalli Construction Co.)
  4. Washington Surburban Sanitary
Commission, Maryland (III, 10-15-75)
(notice of  state  court  case)  (Volpe
Construction Co.; and John C. Grim-
berg)
  5. Monroe. Washington (X. 12-31-75)
(Will Construction Co.)
  6. St. Joseph, Missouri (VII. 2-20-76)
(Addenda issuance) (Turzillo Contract-
ing Co.)
  7. Huntington, West  Virginia (HI. 4-
9-76) (National  Engineering and Con-
tracting Co.;  and Envirotech Corp.)
  8. Phoenix. New York (II,  5-7-76)
(Vincent J. Fasano)
  9. Deposit, New  York (II. 10-5-76)
(reprocurement) (Albin  Construction
Corp.)
  •10. St. Paul (Metropolitan  Waste
Control Commission). Minnesota (V.
12-3-76) (Kvalsten Electric)
  11. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer
Authority, (II, 3-31-77) (Elythe Indus-
tries Inc.)
  12. Lynden. Washington (X, 5-16-77)
(Arcomm Construction Co.)
  •13. Bradford, Vermont  (I.  6-6-77)
(Carvel Co.)
  14.  Middlesex  (Sayreville   Relief
Pump Station),  New Jersey, (II, 6-9-
77) (Terminal Construction Co.)
  15.  Parsippany-Troy  Hills,   New
Jersey (II, 7-8-77) (Frank Briscoe)
  16.  Loxahatachee  River Environ-
mental Control District, Florida (IV,
11-3-77) (reprocurement) (Guy Villa &
Recipient
RESPONSIBILITY
 Grantee Responsibility

   81:33  Lynchburg. OH (V. 4-30-81)
 (Dow Const) (state/local legal
 determination).
   81:46  San Francisco. CA (IX 3-27-
 81) (Alliance of Minority Contractors
 and Suppliers) (contract administration
 to maximize MBE),
   81:88  Warren County MUA. NJ (IL 8-
 19-81) (Schuylkill Products) (evaluation
 of other materials where two materials
 specified).
   82:12  Channelview, TX (VL 3-«-82)
 (Euramca Ecosystems) (when
 prequalifying equipment must allow 30
 days for submitting data).
   82:22  Goldendale. WAS (X 4-16-82)
 (IMCO General Const) (give parties
 notice of protest procedure and
 opportunity to express views).
   8:41  Abilene. TX (VL 7-27-82) (R4M
 Engineering) (allow contractor rebuttal
 before finding nonresponsible for prior
 inadequate performance).
   82:45  Pasadena, TX (VL 8-17-82)
 (Parkson) (pre-rejection notice of
 reasons for rejection not necessary).
   82:49  Dumas. AR (VL 9-7-82) (Hinde
 Engineering) (rebuttal opportunity).
   82:70  Metropolitan Wastewater
 Management Commission, OR (X12-
 22-82) (Robert Dougan Const) (rejection
 of all bids if specifications unduly
 restrictive).

 Grantee Responsibilities

 1. Cleveland Regional Sewer District,
   OH—Clarification (V. 12-28-79)
   (Water Pollution Control Corp.)
 2. Cochran, GA (IV. 9-14-79) (Municipal
   and Industrial Pipe Service, Ltd.)
 3. Conneaut. OH (V, 7-18-79) (Hoff-
   Weston)
 4. Gainesville, GA (IV, 6-15-79)
   (National Hydro System, Inc. (II))
   (review of shop drawings, notification
   of defects)
 5. Glenbard Wastewater Authority, IL
   (V, 4-6-79) (USEMCO, Inc.)
 6. Monterey County, CA (IX 2-26-79)
   (Monterey Construction Surveys, Inc.)

 Grantee Responsibilities
   1. Nashville. Ml (V, 10-24-80) (Clark
 Construction Company) (MBE goals.
 investigation of MBE status).

  Grantee Responsibilities (§§ 30.210 and
     35.936-5).
    1.  Sussex. Wisconsin  (V.  4-14-77)
  (Fisher & Porter)
    2.  Bradford,  Vermont  (I.  6-6-77)
  (Carvel Co.)
    3. Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey
  (It 7-S-77) (Frank Briscoe)
                                     -65-

-------
INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES
              Ambiguity
Innovative and Alternative Technology

1. Miami—Dade Water and Sewer
  Authority, FL (IV, 10-3-79] {Radiation
  Dynamics, Inc.)

Innovative and Alternative Technologies
($5 35.908. 35.917-l(d). 35.930-5. 35.935-20.
.arid 35.936-13. and 43 Fed. Reg. 44026-29
September 27.1978) (see also, jurisdiction).

  1. Olympia. Washington {X. 5-30-78)
(Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries.
Inc.) (protest design considerations: cost-
effectiveness)
  2. Onondaga County. New York (II. 7-11-
78) (Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries
Inc.)
  •3. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-6-78) (FMC
Corp.) (open tank nitrification system)
INVITATION


    FOR  BIDS

Invitation for Bids
A. Addenda
83:16  Halstead, Hutchinson, KS (VU, 3-
  9-83) (Charles E. Stevens) (where
  addenda had no connection with bid
  preparation no harm in short notice
  period).
83:69  Conroe. TX (VI, 12-13-83) (KNC,
  Inc.) (verbal addenda generally
  prohibited) (inadequate time to
  consider addenda).
Invitation for Bid (IFB)

A. Ambiguity
84:10  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
    Greater Chicago, EL (V, 3-1-84)
    (Premier Electrical Const. Co.) (non
    prejudicial ambiguity in
    specification as to how post-bid
    opening submittal considered in
    determining responsibility).
84:13  New Hampshire Water Supply &
    Pollution Control NH (I, 3-28-84)
  . (Catamount Const.. Inc.) (IFB not
    clear and unequivocal as to
    equipment listing requirement) (two
    prong test considers all bid
    documents).
84:15  Mattabassett Dist Regional
    Sewer Auth.. Cromwell. CT (1.4-12-
    84) (PeabpdyN£.. Inc.) (material
    ambiguities  as to bid evaluation and
    what constitute responsiveness
    potentially affected competition and
    required cancelling solicitation).
84:24  City of Leominister, MA (I. 8-11-
    84) (P. Gioioso 6-Sons. Inc.)
    (potential ambiguity not shown to
    have affected competition  does not
    justify rejecting all bids).
84:28  Libby. MT (VHL 8-9-84)
    (Transamerican Contractors. Inc.)
    (listing requirement was
    responsibility matter due to
    ambiguity inspite of grantee intent).

Ambiguity
83:08  Hamilton. MT (VIE, 2-8-83) (4C
  Plumbing & Heating. Inc.) (MBE
  requirements unclear as to
  responsiveness).
83:27  Port Arthur, TX (V, 5-12-83)
  (Robert Bossow, Inc.) (unclear bid
  evaluation method harmless error
  where no reliance by or prejudice to
  bidder).
83:36  Bentonville. AR (VI. 6-14-83)
  (Archer Henry Const, Co.) (harmless
  error where no prejudice to bidder).
83:64  Los Angeles, CA (IX. 11-25-83)
  (C K Pump & Dewatering Corp.)
  (ambiguous MBE requirements cause
  for rejecting all bids).
83:68  Tri-City.'OR (X. 12-9-83)
  (Dresser Industries, Inc.) (to
  determine if specifications restrictive
  consider extrinsic factors like trade
  custom).
                                   -66-

-------
             INVITATION   FOR   BIDS
Ambiguity   (CONTINUED)

  81:03  Pierce County, WA (X, 1-14-
81) (Frank Coluccio Const) (MBE
requirements).
  81:20  Tupelo, MS (TV, 4-7-81) (Jesco,
Inc.) (equipment listing requirement).
  81:22  Corvallis, OR (X. 4-10-81)
(Environmental Pollution Control, Inc.)
(reject all bids and readvertise).
  81:30  Portage. IN (V, 4-28-61)
(Associated Mechanical Services) (MBE
requirements).
  81:50  Kalida. OH (V, 7-2-81)
(Sherbum Co.) (alternate pipe materials
not prejudicial).
  81:51  Lynchberg. OH (V, 7-21-81)
(Dow Construction Corp.) (bid clarified
after opening).
  81:73  Valparaiso. IN (V, 8-28-81) (H.
DeWulf Mechanical Contractor) (MBE
requirements).
  81.78  Chicago MSD. IL TV, 10-27-81)
(S.A. Healy) (MBE requirements).
  81:82  Batesville, IN (V. 10-7-81)
(Bowen Engineering) (MBE
requirements)..
  81:90  Chicago MSD. IL (V. 10-27-61)
 (S.A. Healy, et al.) (MBE requirements)
 (reconsideration see 81:78).
  81:97  Elmhurst, IL (V, 11-12-81)
 (Miller-Davis) (MBE requirements).
  82:15  Philadelphia, PA (ID. 3-16-82)
 (Williard, Inc.] (prejudice to bidders
 justifies rejection of all bids).

  Ambiguity
    1. San Buenaventura, CA (DC. 3-28-40) (A.
  A. Portanova ft Sons) (difference between
  unit price and extended total).
    2. Glennville, GA (IV. 4-4-80) 0- W.
  Meadon and Company) (unsolicited
  discount).
    3. Port Austin Area Water and Sewer
  Authority. MI (V. 7-2-80) (Amado Garden**,
  d/b/a Nashville Excavating Company) (MBE
  efforts prior to bidding).
    4. Newaygo County Board of PubBc Works,
  MI (V, 7-21-80) (M. D. Taddie & Company.
  Inc.) (discount applied to single contract).
    S. Rochester. MN (V, 7-24-80) (Dwln ft
  Armstrong. Ino: Kraus-AnderMn/PMW
  Construction: Newberg. Foster ft Paschen;
  Premier Electric Corporation) (MBE affect
  prior to biddina).
  8. Ne way gd County Board of Public Works.
MI (V. 7-28-60) (R. S. Bennett ft Company)
(prequalified equipment to comply with
specifications).
  7. Ashley Valley. Sewer Management
Board. UT (VOL 11-20-*)) (Western Utility
Contractors. Inc) (difference between ait
price and extended total).


 Defective IFB
 1. Bend, OR (X, 5-15-79) (Industrial
   Pump Sales Co.) [minimum project
   requirements)
 2. Cochran. GA (IV, 9-14-79) (Municipal
   and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
 3. Passaic Valley Sewerage       '  '
   Commissioners, NJ (n. 4-13-79)
   (Pasaavant Corp.)       t

Ambiguity I but see Bids: Mistake).

  1. Amhersl. New York (11. 5-15-78) (Cimalo
Bros. Inc.)
  2. Harrington. Illinois (V. 10-20-78) (Utility
4 Industrial Construction Co.) (method of
bidding: basis for contract award)

Ambiguity (but see Bids; Mistake).
  1. Huntington. West Virginia (III. 4-
9-78) (National Engineering and Con-
tracting Co.;  and Envirotech Corp.)
  2. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-
sioners. Newark. New  Jersey (II, 12-
10-77)  (BSP Division  of Envirotech
Corp.)
 Defective

 Defective IFB
 1. Bend, OR (X 5-15-79) (Industrial
  Pump Sales Co.) (minimum project
  requirements)
 2. Cochran, GA (IV. 9-14-79) (Municipal
  and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
 3. Passaic Valley Sewerage
  Commissioners. N] (IL 4-13-79)
  (Passavant Corp.)

 Defective Invitation for Bids (see a/no
 Ambiguity: Specifications).

  •1. Snxderville. Utah (V1I1. 4-17-78]
 (Jacobsen Construction Co. Inc.]
  Z. Washtenaw County. Michigan (V  7-13-
 781 (Spence Bros.) (impossibiliu of
 performance, unavailability  of alti'rn.ite
 ilisposnl Sill')
  I U.ishm^ion Cuuniy Orcnon l.\ 7-.n-~H|
 (North American Contrjclors Im. )
 (dllcrndte.s)
  4. Chester. South Carolina (IV. B-7-78)
 (Preston Carroll Construction Co.| (multiple
 low bidders)
                                      -67-

-------
LICENSE
License
84:53  MSD of Greater Chicago. IL (V.
    12-13-84) (Moretrench American
    Corp.] (obtaining license is
    responsibility matter permitting
    award of contract before license
    obtained).

License
83:05  Morton. MS (IV, 1-25-83)
  (Associated Const., Inc.) (license
  requirement affects responsibility not .
  responsiveness).

License Requirement

  82:33  Henderson, NV (IX. 6-22-82)
(Nielson. Vasko & Earl, Inc.) (state law
requiring license before bidding).


LISTING


SUBCONTRACTORS

Listing Requirement
84:01  Gwynns Falls, MD (HI. 1-13-84)
    [Joseph L. Cardinale & Sons, Inc.]
    (bid responsive where MBE goal not
    satisfied by subcontractor).
84:06   City of Toronto, OH (IV, 2-2-84)
    [/.L Cavanaugh Co.. Inc.] (not
    responsiveness matter where
    specification not intended to
    prevent bid shopping).
84:10   Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
    Greater Chicago. IL (V. 3-1-84)
    [Premier Electrical Const. Co.)
    (failure to submit letter of intent to
    MBE subcontractor is not
    responsiveness matter absent clear
    IFB).
84:13   New Hampshire Water Supply &
    Pollution Control NH (I, 3-28-84)
    [Catamount Const., Inc.) (equipment
    listing not matter of responsiveness
    absent clear IFB).
 84:15  Mattabassett Dist. Regional
    Sewer Auth., Cromwell. CT (1, 4-12-
    84) [Peabody N.E., Inc.) (listing
    supplier is responsibility matter
    absent clear IFB).
 84:28  Libby, MT (Vffl, 8-9-84)
    [Transamerican Contractors, Inc.)
    (listing of manufacturers is
    responsibility matter where IFB is
    ambiguous).
Listing Subcontractor* and Equipment
83:13  Sandpoint, ID (X 3-3-83) (Lydig
  Const., Co.) (required by state law)
  (follow Part 35 determinations).
83:17  Patapsco, MD (ffl. 3-17-83) (/.
  Vinton, Schafer & Sons, lac.) (failure
  to list MBEs did not render bid
  nonresponsive).
83:21  Chester, CT (L 4-7-63) (Maple
  Hill Const., Co.) (subcontractor listing
  not matter of responsiveness unless
  clear IFB).
83:22  San Jose. CA (IX. 4-11-83)
  (Johnson Controls, Inc.) (equipment
  listing responsibility matter under Part
  33 unless IFB clear to contrary).
83:26  Waynesburg [Stark County], OH
  (V. 5-12-83) (Robert Bossow, Inc.) (bid
  may be accepted and contractor
  required to do substitution).
83:28  Des Moines, WA (X, 5-18-83)
  (Will Const Co. Inc.) (listing MBE
  subcontractor responsibility matter).
83:32  Los Angeles, CA (IX, 6-6-83)
  (Advanco Constructors, Inc.) (bid not
  deemed nonresponsive for listing
  more than one subcontractor).
83:35  Pleasant Hill, IL (V, 6-10-83)
  {State Mechanical Contractors,-Inc.)
  (because bidder required to perform to
  specifications and substitute
  equipment if necessary, listing
  nonconforming equipment is not
  nonresponsive).
83:44  Streetsboro, Ravenna, OH (V, 7-
  1-83) (Robert Bossow,  Inc.)
  (substitution of noncomplying
  equipment) (listing errors not grounds
  for rejection).
83:44  Streetsboro, Ravenna, OH
  [Reconsideration] (V, 8-28-83) (Robert
  Bossow, Inc.) (bid accepted and
  contractor required to substitute
  equipment).
83:49  MSD, Chicago, IL (V. 8-2-83)
  (Door Systems of Elk Grove) (not
  grounds for rejection where IFB
  required listing) (listing to list MBEs).
83:51  Santa Barbara. CA (IX 8-15-83)
  (Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
                                     -68-

-------
      MINORITY  AND  WOMEN'S
      BUSINESS   ENTERPRISE
Minority and Women's Business
Enterprise (MBE/WBE)
84:01  Gwynns Falls. MD (III. 1-13-34)
    [Joseph L Cardinale & Sons, Inc.)
    (bid responsible though failed to
    meet MBE requirements within 10
    days as requiired by IFB).
84:06  City of Toronto. OH (TV. 2-2-84)
    (f.L. Cavanaugh Co.. Inc.)
    [ambiguity in specifications as to
    time for meeting MBE goal renders
    listing requirement matter of
    responsibility) (unconditional
    certification to comply with MBE
    subcontracting makes bid
    responsive even though all MBE
    forms not completed).
84:16  Back River Waste Water
    Treatment Plant. MD (III. 4-17-84)
    (fames A. Federline, Inc. H.A.
    Harris Co.) (where bidder required
    to list and use certified MBEs bid
    was responsive though MBE's not
    certified until after bid opening).
84:41  City of Lancaster. PA (III. 10-16-
    84) (Wyatt Const.  Inc.)'(grantee
    correctly determined bidder made
    good faith efforts) (good faith effort
    does not require bidder to  negotiate
    with subcontract offer or).
84:42  St. Paul MWCC, MN (V, 10-18-
    84) (Hoffman Electric Co.) (grantee
    may make compliance with MBE
    requirements a matter of.
    responsiveness but did not do so).
84:45  Arvin County, CA (IX, 11-2-84)
    (Blois Const., Inc.) (not matter of
    responsiveness where IFB did not
    clearly so state).
84:49  Richgrove. CA (DC, 11-6-84) (El
    Cam/no Const. Co.) (matters of
    responsibility where although IFB
    though attempted  to make it
    responsiveness requirement did not
    clearly do so).
84:50  Richgrove. CA (IX. 11-8-84)
    (W.M. Lyles Co.) (matters of
    responsibility where although IFB
    attempted to make it
    responsiveness requirement did not
    clearly do so).
Minority BusiiMM Enterprise (MBE)
(See Responsibility and Responsiveness
for Other Determinations}
83:08  Hamilton. MT (VHI. 2-8-83) (4G
  Plumbing & Heating, Inc.) (positive
  efforts satisfied by meeting goal)
  (MBE rejected by prime for business
  reasons not discriminatory motive).
83:14  MSD Chicago. EL (V. 3-4-83) (A
  Rudnick & Co., Inc. & Namat Const.,
  Co.) (prime receives MBE
  subcontractor credit only for work
  actually done by MBE) (where bid met
  MBE goal on its face but MBE not
  bonafide, evaluate contractor pre-bid
  opening positive efforts).
83:17  Patapsco. MD (HI. 3-17-83) (/.
  Vinton, Schafer & Sons, Inc.) (bidder
  may demonstrate positive efforts until
  contract award).
83:25  Onondaga County, NY (II, 5-9-
  83) (Herbert F. Darling, Inc.)
  (responsibility challenged where MBE
  goal not met  in bid and good faith
  efforts not demonstrated) (post-bid
  determination of good faith efforts
  ripe for appeal when award
  announced).
                                    -69-

-------
         MINORITY  AND   WOMEN'S
         BUSINESS  ENTERPRISE    (CONTINUED)
83:28  Waynesburg [Stark County], OH
  (V, 5-12-83) (Robert Bossow, Inc.)
  (ambiguous MBE requirements
  requires reaolicitation due to effect on
  competition).
83:28  Des Moines, WA (X 5-18-83)
  (Witt Coast., Co., Inc.) (MBE
  responsibility curable after bid
  opening).
83:34  New Concord, OH (V, 6-10-83}
  (Adams Robinson Enterprise, Inc.)
  (where IFB unequivocally required
  bidder state MBE offer, failure to do
  so nonwaivable).
83:35  Pleasant Hill. IL (V, 8-10-83)
  (State Mechanical Contractors, Inc.)
  (documentation of positive efforts
  made bid responsive though no MBE
  participation proposed).
83:46  Palatine. IL (V. 7-19-83) (Di
  Paolo-Rossetti. Joint Venture) (IFB
  made self certification affidavit and 20
  day advertising matters of
  responsiveness).
83:49  MSD. Chicago, IL (V, 8-2-83)
  (Door Systems of Elk Grove) (MBE
  subcontractor listing not material to
  bid).
83:64  Los Angeles. CA (IX 11-25-83)
  (C K Pump &• Dewatering Corp.)
  (ambiguous MBE requirements cause
  to reject all bids).
 Minority Business Enterprises (see also
 Responsibility and Responsiveness
   81:04  Central Contra Costa Sanitary
 District, CA (IX. 1-27-81) (D.W. Young
 Const.) (MBE share in joint venture).
   81:12  California SWRCB, CA (IX 2-
 26-81) (Navas Pipe Supply and Hydro
 Conduit Co.) (middleman MBE, no
 commercially useful function).
   81:27  Black Diamond. WA (X, 4-21-
 81) (Bowen Const.) (failure to meet goal
 or show positive efforts) (remanded for
 bidder to show efforts).
   81:32  Black Diamond. WA (X. 4-29-
 81) (Bowen Const.) (need not segregate
 supply and construction components to
 determine compliance with twin MBE
 goals).
   81:37  Crescenta Valley County. CA
 (IX. 5-18-81) (J.C. Plumbing Co.) (failure
 to demonstrate positive efforts).
   81:45  San Francisco. CA (IX, 6-15-
 81) (Hydro Conduit Co.) (MBE firms not
 required to demonstrate social  or
 economic disadvantage resulting from
 discrimination).
  81:48  San Francisco. CA (IX. 6-15-
81) (Alliance of Minority Contractors
and Suppliers) (must be clearly defined
role for MBE in joint venture).
  81:55  Centerville. IA (VH. 7-21-81)
(Grady Unlimited) (policy establishes no
right to subcontract) (maximum positive
efforts not required).
  81:59  Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission. OR (X, 7-30-
81) (Hyland Brothers Const, and Assoc.)
(MBE subcontractors listing, curable
after bid opening).
  81:72  Sun Valley. NV (IX. 8-21-81)
(Hydro Conduit Co.) (protest premature
because contractor not yet designated
MBE).
  81:78  Chicago MSD. IL (V, 9-18-81)
(S.A. Healy Co.. et al.} (commercially
useful function) (minority control).
  81:87  Cridersville, OH (V. 10-16-81)
(Miami Valley Contractors) (omission of
MBE guidance from IFB).
  81:90  Chicago MSD. IL (V, 10-27-81)
(S.A. Healy. et al.} (reconsideration of
81:76) (ambiguous MBE requirements).
  81:93  Marengo, IN (V, 11-3-810)
(E.H. Hughes Co.) (lack of State
assistance no excuse for lack of positive
efforts).
  81:96  Tallahassee. FL (TV. 11-10-81)
(GS&L Mechanical Const, and Assoc.
Minority Contractors) (MBE association
may challenge MBE compliance on
behalf of members) (failure to meet MBE
goal requires examination of positive
efforts).
  82:29  Syracuse, NY (II, 5-18-82) (Bat-
Con, Inc.) (withholding payments to
contractor for failure to meet MBE
requirements not protestable).

  82:36  Williamstown. MI (V. 6-28-82)
(Barnhart  & Son) (pre-bid positive
efforts documentation).
  82:52  Gwynn Falls, MD (HI, 9-14-82)
(RJ. Longo Const.) (meet goal or
demonstrate positive efforts).
  82:68  Atwood. OH (V. 12-1-82)
(Munitech) (failure to provide MBE
documentation).
                                      -70-

-------
        MINORITY   AND  WOMEN'S
        BUSINESS  ENTERPRISE     (CONTINUED)
Minority Business Enterprise
  1. DefCalb County. CA (TV. 2-29-80)
(Southeast Grading. Inc.) (good faith
negotiations).
  2. Hastings. NE (VTL 3-7-80) (Horizon
Construction Company: Olson Construction
Company) (falure to list MBE subs is
curable).
  3. Johnson County. KS (VU. 4-1-80) (Sharp
Brothers Contracting Company) (failure to list
MBE subs is curable).
  4. Huntsville. TX (VL 4-18-80) (Angleton
General Mechanical Inc.) (failure to furnish
documentation of positive efforts is curable).
  5. Burlingame. CA (DC 4-25-80) (Pat
Kennelly Construction Company) (failure to
contact assistance center can be waived).
  8. Soldotna. AK (X 4-25-80) (Interstate
Company) (failure to file MBE for with bid is
curable).
  7. Port Austin Area Water and Sewer
Authority. MI (V. 7-2-80) (Amado Cardenas,
d.b.a. Nashville Excavating Company)
(specifications ambiguous in requiring
positive efforts orior to bidding).
  8. Rochester. MN (V. 7-24-80) (Darin &
Armstrong. Inc.: Kraus-Anderson/PMW
Construction; Newberg. Poster & Pascherc
Premier Electric Construction) (specifications
ambiguous in requiring positive efforts prior
to bidding).
  9. Toledo. OH (V. 7-28-dO) (Minority Earth
Movers. Inc.) (MBE policy does not extend to
WBE).

  10. Rockford. MI (V. 8-1-80) (Nagel
Construction. lac; Interstate Pip*
Maintenance. Inc,' Qytus Industrie*. Inc.)
(timeliness).
  11. Albert Lea, MN (V, 9-18-80) (Orvedahl
Construction, bit; Centennial Coatraeton
Corp.: Johnson Brothers Corp.) (Grantee caa
make responsiveness dependent on pre-bid
positive efforts).
  12. San Jacinto River Authority
[Woodlands). TX (VL 10-3-80) (Industrial
Contractors. Inc.) (goal attainment or posittv*
efforts go to responsibility).
  13. Nashville. MI (V. 10-24-80) (dark
Construction: Company) (grantee can make
MBE data a matter of mpoasiveoesa).
  14. Webster. TX (VI10-31-80) (LEM
Construction Company, toe.) (positive
efforts).
  15. DuPage County (Department of Publk
Works). 0. (V, 12-15-80) (Paschea
Contractors. Inc.) (positive efforts).
  18. Pierce County. WA (X. 12-23-80) (Frank
Coluccio Construction Company) (MBE
documentation as responsibility factor).
  17. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
OR (X.12-24-80) (Aualand Construction, Inc.)
(post-bid efforts to meet MBE goals].
  18. Clear Lake City. TX (VL 12-29-80) (LEM
Construction Co., Inc) (MBE documentation
is responsibility factor).
 Minority Business Enterprise

 1. Burlingame. CA [IX, 12-20-79) (D. W.
   Young Construction Co.)
 2. Danville. TCf (IV, 10-28-79) (Andrews
   Enterprises Inc.)
 *3. Decarur. AL (IV, 7-23-79)
   (International Electric Co.) (good faith
   efforts)
 •4. Detroit MI (V. 12-11-79) (Dynamic
   Construction Co.)
 5. Meriden, CT (1.10-4-79) (Carter
   Construction Co.)
 6. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
   Greater Chicago. IL (V, 8-16-79)
   (Troesch Trucking, Inc.)
 7. Miami—Dade Water and Sewer
   Authority. FL (IV, 4-30-79) (Cobo Co.)
 8. Monterey County. CA (IX 2-28-79)
   (Monterey Construction Surveys, Inc.)
 *9. Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside, CA
   (DC. 7-23-79; errata (9-21-79)) (Radco
   Construction, Inc.)
 10. West County Agency, CA (DC, 6-28-
   79KR. D. Smith)

 Minority* Business Enterprise (i 35.936-7. and
 FPP the EPA minority business enterprise
 policy at 43 FR 60220-24. December 26.1978)
 (but see Equal Employment Opportunity],

  •1. Knoxville. Tennessee (IV. 2-8-78) (Roy
 F. Weston Inc.) (A/E procurement)
  2. East Bay Discharges Authority.
 California (IX. 2-15-78) (R. D. Smith)
  *3. Chicago (Metropolitan Sanitary District
 of Greater Chicago). Illinois (V. 3-12-78)
 (Howard Martin Construction) (local
 procedures and requirements)
  4. Atwater. California (IX, 4-26-78)
 (Warren C. T. Wong & Assoc.) (A/E
 procurement)
  5. San Francisco. California (IX. 8-9-78)
 |SI,ittery  Assoc.. Fischbach and Moore Inc.
 and Mornson-Knudson Co., joint venture)
 (local requirements)

 Mistake (but see Ambiguity: Evaluation of
 tiuls. Formal Advertising}.

  •1. New York City. New York (II. 1-12-78)
 |S( hiavone Construction Co ) (bidder's intent
 1,-sl)
  2 Kitsap County. Washington (X. 2-3-78)
 I Will Construction Company. Inc ) (patent
 '•rror in addition of line items correction)
  3  Onond.ic.i County. N'rw York (II. 8-23-
 701 {IVzrigiilli Construction Co. and John \V
 ("UprrCo Im ) (st.md.ird of rr\ icu  bidder
 mti-nt  test: use of extrinsic evidence)
  4  Onondaga County. New York—
Supplement (II. 9-7-78) (Pizzagalli
Construction Co. 4 John W. Cowper Co. Inc.)
                                        -71-

-------
NEGOTIATED
    PROCUREMENT
 Negotiated Procurement
 83:04  Globe. AZ [Reconsideration] (IX.
_  4-11-83) (Brown Er CaldweU) (prices
   and identities of proposers publicly
   disclosed) (right to revise proposal)
   (essential to have clear statement of
   evaluation criteria and method).

 Negotiated Procurement
   81:38  Indianapolis. IN (V, 5-27-81)
 (American Digital Systems) (not
 required in procurement of SSES
 contractor).

 Negotiated Procurement (§§ 35.936-18 and
 '"> l*37-5) (and see Enforcement).

   \ Chester. South Carolina (IV. 8-7-78)
 il'ieston Carroll Construction Co.) (use of. on
                                             84:18  Town of Milford. MA (I. 4-20-84]
                                                 (Euramca Ecosystems, Inc.]
                                                 (proposal rationally rejected where
                                                 its specifications did not comply
                                                 with prequalification information
                                                 package).
                                             84:36  Austin. TX (VI. 9-6-«4) (Olson
                                                 Const., Inc.) (failure to list pre-
                                                 approved manufacturer did not
                                                 render bid non-responsive where
                                                 manufacturer satisfied
                                                 specifications) (lengthly discussion
                                                 of theory of prequalification).
                                             84:37  Lewistown. MT (VIII. 9-27-84)
                                                 (Process Equipment Co.) (to
                                                 successfully challenge rejection
                                                 protester burden to show
                                                 specification unduly restrictive or
                                                 that equipment satisfied the
                                                 specifications and rejection is
                                                 unreasonable).

                                              Prequalification
                                              83:02  Columbus. OH (V. 1-12-63)
                                                (Cobsy Metro—Waste Composting
                                                Systems, Inc.) (time between
                                                notification of prequaliScaticn and
                                                bid opening is discretionary) (supplier
                                                not entitled to "marketing" time).
                                              83:23  Jerseyville, IL (V. 4-14-83) (Clow
                                                Carp.) (not required to seek
                                                prequalification before protesting
                                                unduly restrictive specifications).
                                              83:82  Wayne. NB (VII. 10-31-83)
                                                (Envirex. Inc.) (specifications
                                                interpreted restrictlvely caused
                                                rejection of prequalified supplier).
                                              83:68  Tri-City, OR (X 12-9-83)
                                                (Dresser Industries, Inc.) (failure to
                                                timely  submit  equipment information).

PREQUALIFICATION
                                                 Prequalification
                                                   81:13 Atlanta. GA (IV,  3-5-61) (R.J.
                                                 Longo  Const.) (bidder's responsibility
                                                 for assuring receipt of prequalification
                                                 package) (general contractor) (one year
                                                 between prequalification and bidding
                                                 not per se restrictive).
                                                   81:22 Conrallis. OR (X. 4-10-61)
                                                 (Environmental Pollution Control. Lac.)
                                                 (bid must conform to all elements of
                                                 specifications even if lists prequalified
                                                 equipment).
                                                   81:23 Tifton. GA (IV. 4-13-31) (Astor
                                                 Bolden Enterprises and Municipal &
                                                 Industrial Pipe Serv.) (only permissible
                                                 for selection of major equipment items
                                                 in situations of public exigency).
 PATENTS
 Patents

 1. Ma con-Bibb County Water and
   Sewage Authority, GA (IV. 3-16-79)
   (Sbirco, Inc.)

 Patents (§ | 30.500 et seq.. 35.9O8. 35.936-3 and
 35.936-13).

   1. Onondaga County. New York (II. 6-30-
 78) (Zimpro. Inc.)
 Prequalification
 84:04 Livingston Parish. LA (VI. 1-27-
    84) (Parson & Sanderson. Inc.) (must
    result in final evaluation of
    equipment before bid opening).
 84:16 Back River Waste Water
    Treatment Plant. MD (III. 4-17-84)
    (fames A. Federline. Inc., H.A.
    Harris Co.] (Financial
    prequalification is responsibility
    matter grantee must consider all
    available information up until
    contract award).
                                    -72-

-------
                   PREQUALIFICATION
                           (CONTINUED)
  81:47  Jasonville, IN (V, 6-30-81)
(Hinde Engineering Co.) (grantee
representation created de facto
prequalification. not conclusive
responsiveness determination).
  81:62  Cobb County. GA (IV. 8-11-81)
(American Bioreactor Corp./BAY*) (must
conform to PRM 79-10 and requirement
must be justified).
  81:83  Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (III, 10-13-61) (R&M Assoc.) (single
manufacturer prequalified on open
specifications is not sole source
procurement) (reversed by
reconsideration 82:02).
  81:106  Gower, MO (VH. 12-29-61)
(Empire Generator) (clarification of
submittals).

   82:02  Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
 PA (IU. 1-22-82) (R4M Assoc.) (grantee
 cannot reject bid as nonresponsive for
 failure to list prequalified supplier
 unless IFB so clearly states)
 (reconsideration of 81:83).
   82:12^  Channelview, TX (VI, 3-8-62)
 (Euramca Ecosystems) (must allow 30
 days for submitting data).
   82:14  Atlanta, GA (IV, 3-15-82)
' (Ruby Collins, Inc. and John D.
 Stephens) (prequalified joint venture
 cannot change its component entities
 and be awarded the contract).
   82:19  Mount Pleasant, SC (IV, 3-31-
 82) (Bird Machine Co.) (description of
 major item sufficient without describing
 ancillary items).
   82:37  Cullman, AL (IV, 7-6-82) (Cal
 Co.; Encore Co.; and Drew and Assoc.)
 (30 days for submitting equipment data).
   82:49  Dumas, AR (VI, 9-7-62) (Hinde
 Engineering) (notification procedures).
   82:56  Macon-Bibb County. GA (IV,
 10-26-82) (Charles Finch Co.) (time for
 submitting presubmittals).
   82:57  Cape May County MUA. NJ (II.
 11-1-82) (American Bioreactor Co. And
 Fairfield Service Co.]  (decision not to
 pre-qualify processes as "or equal").
Praqu

  1. Fall River. MA (L 2-8-80) (Perfo
Systems, Inc4 (sludge Biter press).
  2. Orange County Sanitation Districts at
Orange County. CA (DC. S-22-40) (Ralph a
Carter Co.; Euramca. Inc.; Komline-Sandenon
Engineering Corp.) (belt filter press).
  3. Newaygo County Board of Public Works.
MI (V. 7-za-80).(R. S. Bennett & Company)
(pumps).

Prequalification (§§ 35.936-3 and 35.936-13)
(see EPA Report to Congress. Waste Water
Treatment Contracting and Bid Shopping.
Section IV. D. which discusses certain
minimum principles to insure competition, the
criterion to any acceptable prequalification
system).

  1. Cynthiana. Kentucky (IV. 2-9-78) (James
N. Gray Construction Co.)
  2. Webster. Iowa (VII. 2-10-78)
(Environmental Systems Division of George
A. Hormel 4 Co. Inc.)

Prequalification

*1. Atlanta, GA (IV, 3-21-79) (Fruin-
  Conlon Corp.)
*2. Aurora Sanitary District IL (V, 7-3-
  79) (Ralph B. Carter Co.)
3. Decatur, AL (IV, 3-2-79) (Johnson
  Controls, Inc.)
4. Macon-Bibb County Water and
  Sewage Authority, GA (IV, 3-16-79)
  (Shirco, Inc.)

  3. Fairfax County. Virj>mi.i (III. 3-17-78)
(|ohn W. Cowpcr Co  Inc.)
  *4 Front Royal. Virginia (III. 4-21-78)
(Lyco-Zf) (procedures: failure to comply with
prequalification procedures, failure to be
listed as equivalent)
  5. Miami-Dade Water and Sower Authority.
Florida  (IV. 5-18-78) (F.nuro Development
Co. and Poole & Kent Co.)
  •6. Ml, Olive. North Carolina (IV. 5-18-78)
(Lyco-Zf) (time for ddla presentation must be
clear)
  7. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Charlottesville. Virginia (III. 11-2-78)
(National Hydro Systems) (descriptive
literature)
                                       -73-

-------
PROGRAM   INTEGRITY
 Program Integrity (§30.245).
   •1. Daytona  Beach, Florida (IV. 6-
 21-77) (Hydro-Clear Corp.)

 Rational Basis Test.
   1. Hannibal.  Missouri (VII. 2-15-74)
 (Sammons Construction Co.)
   2. Omaha. Nebraska  (VII. 9-14-74)
  .Daumaster Div.—ACCO)
   3. Gainesville-Alachua • • • Board,
  Florida (IV. 7-10-75) (Grumman Eco-
  systems Corp.)
   4. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Au-
  thority, Florida (IV, 3-11-76) (George
  Hyman Construction Co.)
   5. Ruston, Louisiana (VI. 3-18-76)
  (Allan H. Harris Co.)
   6. Lowell. Massachusetts  (I. 4-1-76)
  (United Electrical Contractors)
   7. Lowell, Massachusetts (I. 4-2-76—
  (Honeywell Corp.)
   8. Phoenix.  New York (II. 5-7-76)
  (Vincent J. Fasano)
   9. Chatham  County (Isle  of Hope).
  Georgia  (IV,  7-8-76) (Kyle-Gifford-
  Hill Inc.)
   10. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester,
  South  Carolina  (IV. 7-19-76) (§208
  grant)  (Davis & Floyd Engineers Inc.)
   11. Sacramento, California  (IX, 8-
  12-76) (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
   12. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer  Au-
  thority. Florida (IV. 9-27-76) (Altman-
  Mvers Construction Co.)
   •13.  Concord. North  Carolina (IV,
  10-8-76) (Mercury Construction Co.)
   14.    Philadelphia,   Pennsylvania
  (Northeast Plant) (III,  12-6-76) (Sov-
  ereign Construction Company)
   15.  Bradford. Vermont (I,  3-4-77)
  (Cummings)
   •16. Dothan, Alabama (IV, 3-10-77)
  (Infilco Degremont)
   17.  Pasadena.  Texas  (VI,  4-1-77)
  (Union Carbide Corp.)
   18. Sussex.  Wisconsin (V. 4-14-77)
  (FivlxT & Porter)
   ift Rhode Island Statewide Planning
  Program (I, 4-26-77) (§208 grant) 
-------
       REJECTION   OF  ALL  BIDS
Rejection of AH Bids
84:03  Town of Williston, VT (1.1-25-
    84) (Cooley Corp.] (where only one
    bid was responsive grantee may
    reject all bids if price
    unreasonable).
84:15  Mattabassett Oist. Regional
    Sewer Auth., Cromwell. CT (1,4-12-
    84) (Peabody N.E.. Inc.) (ambiguity

    in bid evaluation method and
    responsiveness affected
    competition).
84:24  City of Leominister. MA (I, 6-11-
    84) (P. Gioioso & Sons. Inc.] (grantee
    lacked good cause and was
    reversed by EPA) (potential
    ambiguity in specifications did not
    affect competition) (not per se
   • justified because only one of
    several bidders was responsive).

 Rejection of All Bids
 83:07  Oklahoma City. OK (VI. 2-4-83)
   (DJ- Domas. lac.) (all bids may be
   rejected if in best interest to EPA and
   grantee).
 «3:22  San. Jose. CA (IX 4-11-83)
   {Johnson Controls, Inc.) (protestable
   procurement action) (must be good
   cause, PRM 73-3 example of good
   cause).
 83:28  Waynesburg (Stark Countyj, OH
   (V. 5-12-831 (Robert Bossow, Inc.)
   (ambiguous MBE requirements).
 83:60  Tri-City. OR (X10-20-33)
   (Donald M. Drcka Co.) (not good
   cause for rejection where prejudicial
   ambiguity].
 33:64  Los Angeles, CA (DC. 11-25-83}
   (CKPump S'Dewctenng Carp.)
   (ambiguity in, MBE requirements).
Rejection of All Bids
  81:14  Puerto Rico Aqueduct and
Sewer Authority, PR (II, 3-6-81)
(Spearin. Preston & Burrows, and
Conduit and Foundation Corp., Joint
Venture) (work divided into two
contracts and readvertiaed).
  81:22  Corvallis, OR (X 4-10-S1)
(Environmental Pollution Control, Inc.)
(ambiguous specification).
  81:30  Portage. IN (V, 4-28-81)
(Associated Mechanical Services) (MBE
requirements ambiguous).
  81:53  Timmonsville. SC (IV. 7-17-81)
(Quality Sanitary Services) (inaccurate
quantity estimates).
  81:71  Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District. CA (IX. 8-21-81) (D.W. Young
Const.) (litigation not good cause).
  81:73  Valparaiso. IN (V. 8-28-81) (H.
DeWulf Mechanical Contractor) (MBE
requirements ambiguous).
  81:82  Batesville, IN (V, 10-7-81)
(Bowen Engineering) (MBE requirements
ambigous).
  81:95  Fowlerville. MI (V, 11-9-81)
(Normco Const.) (no evidence of good
cause).
  82:01  Bowling Green. OH (V, 1-12-
82) (DCK Contracting) (good cause
defined).
  82:11  CarmeL IN (V, 3-3-82) (E.H.
Hughes Co.) (rejection where bids
unreasonable in light of cost estimates).
  82:15  Philadelphia/PA (111, 3-16-82}
(Williard, Inc.) (justified if ambiguity
prejudiced bidders).               ~
  82:22  Goldendale. WA (X 4-16-81)
(IMCO General Const.} (justified by
inconsistencies in bidding documents).
  82:40  Whitestone, NY (II. 7-26-82)
(F.G. Compagni Const.) (IFB stating
inaccurate quantities).
  82:70  Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission, OR (X 12-
22-82) (Robert Dougan Const.) (rejection
of all bids because equipment not
meeting specifications did satisfy
performance requiements).
                                   -75-

-------
         REJECTION   OF  ALL   BIDS    (CONTINUED,
Rejection of AH Bid*
  1. St Petersburg. FL (IV. 1-10-80)
(Municipal and Industrial Pipe Service*. Ltd.)
(Grantee'* financial situation, limit federal
than).
  2. Anne Arundel County. MD (ffl. 2-13-80}
(Sabatini Company) (specifications
restrictive).
  3. Port Austin Area Water and Sewer
Authority, MI (V. 7-&-40) (Amado Cardenas.
d.b.a. Nashville Excavating Company) (RA
directed, ambiguous MBE specifications).
  4. Newaygo County Board of Public Works,
MI (V. 7-21-80) (M.O. Taddie 4 Company.
Inc.) (no adverse effect of bid form
ambiguity).
  5. Rochester. MN (V. 7-24-80) (Darin 4
Armstrong, Inc.; Kraus-Anderson/PMW
Construction: Newberg, Foster ft Psschen:
Premier Electric Construction) (RA directed,
ambiguous MBE specifications).
  & Newaygo County Bord of Public Works,
MI (V, 7-28-80) (R.S. Bennett ft Company)
(RA directed, ambiguous MBE specifications).

Rejection of All Bids
1. Albuquerque. MM (VI, 2-2-79) (Kent
   Nowlin Construction Co.)
2. Bardstown, KY (IV, 5-24-79) (E. H.
   Hughes Co. (II))
3. Bend, OR (X 5-15-79) (Industrial
   Pump Sales Co.) (RA directed,
,  defective IFB)
4. Detroit, MT.(V, 6-29-79) (C. J. Rogers
   Constructors, et al., A Joint Venture)
   (local share lacking)
5. Suffolk County. NY (H. 9-15-79)
   (Spencer, White & Prentis, Inc. and
   Seatec International, Ltd., A Joint
   Venture)
6. Wheeling, WV (IH. 2-16-79) (Manning
   Environmental Corp; and
   Sugmamotor, Inc.)-(change in
   grantee's ndeds)
 7. Greenup County, KY (IV, 11-13-79)
   (W. Rogers Co.) (cannot fund non-
   federal share)

Rejection of All Bids {| 35 93S-^(h)(2). and
stv PRM 78-fl. published at 43 FR  14725-26.
April 7,1978) (see also Enforcement].

   1 RivHtina Water and Sewer  Authority.
Churlotlesville. Virginia (HI. 5-25-7B)
(Ndlional Hydro Systems. Inc.] (no good bids
a I reasonable prices)
   '2. Bay City. Michigan (V. 6-28-78)
(Greenfield  Construction Co.) (contract 10 D)
   3. Chester. South Carolina (IV. 8-7-78)
(Preslon Carroll Construction Co.) (EPA
directed)
   '4. Onondaga County. New York (II. 8-23-
 78) (PizzHgnlli Construction Company and
 John W. Cooper)
   5. Bay County. Michigan (V. 9-1-78) (Roese
 Contracting Co., Inc.) (contract Nos. 3 and 7)
   6. Onondaga County. New  York—
 Supplement (H. 9-7-78) (Pizzagalli

 Construction Co. and John W. Cowper Co.
 Inc.)
   7. Portage. Michigan (V, 12-20-78)
 (lacobelli Construction Inc.)

 Rejection of All Bids (§35.938-4(h)(2),
    and see. PRM 78-8 published at 43
    FR  14725-26,  April  7,  1978) (also
    see. Enforcement).
   I.    Philadelphia.    Pennsylvania
 (Southwest Plant) (III. 2-28-75) (EEO)
 (Air Products 
-------
                    RESPONSIBILITY
Responsibility
84:01  Gwynns Falls, MD (III, 1-13-84)
    (Joseph L Cardinale & Sons, Inc.)
    (MBE requirements).
84:06  City of Toronto. OH (IV, 2-2-84)
    (J.L Cavanaugh Co., Inc.) (MBE
    requirements).
84:07  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
    Greater Chicago. IL (V, 2-6-«4) (A./.
    Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind. Inc., and
    Klein Const. Co.] (grantee broad
    discretion in making affirmative
    finding) (submittal of forms
    including percent of work force are
    responsibility matter absent clear
    IFB).
84:10  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
    Greater Chicago, IL (V, 3-1-84)
    (Premier Electrical Const. Co.)
    (allegation that bidder cannot meet
    specification is responsibility/
    contract administration matter).
84:13  New Hampshire Water Supply &
    Pollution Control. NH (I. 3-28-84)
    (Catamount Const., Inc.)
    (Catamount Const., Inc.) (where
    language in different parts of IFB/
    bid documents gives different
    meaning to listing requirement, it is
    responsibility matter).
84:15  Mattabassett Oist. Regional
    Sewer Auth.. Cromwell. CT (I. 4-12-
    84) (Peabody N.E.,  Inc.) (where
    language requiring listing is clear in
    one part of IFB but different in
    another, it is matter of
    responsibility).
84:18  Back River Waste Water
    Treatment Plant, MD (III. 4-17-64)
    (James A. Federline. lnc.,JI.A.
    Harris Co.) (financial
    prequalification).
84:28  Riverton, WY (VIII, 7-13-84)
    (Martel Const. Co., Inc.) (where IFB
    did not make manufacturer's letter
    of approval a responsiveness
    matter, engineer may evaluate
    whether item offered meets projects
    needs) (descriptive literature
    requirement).
84:28  Libby, MT (VIII, 8-9-84)
    (Transamerican Contractors, Inc.)
    (proof of authority of agent
    submitting bid] (listing of
    manufacturers).
84:31  Trumbull County, OH (V, 8-24-
    84) (R & K. Constructors, Inc.) (poor
    past performance is rational basis
    for grantee finding bidder
    nonresponsible) (grantee in best
    position to determine
    responsibility).
84:34  Glens Falls. NY (II. 8-30-84)
    (Dorr-Oliver. Inc.) (deference to
    affirmative finding of responsibility
    based on technical evaluation)
    (communications between grantee
    and bidder after bid opening
    concerning responsibility are
    permissible).
84:36  Austin. TX (VI. 9-6-84) (Olson
    Const., Inc.) (prime contractors
    rather than grantees usually
    determine subcontractor
    responsibility and in this  IFB
    grantee did not reserve right to
    make determination).
84:42  St. Paul MWCC, MN (V, 10-18-
    84) (Hoffman Electric Co.)
    (deference to grantee determination
    that bidder was responsible based
    on good faith MBE effects).
84:45  Arvin County. CA (IX, 11-2-84)
    (B/ois Const, Inc) (failure of bidder
    to submit MBE information  within
    10 days after bid opening did not
    cause it to be nonresponsible
    because responsibility can be
    demonstrated anytime before
    award).
84:49  Richgrove, CA (IX. 11-8-84) (El
    Camino Const. Co.) (MBE
    requirements not made
    responsiveness matters even though
    IFB attempted to do so).
84:50  Richgrove. CA (IX 11-8-84)
    (W.M. Lyles Co.) (MBE
    requirements not made
    responsiveness matter even though
    IFB attempted to do so).
Responsibility
83:02  Columbus. OH (V. 1-12-831
  (Cobey Metro- Waste Caaiposting
  Systems, Inc.) (inadequate
  experience).
83:05'  Morton, MS (TV, 1-25-83)
  (Associated Const, tec.) tfallure to
  obtain license).
83:10  Needles. CA (IX. 2-10-83)
  [Hefley Bras., Carp.) (afSrsiativs
  determination not reversed by EPA
  unless fraud, bad faith or violation of
  objective standards of responsibility).
83:14  MSD Chicago, IL (V, 3-t-8C) (R.
  Rudnidt & Ca.. Inc. S> h'cmat CjxsL.
  Co.) (contractor must demonstrate
  positive efforts if it fails to meet MBE
  goal) (EPA may reverse affimative
  determination if grantee fails to
  consider all relevant information).
                                      -77-

-------
                  RESPONSIBILITY     .CONTINUED,
83.17  Fatapscc. MD (III, 3-17-33} 'J.
  Vinton. Schafer £• Sens. Inc.] (failure
  to attach MBE documentation)
  (positive efforts nay be cared anytime
  before contract award).
83:23  Des Moir.es. WA (X. 5-18-83)
  (Will ConsU Co* Inc.) (MBE form
  incomplete).
83:42  Eastern Avenue Baltimore, MD
  (V, 8-28-83) (Allied Contractors. Inc.)
  (MBE requirements can be met by
  satisfying goal or shewing goodJaith.
  efforts).
83:45  Casper. WY (Vffl. 7-3-33)
  (Shavmee Const, Inc.) (MBE
  requirements).
83:49  MSB. Chicago. IL (V, 8-2-63)
  (Door Systems of Elk Grove) (MBE'
  subcontractor listing).
83:50   Detroit. M! fV. 8-2-33) (Dynamic
  Const.. Co.. Inc.] (M3E requirements-
  positive efforts demonstrated after bid
  opening)

 83:52  Berkeley, CA (DC, 8-13-83) (Gerl
   Const. Co.) (MBE requirements).
 83:53   New Haven. CT (L 8-19-83)
   (Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc.)
   (local affirmative action agreement).


 Responsibility
  81:03  Pierce County, WA (X, 1-14-
 81) (Frank Coluccio Const.) (MBE
 requirements).
  81:04  Central Contra Costa Sanitary
 District, CA (IX, 1-27-81) (D.W. Young
 Const.) (MBE requirements—failure to
 demonstrate positive efforts).
  81:19 Phoenix, AZ (IX. 3-27-81)
 (TGK Const & M.M. Sundt Const)
 (unacceptable subcontractor did not
 make prime non-responsible).
  81:20 Tupelo, MS (IV, 4-7-81) (Jesco,
 Inc.) (equipment listing requirement)
 (substitute more expensive equipment if
 listed equipment unsatisfactory).
  81:27 Black Diamond, WA (X, 4-21-
 81) (Bowen Const.) MBE goals not met,
 requires examination of positive efforts).
  81:31 Gildford County Sewer
 District MI (Vffl. 4-28-81) (Baltrush
 Const) (MBE requirements).
  81:32 Black Diamond, WA (X, 4-29-
 81) (Bowen Cosnt.) MBE responsibility
 shown by positive efforts).
  81:37 Crescenta Valley County, CA
 (DC. 5-18-81) (J.C. Plumbing Co., &
 Channel Const.) (MBE requirements-
 failure to demonstrate positive efforts).
  81:38 Indianapolis. IN (V, 5-27-81)
 (American Digital Systems) (deference
 to grantee responsibility determination).
  8~1:49  Los Angeles County, CA (DC 7-
1-81) (Dresser Industries) (performance
shows capability to meet obligations).
  81:50  Kalida, OH (V, 7-2-81)
(Sherbum Co.) (submission of catalog
cuts and equipment guarantee).
  81:59  Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission. OR (X, 7-20-
81) (Hyland Brothers Const.) (failure to
list MBE subcontractors).
  81:60  East Troy. WI (V. 7-31-81)
(Joseph Lorenz) (MBE requirements).
  81:71  Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District CA (DC. 8-21-81) D.W. Young
Const) (failure to comply with (MBE
requirements).
  81:75  New Castle. IN (V. 9-9-81) (Joe
R. Norman Contractor) (financial
standing, performance bond).
  81:76  Chicago MSD. IL (V, 9-18-81)
(S.A. Healy. et al.) (MBE requirements
remain a matter of responsibility despite
IFB's attempt to make it
responsiveness).
  81:77  Carrboro, NC (IV. 9-23-81)
(Clevepak Corp.) (deference to
affirmative determination of
responsibility unless fraud, bad faith or
evidence that specific objective
standards violated).
  81:82  Batesville, IN (V, 10-7-81)
(Bowen Engineering) [subcontractor
listing).
   81:90   Chicago MSD, EL (V. 10-27-81)
(S.A. Healy, et a/) (MBE requirements).
   81:95   Fowlerville. MI (V, 11-9-61)
(Normco Const.) (MBE requirements).
   81:96   Tallahassee. FL (IV. 11-10-81)
(GS&L Mechanical Const.: Assoc. of
Minority Contractors) (MBE
requirements).
   81:101   Chicago MSD. IL (V. 12-16-81)
(Walsh Const.) (EEO forms).

   81:103  Atlanta. GA (IV. 12-18—81)
 (Rocco Ferrera ft Co.) (MBE
 requirements).
   82:03  Fort Wayne, IN (V, 1-25-82)
 (Bates & Rogers Const.) (fiscal integrity
 requirements).
   82:04  Westport. SD (Vin. 2-3-82)
 (H.F. Jacobs and Sons) (MBE
 requirements, EEO Certification,
 nonsegregated facilities certificate).
   82:08  Santa Fe. MM (VL 2-18-82)
 (Mesa Grande) (MBE documentation).
   82:21  Fallbrook Sanitary District, CA
 (DC, 4-6-82) (Metro—Young/Lopez
 Const, A Joint Venture) (MBE
 requirements).
   82:25  PerryviUe, MD (IE, 4-28-82) (J.
 Vinton Schafer & Sons) (MBE
 requirements).
   82:28  Gwynn Falls Relief
 Interceptors (in. 5-7-82) (R.J. Longo and
 B&B Tunnelling Contractors) (MBE
 requirements).
                                       -78-

-------
                     RESPONSIBILITY     (CONTZNUED,
  82:33  Henderson. NV (IX. 6-22-82)
(Nielsen. Vasko & Earl. Inc.] (MBE
requirements and possession of work
license).
  82:41  Abilene. TX (VI. 7-27-82) (R&S
Engineering) (contractors right to rebut
allegations of prior inadequate
performance).
  82:49  Dumas. AR (VI. 9-7-82) (Hinde
Engineering) (supplier's right to rebut
allegations of prior inadequate
performance).
  82:52  Gwynn Falls. MD (III. 9-14-82)
(R.J. Longo Const.) (MBE requirements).
  82:61  El Dorado. KS (VU. 11-18-82)
(Oursler Brothers Const.) (rebuttal
opportunity).
  82:82  Statesville. NC (IV. 11-17-82)
(DPS Contractors) (contrasted
responsiveness) (bid documentation and
certifications submittal).
  82:64  Shady Spring PSD. WV (HI. 11-
22-82] (Davis Water & Waste Industries
(MBE requirements).

Responsibility (see also Responsiveness)
  1. HuntsviUe, TX (VL 7-8-80) (Angleton
General Mechanical Inc.) (prior
performance).
  2. Webster. TX (VL 10-31-80) (LEM
Construction Company. Inc.) (positive MBE
efforts).

Responsibility
1. Bardstown, KY (TV, 1-3-79) (E. H.
  Hughes Co. (!}]  ._           	:
2. Barnstable, MA (1,8-24-79)
  (Chemcon, Inc.)
3. Burlingame, CA (DC, 12-20-79) (D. W.
  Young Construction Co.) (failure to
  complete MBE form)
4. Caldwell. ID (X, 11-1-79) (Neilsen &
  Co.) (licenses)
* 5. Cleveland Regional Sewer District,
  OH (V, 9-18-79) (Passavant Corp.)
  (failure to complete local EEO form)
6. Detroit, MI (V, 12-11-79) (Dynamic
  Construction Co.)
7. James Island Public Service District
  SC (IV, 5-2-79) (Pyramid Builders,
  Inc.)
8. Skagit County, WA (X, 5-4-79)
  (Glantz Supply, Jnc.)
Responsibility (§} 35.936-15 and 30 340-2).

  1. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority.
Florida (IV, 1-13-78) (Continental
Consolidated Corp.) (licensing)
  2. Knoxville. Tennessee (IV. 2-«-78) (Roy F.
Weston. Inc.) (A/E procurement: fraud and
corrupt practices)
  3. Fairfax County. Virginia (III. 3-17-78)
(John W. Cowper Co. Inc.) (subcontractor
listing)
  *4. San Francisco. California (IX. 8-9-78)
(Slattery Assoc., Fischbach and Moore Inc.
and Morrison-Knudsen Co.. joint venture) (vs.
responsiveness—compliance with local
minority business enterprise requirements)
  5. Bay County, Michigan (V, 8-11-78)
(Frank V. Louis Equipment Co.) (Contract No.
1) (addendum acknowledgment—minor
informality)
  8. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 9-20-7H)
(Passavant Corp.)
  7. Niagni County. S«wer District  (No. 1).
Now York (II. 10-18-78) (Environment Onp
Corporation) (v. responsiveness: U. I.
certification and building codes)

Responsibility (§§ 35.936-15, 30.340-2).
  (A) General:
  •1.  Hannibal. Missouri (VII. 2-15-74)
(procedural  requirements) (Sammons
Construction)
  •2.  Hollywood. Florida (IV. 3-13-74)
(parent-subsidiary relationship) (Mor-
gan ti-South, Inc.)
  3. Lexington. Virginia (III. 8-14-74)
(of  equipment  supplier standards)
(Hydro-Systems. Inc.)
  •4.  Upper Occoquan Sewer Authori-
ty (Manassas Park), Virginia (III. 11-
13-75) (descriptive literature; vs. re-
sponsibility)  (John C. Grimberg  Co..
Inc.)
  •5.  Phoenix. New York (II,  5-7-76)
(grantee burden of proof) (Vincent J.
Fasano, Inc.)
  6. Round Hill, Virginia (III. 5-13-76)
(subcontract  information; past prac-
tices) (Frank L. Black, Jr.. Inc.)

  •7. Upper Occoquan Sewer  Authori-
ty  (Manassas  Park).  Virginia  (III,  6-
24-76) (subcontractor listing require-
ment; vs.  responsibility)  (Savoy  Con-
struction Co.)
  8. Kansas  City, Kansas (VII. 11-17-
77)  (applicable standards to  subcon-
tract award) (Nichols Engineering  &
Research; and Zimpro Inc.)
  9. Pepperell.  Massachusetts (I,  11-
22-77) (grantee judgment; past prac-
tices) (Catamount Corp.)
  (B) Licensing:
  •I.  Jacksonville. Florida (IV, 8-12-
74) (State  construction industry board
license) (Adrian Construction Co.)
  •2.     Tahoe-Truckee    Sanitation
Agency.  California (IX, 8-21-75) (State
landscaping  license) (Jos. Ramos  and
Contri-Hood)
                                      -79-

-------
                 RESPONSIVENESS
Responsiveness

84:09  City of Los Cruches, NM (VI. 2-
    27-84) (Mass Transfer. Inc.] (bid
    offering item requiring substantial
    redesign of project is
    nonresponsive).
84:10  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
    Greater Chicago, IL [V, 3-1-84)
    (Premier Electrical Const. Co.)
    (forms and certifications not
    affecting PQQD are not
    responsiveness matters absent clear
    IFB).
84:12  Town of Grantsville, MD (III, 3-
    20-84) (Mattingly Const., Inc.)
    (responsiveness must be determined
    at bid opening and cannot be
    waived by grantee permitting
    adjustment to comply with
    specifications).
84:16  Back River Waste Water
    Treatment Plant, MD (III. 4-17-84)
    (fames A. Federiine. Inc.. H.A.
    Harris Co.] (bid promising t'o meet

    good faith efforts) {good faith effort
    does not require bidder to negotiate
    with subcontract offer or).
84:42  St. Paul MWCC. MN (V, 10-18-
    84) (Hoffman Electric Co.) (grantee
    may make compliance with MBE
    requirements a matter of
    responsiveness but did not do so).
84:45  Arvin County, CA (IX. 11-2-84)
    (Blois Const., Inc.) (not matter of
    responsiveness where IFB did not
    clearly so state).
84:49  Richgrove. CA (IX. 11-8-84) (El
    Camino Const. Co.) (matters of
    responsibility where although IFB
    though attempted to make it
    responsiveness requirement did not
    clearly do so).
84:50  Richgrove. CA (IX 11-8-84)
    (W.M. Lyles Co.) (matters of
    responsibility where although IFB
    attempted to make it
    responsiveness requirement did not
    clearly do so).

Responsiveness
83:01  Spearfish, SD (Vm. 1-11-83)
   (Rickel Manufacturing Co.] (pump not
   capable of meeting specified cubic
   feet per minute is nonresponsive).
83:09 Covington. GA (TV. 2-0-43)
   (Griffin Const* Co., »Ethridge
   Brothers Const., Inc.) (bid signing,
   bidder identity and bid bonds).
83:10  Needles, CA (DC. 2-10-83)
  (Hefley Bros., Corp.) (principal bid not
  rendered nonresponsive by failure to
  hid on alternate).
83:13  Sandpoint. ID (X, 3-3-63) (Lydig
  Const Co.] (subcontractor listing).
83:15  Union City, OH (V. 3-8-83) (Mote
  Const, Co.] (separate bids required
  for two related projects with different
  IFBs).
83:19  Oklahoma City. OK (VI 3-25-83]
  (Envirex. Inc.] (bid nonresponsive due
  to qualifications to liquidated
  damages, time and warranty clauses).
83:21  Chester. CT fj. 4-7-83) (Maple
  Hill Const, Co.] (unsigned bid
  responsive where accompanied by
  signed bid bond) (addenda not
  submitted but written
  acknowledgement-prior to bid
  opening).
83:22  San Jose, CA (DC. 4-11-83)
  (Johnson Controls,  Inc.) (equipment
  listing requirement not matter of
  responsiveness under Part 33)
  (nonconfonning equipment did not
  make bid nonresponsive where
  grantee can require substitution).
83:34  New Concord. OH (V. 6-10-83)
  (Adam* Robinson Enterprise, Inc.)
  (MBE forms and information) (where
  addendum not acknowledged bid
  nonresponsive).
83:35  PleasantHiUlLfV.0-10-43)
  (State Mechanical Contractors, Inc.}
  (MBE documentation satisfied) (bid
  listing nonconfonning equipment is
  responsive; substitution permitted).
83:44  Streetsboro, Ravenna, OH (V, 7-
  1-83) (Robert Bossow, Inc.] (bid listing
  nonconforming equipment u
  responsive substitution permitted).
83:46   Palatine. EL (V, 7-19-83) (Di
  Paolo-Rossetti, Joint Venture) (MBE
  information and 20 day advertising
  required by IFB cannot be waived as
  immaterial) (self certification
  affidavits).
83:50   Detroit, MI (V, 8-2-63) [Dynamic
  Const, Co., Inc.) (acknowledged bid
  addendum but did not adhi  t bid).
83:51   Santa Barbara, CA (DC 8-15-83)
  (Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
  Co.] (material technical and
  commercial terms  cannot be waived)
  (bid cannot be clarified after bid
  opening).
                                     -80-

-------
                  RESPONSIVENESS     (CONTINUED,
83:58  Los Angeles. CA (IX. 9-30-33)
  (Bailey Controls Co.] (exception to
  contract conditions and bid bond
  amount nonresponsive).
83:69  Conroe. TX (VI. 12-13-63) (Jf.VC.
  Inc.] (inclusion of extraneous
  information in bid OK where bid
  terms not qualified).
83:70  Contra Costa. CA (DC. 12-15-33)
  (PerJtut—EIaier) (principal bid not
  rendered nonresponsive by submittal
  of uninvited alternate).
Responsiveness
  81:06  Oceanside. CA (DC. 1-30-81)
(Bird Machine Co.) (unacceptable
subcontractor listed).
  81:15  Myrtle Beach, SC (IV, 3-13-81)
(Paul N. Howard Co.) (omission of unit
prices) (oral questions and answers
concerning IFB unreliable).
  81:18  Clermont County Sewer
District EL (V. 3-16-61) (Glenn Rhoades
Const.) (MBE requirements).
  81:19  Phoenix, AZ (DC. 3-27-61)
(TGK Const. & M.M. Sundt Const.)
(unacceptable supplier listing).
  81:20  Tupelo. MS (IV, 4-7-81) (Jesco,.
Inc.) (failure to satisfy IFB listing
requirements did not affect
responsiveness).
  81:22  Corvallis, OR (X. 4-10-81)
(Environmental Pollution Control, Inc.)
(grantee's right to require equipment
substitution does not permit waiver of
nonresponsive equipment offer).
  81:24  El Dorado Irrigation District.
CA (DC 4-13-61] (Lotus Const.) (failure
to acknowledge addenda waived as
minor defect).
  81:30  Tomah, WI (V. 4-10-81) (W.G.
Jaques) (MBE requirements).
  81:38  Indianapolis; IN (V. 5-27-81)
(American Digital Systems) (deference
to technical judgment of grantee).
  81:46  San Francisco, CA (IX, 8-15-
81) (Alliance of Minority Contractors
and Suppliers) (MBE requirements).
  81:50  Kalida. OH (V, 7-2-81)
(Sherbum Co.) (failure to list unit
prices).
  81:51  Lynchburg. OH (V. 7-2-61)
(Dow Const.) (failure to list unit prices).
  81:65  South Lyon. MI (V, 8-27-61)
(DCK Contracting (MBE requirements).
  81:78  Chicago MSD. IL (V, 9-18-81)
(S.A. Healy, et al.) (MBE requirements).
  81:85  Sacramento. CA (DC, 10-14-81)
(Dredge Masters International) (failure
to submit equipment description]
(exception to payment terms).
   81:90  Chicago MSD. IL (V. 10-27-61)
 (S.A. Healy, et al.) (MBE requirements).
   81:93  Marengo, IN (V, 11-3-81) (E.H.
 Hughes) (MBE requirements).
   81:95  Fowlerville. MI (V, 11-9-61)
 (Normco Const.) (EEO requirements).
   81:97  Elmhurst, EL (V, 11-12-81)
 (Miller-Davis) (MBE requirements).
   81:106   Gower. MO (VII. 12-29-81)
 (Empire Generator] (deviation from
 warranty requirement).
   81:107   Colchester, CT (L12-31-61)
 (Clark Sewer Const.) (failure to bid on
 alternate).
   82:01  Bowling Green OH (V, 1-12-82)
 (DCK Contracting) (MBE requirements).
   82:22  Goldendale, WA (X 4-16-82)
 (IMCO General Const.) (failure to list
 subcontractors or suppliers).
   82:27  Eveleth, MN (V. 5-3-62)
 (Gridor Const.) (MBE requirements).
   82:31  Menominee, MI  (V, 6-6-62)
 (Krygoski Const.) (conditional bid).
   82:35  Van Buren County, MI (V, 6-
 28-82) (Union Const.) (bid responsive
 despite failure to acknowledge
 addendum).
   82:36  Williamstown, Ml (V, 8-28-62)
 (Barnhart ft Son) (MBE requirements].
   82:45  Pasadena, TX (VL 9-17-82)
 (Parkson) ("better" equipment than
 specified must meet design
 specifications).
   82:87  Cullman, AL frV.11-30-62)
 (Cal Corp.; Encore Corp. and Drew and
 Assoc.) (bidder able to comply with
 solicitation requirements need not offer
 equipment listed in solicitation).
   a&68  Atwood, OH (V, 12-1-62)
  (Munitech).

    82:69   Globe, AZ (DC.  12-8-62]
  (Mercury Const.) (addendum must be
  included with bid).

 Responsiveness
   1. Norwich. CT (I.2-1-80) (Fantoni
. Company) (authority to sign bid, bid bond not
 signed by principal).
  Z Halting*. NE (Vm. 3-7-80) (Horizon
 Construction Company: Olson Construction
 Company) (bidder cannot offer different  '
 warranty).
  3. fohnson County. KS (VU 4-1-80) (Sharp
 Brothers Contracting Company) (MBE sob
 listing).
  4. Tacoma. WA (X. 4-3-80) (Worthington
 Pump Corporation) (pump dimensions
 differing from specifications).
  5. Glennville. GA (TV. 4-t-*» (J.W.
 Meadors and Company) (discount offer, sub
 listing).
                                      -81-

-------
                  RESPONSIVENESS     (CONTINUED)
  8, Huntoville. TX (VL 4-l»-31) (Angleton
General Mechanical Inc.) (MBE
documentation of positive efforts).
  7. Seldom*. AK (X 4-2S-*)) (Interstate
Company) (MBE documentation).
  8. Northwest Bergen County Sewer
Authority, N] (0.5-5-60) (R.J. Longo
Construction Co.) (failure to Identify type of
pipe to be used).
  9. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation
District CA (DC. 5-9-W) (Burdick
Contractors. Inc.) (acceptance of part of
combination bid).
  10. Branford. CT (L 5-2&-80) (CM.
Nickenon & Co.) (zero unit price, identical
price for alternatives).
  11. Clarksville, TN (IV. 8-5-80) (Penetryn
Systems, Inc.) (compliance with
specifications).
  12. Port Austin Area Water and Sewer
Authority. MI (V. 7-2-80) (Amado Cardenas.
d.b.a- Nashville Excavating Company) (MBE
sub listing).
  13. Newaygo County Board of Public
Works. MI (V. 7-21-80) (M.D. Taddie ft
Company, Inc.) (discount offer).
  14. Rochester. MN (V. 7-24-80) (Darin &
Armstrong. Inc.; Kraus-Anderson/PMW
Construction: Newberg. Poster ft Paschen:
Premier Electric Construction) (MBE sub
listing).
  15. Newaygo County Board of Public
Works, MI (V, 7-28-40) (R-S. Bennett ft
Company) (prequalified equipment not
meeting specifications, efficiency guarantee).
  10. Rockford. MI (V. 8-1-80) (Nagd
Construction, Ino; Interstate Pipe
Maintenance, Inc.: Clytus Industries, Inc.)
(MBE documentation).
  17. Cecil County, MD (H 8-11-80) (Hanks
Contracting, Inc.) (need for bid bond).
  18. Monmouth. OR (X 8-21-80) (Chinook
Pacific Corporation) (conditional bid. limiting
bid acceptance time).
  19. Coifax Public Service District WV (QL
8-29-80) (Salerno Brothers, Inc.) (failure to
acknowledge addendum).
  20. Alma. NE (VOL 9-4-80) {William
Anderson Company. Inc.) (bid of "free" for
bid item).
  21. Albert Lea. MN (V. 9-18-80) (Orvedahl
Construction, Inc^ Centennial Contractors
Corp.: Johnson Brothers. Corp.) (MBE
documentation).
  22. San Jacinto-River Authority
[Woodlands), TX (VL 10-1-80) (Industrial
Contractors, inc.) (failure to attain MBE goal).
  23. Nashville. MI (V. 10-24-80) (Clark
Construction Company) (MBE
documentation).
  24. DuPage County [Department of Public
Works], 0. (V, 12-15-80) (Paschen
Contractors. Inc.) (MBE documentation).
   25. Pierce County, WA (X 12-23-80) (Frank
 Coluccio Construction Company) (MBE sub
 listing).
   26. dear Lake City. TX (VL 12-29-80) (LEM
 Construction Co.. Inc.) (MBE documentation).
Responsiveness
1. Alpine Sanitary District AZ (IX, 9-28-
  79) (Gus's Trenching and Pipeline Co.)
2. Bardstown, KY (IV, 1-3-79) (E. H.
  Hughes Co. (I))
3. CaldweU, ID (X, 11-1-79) (Neilsen and
  Co.)
4. Chattanooga, TN (IV, 3-27-79)
  (Perfonnance Systems, Inc.).
5. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
  OH (V, 8-14-79) (Water Pollution
  Control Corp.)
* 6. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
  OH (V. 9-18-79) (Passavant Corp.)
  (qualified bid)
7. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
  OH-Reconsideration (V. 10-18-79)
  (Water Pollution Control Corp.) (Per
  Norton Co.)
8. Cochran, GA (IV, 9-14-79) (Municipal
  and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
9. Detroit MI (V, 12-11-79) (Pollutec,
  Inc., and Glenn E. Wash Associates, A
.' Joint Venture) (exception to IFB)
10. Detroit, MI (V, 12-11-79) (Dynamic
  Construction Co.) (bid bond)
11. East Bay Dischargers Authority, CA
  (DC, 11-16-79) (Brantley Instruments)
  (Contra Costa Electric, Inc.)
  (exception to IFB)
12. Hannibal MO (VII, 6-7-79) (U.S.
  Envirp-Con Inc.) (rejection of
  unapproved equipment)
13. Jackson. CA (DC. 7-5-79) (Joseph R.
  Ramos Pipeline Engineering) (waiver
  of mistake; failure to acknowledge
  addendum)
14. James Island Public Service District,
  SC (TV, 5-2-79) (Pyramid Builders,
  Inc.)
* 15. Kansas City, MO (VH, 12-20-79)
  (Carney Companies) (exception to
  IFB)
16. Meriden, CT (1,10-10-79] (Standard
  Engineers and Constructors, Inc.)
  (failure to file EEO certificate)
* 17. Mt Pleasant MI (V, 6-25-79)
  (Collavino Brothers Construction Co.)
  (subcontractor listing)
18. Portage, MI (V, 12-31-79) (Tom
  Robinson & Son, Inc.]

19. Skagit County, WA (X. 5-4-79)
  (Glantz Supply, Inc.) (EEO
  certificates)
 Responsiveness [see O/M> Ki/uul Empk>\ inuitt
 Opportunity: Waiver).

   \ Gainesville. Georgia (IV. 11-7-78)
 (National Hydro Systems. Inc. and Tiitlli-/
 White Constructrrs) (subion'.rcu tur listing)
   2 Kits.ip County. VV,i-.h:rv;lnn (X  '. 1-7H]
 (\\ill Construction Company. Int. )
  [i-i|uipment listing—matter of ru.spuiibiliiliiv)
   3. Cynthiuna. Kentucky (iv. 2-9-78) (|
-------
                   RESPONSIVENESS    'CONTINUED.
  4. West Bend. Wisconsin (V. 3-3-7«|
(Oliver Construction Co. Inc..) (subcontractor
listing; bid bond as m
-------
SMALL  BUSINESS
Small Business—Procurement of |5 35.93f>-71

  '1. Mounuinlop. Pennsylvania (III, 1-5-7tt|
(National Hydro Systems. Inc.)
  2. Marshfield, Wisconsin (V, 6-10-7(1]
(Empire Generator Corporation)
  3. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 9-20-78)
(I'Hssavanl Corp.)

Small   Business—Procurement   of
   <§ 35.936-7).
  •1. Cleveland Regional Sewer Dis-
trict. (Southerly Plant) Ohio (V, 11-
15-76) (Powercon Corp.)
  2. Bernice.  Louisiana (VI, 6-1-77)
(National Hydro Systems)
                               -84-

-------
                   SPECIFICATIONS
General
 Brand Name or Equal
Specifications

A. General
83:39  Philadelphia, PA (HI, 6-22-63)
  [Fisher & Porter Co.] (must not include
  requirements unrelated to minimum
  performance needs).
83:48  Heber Spring, AR (VL 8-2-83)
  (Trigon Engineering Co.] (operation
  and maintenance costs of equipment).
83:70  Contra Costa. CA (DC, 12-16-83)
  [Perkin—Elmer) (bidder could not rely
  on oral interpretation of specifications
  when IFB required they be in writing).

 Specifications
 A. General
  81:08  Morgantown. WV (III. 2-1-81)
 (Clow Co.) (prior EPA approval does not
 bar review).
  81:53  Timmonsville, SC (IV, 7-17-81)
 (Quality Sanitary Services) (bidder .
 reliance on quantities approximated in
 IFB).
  82:08  Tangier. VA (III. 2-11-82)
 (Ultraviolet Purification Systems) (brand
 name or equal-identify salient
 requirement and how related to
 minimum needs).
  82:07  Chattanooga, TN (IV. 2-18-82)
 (Spencer Turbine Co.) (basic design
 decision to utilize existing structure not
 protestable).
  82:37  Cullman, AL (IV, 7-6-82) (Cal
 Corp.; Encore Corp.; and Drew and
 Assoc.) (IFB must clearly explain
 information to be submitted and method
 of award).
  82:57  Cape May County MUA, NJ (H
 11-1-82) (American Bioreactor Co. and
 Fairfield Service Co.) (basic project
 design not met when "or equal"
 proposal fails to meet key features).

 Specifications (.but see Non-Restrictive
    Specifications;  see also. Engineer-
    ing Judgments).
  1.  Omaha, Nebraska (VII. 9-14-74)
 (unbalanced  bid) (Datamaster  Div.—
 ACCO)
  2.  Gainesville-Alachua *  * *  Board,
 Florida (IV,  7-10-75) (ambiguity;  bid
 notation; addenda) (Grumman Ecosys-
 tems)
  3.  Washington  Suburban Sanitary
 Commission, Maryland (III. 10-15-75)
 (Volpe Construction Co., and John C.
 Grimberg Inc.)
A. Brand Name or Equal
84:04  Livingston Parish, LA (VI. 1-27-
    84) [Parson & Sanderson, Inc.]
    (specification defective because
    salient feature not present in named
    brand) (superior equipment differing
    in design from named features in
    nonresponsive—EPA required new
    specifications conforming to
    mininum needs). -

84:35  Portage Sanitary Bd.. Portage, IN
    (V,-8-31-84) (Gariup Const. Co.,
    Inc.) (evaluation of "or equal"
    occurs after bid opening) (rejection
    of equipment on "or equal" basis
    must be for performance reasons
    not physical differences).
B. Brand Name or Equal
83:23  Jerseyville, IL (V, 4-14-83) [Clow
  Corp.] (used as disguised sole source)
  (can only be used if rational basis for
  not stating technical requirements)
  (must state salient features).


Competition
B. Competition
84:19  Clinton County, NY (H, 4-30-84)
    [Compost Systems Co.) (no undue
    restriction where supplier obligated
    by specifications for performance
    guarantee in amount of total bid
    price).
Design
C. Design
84:21  Ardmore, OK (VI. 5-4-64) [LYCO
    and Walker Process Corp.) (in
    procuring off-the-shelf equipment,
    design specifications can only be
    used where specific features
    required for particular application)
    (design catalog specifications must
    be avoided if possible).
Defective
             Water and Sewer Authority.
Honda (IV. 4-2&-T8) (Intercounty
Construction Co. and Mor(janti-South. Inc.-
Uulff K Mumer, a joint venture) (defective)
                                     -85-

-------
                  SPECIFICATIONS
  General
  4. Westchester County, New York
(II, 9-7-76) (minimum needs; competi-
tion) (Union Carbide Corp.)
  5. Bergen County, New Jersey (II, 9-
28-76) (words-numbers reconciliation)
(Wm. L. Crow Construction Co.-Wolff
& Munier, Inc.—Joint Venture)
  •6. North Shore Sanitary District, Il-
linois (V,  9-28-76) (salient  perform-
ance characteristics) (Keene Corp.;
and Premier  Electrical Construction
Co.)
  7.    Philadelphia,    Pennsylvania
(Northeast Plant) (III.  12-6-76)  (un-
balanced bid) (Sovereign Construction
Co.)
 Local  Preference
  D. Local Preference
  84:05  City of New York, NY (E 2-2-84)
      (Schiavone Const. Co. & Worth
      Engineering. Inc., A faint Venture]
      (requirement that corporation be
      51% owned by licensed plumbers
   •   unduly restrictive).

  Local Preference
  83:29  Fargo, ND (VIH, 5-18-83) (Van
   Bergen & Markson, Inc.; The Gray
   Engineering Group, Inc. &
   Conservatek, Inc.) (procedures or
   practices creating preference
   prohibited).

  Local Preference

  License Requirement
   82:33 Henderson. NV (DC. 6-22-82)
  (Nielson. Vasko & Earl. Inc.) (state law
  requiring license before bidding).


  Minimum  Need

  E. Minimum Need

  84:04  Livingston Parish, LA (VI, 1-27-
     84) (Parson & Sanderson, Inc.)
     (where equipment superior to
     design specifications satisfies
     minimum needs, specifications must
     be revised).
  Nonrestrictive
 (See  also  -
  UNDULY  RESTRICTIVE)
 84:10  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
     Greater Chicago, IL (V, 3-1-84)
     (Premier Electrical Const. Co.]
     (where protester alleges he can
     meet the specifications, he cannot
     challenge restrictions).
 84:10  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist of
     Greater Chicago, IL
     [Reconsideration] (V, 3-1-84)
     (Premier Electrical Const. Co.] (if
     protester wants specifications
     reviewed by EPA it must submit
     them with appeal).
- 84:18  Town of Milford, MA (I.4-20-84)
     (Eufamca Ecosystems, Inc.)
     (performance based specifications
     not unduly restrictive where
     equipment offered would not fit in
     building). /,
 84:19  Clintori'County, NY (II, 4-30-84)
     (Compost Systems Co.] (requiring
     performance'quarantee from
     supplier for liquidated damages in
     amount of its bid price is not unduly
     restrictive).-
  84:20   City of Decorah, IA (VII, 5-1-84)
     (Humboldt Wedag) (supplier cannot
     challenge specifications when he
     claims he can meet them) (high
     standard of proof where asserting
     restrictive application of
     specifications).
  84:21  -Ardmore, OK (VI, 5-4-84) (LYCO
     and Walker Process Corp.) (catalog
     design specification unduly
     restrictive) (performance
     specifications required).
  84:23   Erie County, NY (II, 5-10-84)
     (Vianini Pipe Inc.) (where
     specifications using national
     standard for concrete pipe
     eliminated protester's method of
     processing it was not  unduly
     restrictive because sufficient
     competition of suppliers meeting
     specifications). f
  84:48  Athens, AL (IV, 11-6-84)
     (Polymer Chemical Corp.) (sole
     source grout unduly restricted
     competition beyond the minimum
     needs of pr&ject).
  84:47  Reelfoot Lake, TN (IV, 11-6-84)
     (Carlon, Inc.) (requiring specific
     PVC pipe exceeding minimum needs
     of project is unduly restrictive).
                                    -86-

-------
                   SPECIFICATIONS
 Nonrestrictive    (CONTINUED)
 Noomtricdv* SfMdficatfc
  1. Cordale. GA (IV. 1-1S-80) (Tattle/White
 Constructor*. Inc.) (manufacturer* only).
  2. East Bay Dischargers Authority. CA (DC
 1-30-80) (Capital Control Company)
 (rejection of equipment).
  1 Whitebait NY (IL t-S-80) (Davis Water
 & Waste Industrie*, Inc.) (pump lack* salient
 feature).
  4. Fall River. MA (L2-13-*)) (Pasuvant
 Corporation) (manufacturers only).
  5. Anne Arundel County. MD (10. 2-13-80)
 (Sabatini Company) (pipe).
  6. Tolleson, AZ (IX 3-17-80) (Hydro
 Conduit Corporation) (pipe).
  7. Cordele. GA (IV. 4-10-80) (Ralph Healey
 & Associates. Inc.) (manufacturers only).
  B. Puyallup, WA (X 4-24-80) (Rodding—
 Cleaning Machine*. Inc.) (performance
 requirement).
  9. Little Rock. AR (VI4-29-80) (AutotroJ
 Corporation) (performance specifications).
  10. Cordele. GA (IV. 5-1-80) (Franklin
 Aluminum Division/Hoover Universal, toe.)
 (protester has burden of proof).
  11. Northwest Bergen County Sewer
 Authority, N] (IL 5-5-80) (New Holland
 Newcnte Products Division of New
 Enterprise Stone ft Lime Co.) (nr **"»»!
 standards).
  12. Claricsville. TN (IV, 8-*-*» (Penetryn
 Systems. Inc.) (single grout material).
  13. Checotah, OK (VL 8-18-80) (Sherman
 Machine and Iron Works. Inc.) (performance
 needs).
  14. County Sanitation Districts of Los
 Angeles County. CA (DC. 8-28-80) (Ingenofl-
 Rand Co.) (cost effectiveness, equipment Bf*)i
  15. Richmond VA (TO. 7-1-40} (Una
 Construction Company; Clevepak
 Corporation) (performance requirements).
  18. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
 OH (V. 10-14-80) (Id Americas, Inc.) (singi*
 material).

 Nonrestrictive Specifications
 1. Aurora Sanitary District, DL (V, 7-3-
   79) (Ralph B. Carter Co.)
   (prequalification of suppliers)
 2. Batesville, AR (VI, 1-12-79) (Hinde
-  Engineering Co.)
 3. Chattanooga. TN (IV, 3-27-79)
   (Performance Systems, Inc.]
 4. Cochran, GA (IV, 9-14-79]  (Municipal
   and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
 *5. Decatur, AL (IV, 3-2-79) (Johnson
   Controls, Inc.) (manufacturers only)
 6. Gainesville, GA (IV. 11-5-79)
   (National Hydro Systems, Inc.) (IE)
   (application of specifications)
 7. Glenbard Wastewater Authority, IL
   (V, 4-6-79) (USEMCO, Inc.)
 *8. Laurens County. SC (IV, 7-10-79)
   (Carolina Concrete Pipe Co. et al.)
   (pipe)
 9. Middletown. DE (ffl. 9-17-79) (Mt. Joy
   Construction Co.) (rejection of pre-
   appraved supplier)

 Non-Restrictive Specifications (§ 35.936-13,
 |si.-e a/so Engineering Judgments: Salient
 Requirements]  (but see Experience
 Requirements: Sole Source Specifications:
 Specifications).

  1. Webster. Iowa (VII. 2-10-78)
 (Environmental Systems Division of George
 A. Hormel & Co. Inc.)
  2. Turlock. California (IX. 3-6-78) (Riga
 Inc.)
  3. Wells. Maine (I. 3-17-78) (Purcell Pump)
  4. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-21-78) (Autotrol)
.(sdlienl performance requirements)
  •5. Chester. South Carolina (IV. 3-29-78)
 (Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.) (single material
 pipe selection]
  '6. Cumberland County. New Jersey (U. 3-
 11-78) (Dorr-Oliver Inc.) (post-contracl
 interpretation: ultimately nonconforming
 prerfpproved equipmenl)
  7. Snyderville. Utah (VIM. 4-17-78)
 (l.icousen Construction Co. Inc.) (prices of
 subiicms)
  8. New Smyrna Beach. Florida (IV. 4-18-78)
(Carl E. Widell & Son)
  9. Clayton County. Georgia (IV. 4-19-78)
(National Hydro System Inc.. et al.)
  10. Front Royal. Virginia (HI. 4-21-78)
(Lyco-Zf) (prequalification)
  11. Newton. North Carolina  (IV. 4-25-78)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.) (pipe selection
limitation to three materials)
  12. Waterford. Connecticut (I. 5-19-78)
(Mulholland Construction Co.) (prime protest
on rejection of its proposed subconstractor)
  '13. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
(Westerly Plant). Ohio (V. 6-14-78)
(McLaughhn & Associates) (salient
performance requirements)
  14. Marshfield. Wisconsin (V. 6-16-78)
(Empire Generator Corporation)
  *15. Urbana-Champaign. Illinois (V. 6-30-
78) (Paddock Refimte) (stale exemption, as
creating)
  *16. Prince William County. Viriginia (111,
8-4-78) (Spencer Turbine Co.) (equivalency
determination: salient requirements)
  17. Oklahoma City. Oklahoma  (VI, 8-25-78)
(Automatic Engineering Inc.) (as  applied:
specifications drafted around single
manufacturer)
                                        -87-

-------
SPECIFICATIONS
  Nonrestrictive
                       (CONTINUED)

   18. Winchester. New Hampshire (I. 9-1-78)
 (Enviro Development Co. Inc.)
   19. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 9-20-78)
 (Passavant Corp.)
   20. Passaic Valley Sewerage
 Commissioners. New Jersey (11.10-5-78) (BSP
 Division of Envirotech Corp. and Wheatloy
 Corp )
   21. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-6-78) (FMC
 Corp )
   22 Brrcsr Illinois (V. 10-18-78) (Midwest
 Soil Products and Djvco-Di'fiant o) (busi1
 bidding)
   23. Frankfort. Kentucky (IV. 10-18-78)
 (Passavant) (performance-related
 requirements as limitation)
   24 Fairfield. New Jersey (II. 10-20-78) (Loc
 Pump) (or equal: specification generally
 drafted around single manufacturer)
   25 Indiannpohs. Indiana (V. 10-31-78)
 (Albs-Chdlmers)
   '26. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 11-2-78)
 (Philadelphia Gear) (functional equivalency:
 experience)
   27. Urbana-Champaign. Illinois (V. 11-9-78)
 (Norton Co.) (performance criteria)
   28. Waterford. Connecticut (1.11-17-78)
 (Purcell Pump) (as applied)


   1. Shreveport, Louisiana (VI. 6-1-74)
 (pipe liner) (Mainstay Corp.)
   2. Hudson. Wyoming  (VIII. 8-1-74)
 (Environmental Equipment Inc.)
   3. Grand Forks.North Dakota (VIII,
 8-15-74) (Komline-Sanderson)
   •4. Lake Charles,  Louisiana (VI,  12-
 15-74) (Flygt Co.*
   5. District  of Columbia (Blue Plains)
 (III. 2-20-75) (Kenics Corp.)
   6. Tonawanda, New York  (II, 8-1-75)
 (Ingersoll-Rand)
   7.  Butler  County  (LeSourdsville
 Project),  Ohio (V,  1-7-76)  (grantee
 pre-approval) (EPCO—Hormel)
   8. Fredonia. New  York (II, 4-15-76)
 (Tenco Hydro/Aerosciences)
   •9. Chatham County  (Isle of Hope),
 Georgia (IV, 7-8-76) (pipe) (Kyle-Gif-
 ford-Hlll Inc.)
   10. Sioux  City, Iowa (VII, 3-12-76)
 (U.S. Enviro-Con)
   11. Sacramento, California (IX, 8-
 12-76) (BBR Prestressed Tanks Inc.)
   12. Sacramento, California (IX, 9-
 13-76) (Amoco Reinforced Plastics)
   13. North Shore Sanitary District, Il-
 linois  (V.  9-28-76) (Keene  Corp.; and
 Premier Electrical Construction Co.)
   •14. Greenwood  (Rocky-Coronaca),
 South  Carolina (IV. 10-6-76) (pipe;
 clay v. concrete) (Metromount Materi-
 als: Carolina Concrete  Pipe Co.; Wal-
 lace Concrete Pipe  Co., Inc.; South
 Carolina Pipe Association; Amoco Re-
 inforced Plastics Co.)
  15.  Sacramento. California (IX.  10-
6-76) (Air Products & Chemicals Inc.
II)
  16. Palm Beach County, Florida (IV,
10-8-76) (pipe;   sole  source)  (Price
Brothers)
  17. Baton  Rouge. Louisiana (VI,  11-
5-76) (National Hydro-System)
  18.  Cleveland  Regional Sewer Dis-
trict  (Southerly  Plant) (V. 11-15-16)
(Powercon Corp.)
  19. Superior, Wisconsin (V, 12-1-76)
(Acton Construction Co. Inc.)
  20. Waterford. Connecticut (1.12-28-
76) (New Ikor I)
  21. Fredonia, New York (II. 2-28-77)
(National Hydro Systems)
  22.  Waterford, Connecticut (I, 3-9-
77) (Loc Pump St. Equipment Co.)
  23.  Dothan. Alabama  (IV. 3-10-77)
(shop drawing evaluation) (Lnfilco-De-
gremont)
  24.  Sioux  City. Iowa (VII. 3-17-77)
(Ralph  B. Carter Inc.; and UJS. Enviro-
Con Inc.)
  25.  Pasadena.  Texas  (VI.  4-1-77)
(Union  Carbide Corp.)
  26.  Delano. California  (IX, 4-8-77)
(pipe) (Hydro Conduit Corp. and Cen-
Vi-Ro Concrete  Pipe & Products Co..
Inc.)
  27.  Fairfax. Virginia (III, 4-14-77)
(Concrete Pipe & Products Inc.)
  28. Montgomery. Alabama (IV, 5-11-
77) (Envirotech)
  29.  Marion. North Carolina (IV, 5-
17-77) (pipe) (Carolina Concrete Pipe
Co.)
  30.  Oklahoma  City,  Oklahoma (VI,
5-18-77) (Ingersoll-Rund I)
  31.  Miami-Dade Water and  Sewer
Authority,   Florida   (IV.   5-25-77)
(grantee approval) (Morganti South-
Wolff Munier (Joint Venture); and In-
tercounty Construction Corp.)
  32.  Bernice. Louisiana  (VI, 6-1-77)
(National Hydro Systems)
  33.  Watertown. New York (II. 7-5-
77) ("or equal."  grantee  review) (Vin-
cent J. Fasano)
  34.  Oklahoma  City,  Oklahoma (VI.
7-13-77) (Ingersoll-Rand II)
  35. Norwalk. Connecticut (I, 7-22-77)
(Primiano Construction Co.)
  36.  Cynthiana, Kentucky  (pre-selec-
tion) (IV. 8-11-77) (Lyco-ZF)
  37. Jackson. Mississippi (IV, 8-19-77)
(pipe) (American Cast Iron Pipe Co.)
  38.  Hope.  Arkansas  (VI.  9-1-77)
(Hydro   Conduit;  Choctaw  Culvert
(Div. of Choctaw Inc.); Jonesboro Con-
crete Pipe Co.)
  39. Toms Brook-Maurertown, Virgin-
ia  (III.  9-20-77) (pre-selection)  (Na-
tional Hydro Systems)
  40. Cranberry  Township. Pennsylva-
nia (III. 10-20-77) (pre-selection) (Bay-
Con Corp.)
  41 Contra Costa County,  California
(IX. 10-25-77) (pipe) (Armco Steel)
  42.  Orange County,  California (IX,
11-2-77) (Pentech  Division  of  Hou-
daille Industries)
  43. Kansas City, Kansas (VII, 11-17-
77) (experience)  (Nichols Engineering
& Research  Corp.; and Zimpro)

  44. Amherst. New York (II, 11-22-77)
(Smith & Associates)
                                      -88-

-------
SPECIFICATIONS

Performance  Based          Salient  Requirements
G. Performance Based
                              \
84:04  Livingston Parish, LA (VI, 1-27-
    84) (Parson & Sanderson, Inc.)
    (specification must be revised to
    remove unnecessary specified
    features of brand name).
84:08  Western Carolina Regional
    Sewer Authority, Greeijyille> SC tlV,
    2-17-84) (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley)
    (engineer to establish minimum
    performance specifications for
    equipment—purpose is to compare
    machine capability and not
    necessarily configuration).
84:21  Ardmore, OK (VI, 5-4-84) (LYCO
    and Walker Process Corp.)
    (equipment specifications must be
    performance based using qualitative
    terms rather than design
    specifications).
84:35  Portage Sanitary Bd., Portage, IN
    (V, 8-31-84) (Gariup Const. Co..
    Inc.) (rejection of equipment on "or
    equal" basis must be for
    performance reasons and not
    physical differences).
84:47  Reelfoot Lake, TN (IV, 11-6-84)
    [Carlon, Inc.) (engineer to establish
    minimum performance needs and
    write performance specifications to
    reflect minimum needs) (purpose of
    performance specifications is to
    compare operational levels of
    various equipment that may have
    different physical configurations).
H. Salient Requirements
84:27  Metropolitan Sewer Dist.,
    Cincinncati. OH (V, 7-16-84)
    (Parkson Corp.) (where
    specification includes only technical
    and performance requirements and
    is not brand name or equal
    specification, all specifications are
    meaningful terms that must be met).

Salient Requirement!
  81:43   Honolulu. HI (IX, 6-11-81)
(Hawaii Concrete Products) (vertical
cast pipe vs. centrifugal cast pipe).
  81:58   Ashland, KY (IV. 7-27-81)
(Fairbanks Mores Pump] (speculative
maintenance problem not salient).
  81:69   Houma. LA (VI 8-19-61)
(Hydromatic Pump) (recirculation port
size) (speculative maintenance problems
not salient).
  81:79   Ashland, KY (TV. 10-1-81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (maintenance
cost).
  82:06   Tangier, VA (m. 2-11-82)
(Ultraviolet Purification Systems)
(minimum performance needs).
  82:34   Monterey, CA (IX, 6-24-82)
(Frank M. Booth, Inc.) (minimum
performance needs for brand names).
  82:37   Cullman. AL (IV, 7-6-82) (Cal
Corp.; Encore Corp. and Drew and
Assoc.) (based on mechanical reliability
and maintenance considerations)
(design features enhancing safety and
efficiency).
  82:41   Abilene, TXfVI. 7-27-82) (R&S
Engineering) (manufacturers only—
unrelated to performance).
  82:46  Spearfish, SD (Vffl. 8-19-82)
(Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co.]
(drawn around single named brand).
  82:49  Dumas. AR (VI, 9-7-82) (Hinde
Engineering] (unidentified).
  82:50  Eaton, OH (V, 9-14-82)
(WagneY Machinery) (unidentified).
  82:53   Monterey, CA (DC, 9-29-82)
(Frank M. Booth. Inc.) (longevity in
service).

  82:55  Haysville. KS (VII. 10-13-62)
(Walker Process) (on-site maintenance).
  82:16  El  Dorado. KS (VII. 11-16-62)
(Oursler Brothers Const.) (chain vs.
cable).
                                   -89-

-------
SPECIFICATIONS
Salient  Requirements

(CONTINUED)-
Salient Requirements
  1. Cordele. GA (TV, 1-15-80) fTuttle/White
Constructors. Inc.) (manufacturers only not
performance related).
  2. East Bay Discharger* Authority. CA (DC.
1-30-60) (Capital Controls Company)
(equipment will not satisfy needs).
  3. Whitehall NY (H 2-5-40) (Davis Water
& Waste Industries. Inc.) (metal connection
was needed performance characteristic).
  4. County Sanitation District* of Los
Angeles County. CA (DC. 6-2B-80) (Ingersou-
Rand Co.) (hard surface abrasive requirement
decreased maintenance cost).

 Salient Requirements

 1. East Bay Dischargers Authority, CA
   (IX 11-16-79)  (Brantley Instruments)
   (Contra Costa Electric, Inc.)

 Salient Requirements (5 35 93(>-13(
-------
SPECIFICATIONS
Sole Source

  81:80 Sacramento County. CA (IX
10-2-61) (Westates Carbon Co.)
(inadequate justification).
  81:83 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (UI, 10-13-81) (R&M Associates)
(single manufacturer prequalified).
  81:86 Huntsville, AL (IV, 10-15-81)
(Municipal A Industrial Pipe Services
and Astor Bolden Enterprises) (must
justify naming single grout material
whether sole source or single material).
  81:92 Hallandale, FL (IV. 11-3-61)
(Municipal  & Industrial Pipe Services;
Interstate Pipe Maintenance: and
Polymer Chemical Corp.)  (single
material distinguished) (competition
among suppliers).
  81:100 Harriman. TN (IV, 12-9-81}
(Municipal  & Industrial Pipe Services)
(distinguished from single material with
several available suppliers).
  82:02 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (III. 1-22-62) (R&M Assoc.)
(prequalification procedures) (reversed
81:83).
  82:10 Sauget, IL (V. 2-19-62) (GHA
Lock Joint Co.) (specifications allowing
only one product is not sole source since
available from more than one source).
  82:17 Lummi Indian. WA (X. 3-28-
82) (Walker Processing Corp.) (type RBC
available from sole source but other
brands could be modified).
  82:18 Miami-Bade Water &
Sewerage Authority, FL (IV. 3-31-62)
(Worthington Group) (not sole source if
two or more manufactures can meet
specification).
  82:19 Mount Pleasant SC (IV, 3-31-
82} (Bird Machine Co.) (justification for
sole sourcing inadequate).
  82:37 Cullman, AL (IV, 7-6-82) (Cal
Corp.; Encore Corp.; and Drew Assoc.)
(equipment available from more than
one source  not sole source-.
  82:44 Memphis, TN (IV, 8-16-82]
(B.F. Goodrich Co.) (inadequate
justification for single material activated
filtration process).
  82:68 Atwood. OH (V, 12-1-82)
(Munitech)  (deviation from
specifications).
SoleSourc*
  1. Tacoma. WA (X 4-9-80) (Wormington
Pump Corporation) (not sole source if
available from protester).

Sole Source
1. Cape May County, NJ (IL 8-31-79)
   (Clow/Envirodisc Corp.) (coat
   effectiveness analysis procedure)
2. De Kalb Sanitary District IL (V, 2-15-
  .79) (Autotrol Corp.')
* 3. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
   Authority, FL (TV, 10-3-79) (Radiation
  Dynamics, Inc.) (justification)

Sole Source Procurement (§ 35.936-13(b))
  1. Monroe County.  Michigan (V. 4-7-ra)
(Paddock Refinite) (justification uds«d on
Intel-changeability)
  2. Waterford. Connecticut (I. S-IS-'B)
(Mulholland Construction Co.) (procedure)
  3. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners.
New Jersey (U. 10-5-78) (DSP Division of
Envirotech Corp.. rtnd Whe.illry Corp 1

Sole  Source  Procurement  (§ 35.936-
  1. Lake Charles. Louisiana (VI. 12-
15-74) (Flygt Corp.)
  2. Tonawanda. New Yorfc (II. 8-1-75)
(Ingersoll-Rand)
  3. Palm Beach  County, Florida (IV.
10-8-76) (pipe) (Price Brothers)
  4. Cranberry Township, Pennsylva-
nia (III, 9-30-77) (Bay-Con Corp.)
                                    -91-

-------
SPECIFICATIONS
Unduly Restrictive
D. Unduly Restrictive
83:01  Spearfish, SD (Vin. 1-11-83)
  (Rickel Manufacturing Co.) (requiring
  liquid cooled pump exceeded
  minimum performance needs).
83:06  Western Carolina, SC (IV, 2-2-
  83) (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley)
  (engineer is to establish minimum
  performance needa and specifications
  should be performance based).
83:18  Perryville, MD (IIL 3-21-83)
  (Lyco Wastewater Equipment
  Division) (RBC equipment arbitrarily
  rejected) (must not include
  requirements that are not performance
  related).
83:23  Jerseyville, IL (V, 4-14-83) (Clow
  Corp.) (requiring RBC be air driven
  not minimum performance need)
  (competition adversely affected—not
  cured by manufacturer of described
  item and not cured by ability of others
  to create copy item).
83:30  St. Albans. WV (in, 5-27-83)
  (Ralph B. Carter Co.) (performance
  test allegedly made specifications
  restrictive as applied).
83:38  Sacramento, CA (IX, 6-17-83)
  (Power Machine Co.] (limitation of
  type of filter media not unduly
  restrictive where two suppliers).
83:39  Philadelphia, PA (IE, 6-22-83)
  (Fisher Sr Porter Co.) (proprietary
  design features) (specifications cannot
  be modified through  private
  agreement involving testing).
83:43  Toledo, OH (V,  8-29-83)
  (Industrial Pump &> Equipment Corp.)
  (pumps selected for lower capital and
  reapir costs and less installation
  space).
83:48  Heber Spring. AR (VI. 8-2-83)
  (Trigon Engineering  Co.)
  (nonexcluded bidder cannot protest
  specifications).
83:51  Santa Barbara,  CA (IX. 8-15-63)
  (Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
  Co.} (grantee willingness to waive
  requirement indicates specifications
  overstated minimum needs).
83:55  Brazos River, TX (VL 9-23-83)
  (Jeffery ManufacturingmDiv.) (shifting
  burden of proof) (technical features
  need not be only possible choice so
  long as rational).
  achieve uniformity in blowers
  requiring single manufacturer).
83:70  Contra Costa, CA (DC 12-18-83)
  (Perkin—Elmer) (exact compliance
  with design specifications must be
  determined from face of bid without
  extrinsic evidence) (post bid
  evaluation of equipment not permitted
  where not provided for by IFB).
83:62  Wayne. NB (VII. 10-31-63)
  (Envirex, Inc.) (by requiring
  equipment substitution grantee
  restrictively applied specifications).
83:68  Tri-City, OR (X. 12-9-83)
  (Dresser Industries. Inc.) (temperature
  rise specifications for blower
  equipment to lower operating costs
  rationally based) (specifications to

B. Unduly Restrictive
  81:02  Little Blue Valley, MO (VII. 1-
8-81) (Eby Const.) (restrictive as
applied; local preference).
  81:09  Wilmington, DE (HI. 2-12-81)
(Ashbrook-Simon-Hartleyj (maximum
unit price).
  81:29  North Plainfield. NJ (II, 4-24-
81) (Schuylkill Products) (two pipe
materials specified).
  81:43  Honolulu. HI (IX, 8-11-81)
(Hawaii Concrete Products) (vertical
cast pipe lacked performance basis).
  81:47   Jasonville. IN (V, 6-30-81) .
(Hinde Engineering Co.) (catalog
specifications that competitors capable
of copying).
  81:50   Kalida, OH (V, 7-2-81)
(Sherburn Co.) (single base bid pipe
procurement prohibited).
  81:58   Ashland. KY (IV, 7-27-81)
 (Fairbanks Morse Pump) (EPA funds
 minimum performance not ideal or best
 design).
   81:61   Southington, CT (L 8-7-81)
 (Chemcon) (pump design).
   81:82  Cobb County,  GA (IV, 8-11-81)
 (American Bioreactor Corp./BAV)
 (single base bidding prohibited) (no sole
 source violation where  contract
 permitted use of "equal").
   81:68  Warren County MUA, NJ (II. 8-
 19-81) {Schuylkill Products)  (design
 criteria permitted only two types pipe—
 other processes not evaluated).
                                     -92-

-------
 SPECIFICATIONS
Unduly Restrictive

  (CONTINUED)

   81:69  Houma. LA (VL 8-19-ai)
 (Hydromatic Pump) (catalog design
 spe -.ificationa).
   81:74  Tifton, GA (IV. 9-1-81)
 (Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services)
 (single material).
   81:79  Ashland. KY (IV.10-1-81)
 (Fairbanks Morse Pump) (documented
 maintenance costs as performance
 requirements).
   81:88  Huntsville. AL (TV. 10-15-81)
 (Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services,
 and Astor Bolden Enterprises) (single
 material grout).
   81:85  Sacramento. CA (DC, 10-14WH)
 (Dredge Masters International)
 (performance testing of equipment).
   81:89  Harford County. MD (HI, 10-
 19-81) (Schuylkill Products) (nationally
 accepted concrete pipe standard;
 exclusion of Packerhead pipe).
   81:92  Hallandale. FL (IV. 11-3-81)
 (Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services,
 Interstate Pipe Maintenance: and
 Polymer Chemical Corp.) (single
 material grout).
   82:08  Tangier. VA (ffl. 2-11-82)
 (Ultraviolet Purification Systems)
 (excess capacity justified by
 experimental design).
   82:07  Chattanooga. TN (IV, 2-18-82)
 (Spencer Turbine Co.) (requiring cast
 iron for reliability, and performance).
   82:18  Miami-Dade Water & Sewer
 Authority. FL (IV, 3-31-82) (Worthington
 Group) (design features requiring heavy
 duty pump justified on past experience
 and performance needs).
   82:19  Mount Pleasant SC (IV, 3-31-
 82) (Bird Machine Co., Inc.)
 (specifications must be performance
 based, not require duplication of
 competitors design) (exclusionary
 requirements not based on performance
 resulted in unjustified sole source).
   82:34  Monterey, CA (DC, 6-24-82)
 (Frank M. Booth, Inc.] (not unduly
 restrictive where only one manufacturer
 supplies equipment but others are
 capable).
   82:37  Cullman, AL (IV. 7-6-82) (Cal
 Corp.; Encore Corp.; and Drew and
 Aasoc.) (performance requirements may
 include safety, efficiency, reliability and
maintenance factors] (requiring single
brand "or equal" does not require
resoliciting because substitute
equipment permitted in alternate bid).
  8238  Fulton, NY (IL 7-16-82) (LOC
Pump and Equipment) (minimum needs).
  82:41  Abilene, TX (VI. 7-27-82) (R&S
Engineering] (manufacturers only)
(performance refers to minimum not
best).
  82:43  Brockton, MA (L 8-16-82)
(Tenco Hydro) (may be unduly
restrictive even with two acceptable
materials).

  82:44  Memphis, TN (IV, 8-16-82)
(B.F. Goodrich Co.) (inadequate
justification for single material activated
filtration process).
  82*5  Pasadena. TX (VI, 8-17-82)
(Parkson) (protestor must show product
excluded).
  82:46  Spearfish. SD (Vffl, 8-19-82)
(Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co.]
(restrictive applications drawn around
single name brand).
  82:49  Dumas, AR (VL 9-7-82) (Hinde
Engineering) (detailed catalog
specifications related to design more
than performance unduly restrictive)
(minimum performance not necessarily
"best").
  82:50  Eaton. OH (V, 9-14-82)
(Wagoner Machinery) (catalog
specifications) (same as one
manufacturer's machine) (salient
requirements not identified).
  82:53  Monterey. CA (DC, 9-29-82)
(Frank M. Booth. Inc.) (only one
supplier, not proof of undue restriction).
  82:55 HaysviUe, KS (VIL10-13-82)
(Walker Process) (cm-site maintenance
as minimum performance need for major
equipment).
  8237 Cape May County MUA, NJ (II.
11-1-82) (American Bioreactor Co. and
Fairfield Service Co.) ("or equal"
alternatives).
  82:61 El Dorado. KS (VIL 11-16-82)
(Oursler Brothers Const) (catalog
specifications) (failure to state minimum
performance needs).
  82:68 Smyrna. TN (IV. 11-29-82)
(Charles Finch Co. and Waterman
Industries) (rejection of "equal" must be
performance based).
  82:68 Atwo'od, OH (V, 12-1-82)
(Munitech, Inc.) (sole source/deviation
from specifications).
  82:70 Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission, OR (X, 12-
22-82) (Robert Dougan Const) (rejection
of all bids if grantee finds its
specifications unduly restrictive).
                                       -93-

-------
SUBCONTRACT  AWARD
Subcontract A ward
84:02  City of Bemidji, MN (V, 1-18-84)
    (Fiber-Dyne, Inc.) (supplier
    substitution by contractor not
    protestable).
84:32  Bayshore Regional Sewerage
    Authority, NJ (II, 8-30-84) (RAM
    Engineering, Inc.] (subcontractor
    may not protest his rejection by
    prime contractors where proposal
    submitted too late to be evaluated).
84:36  Austin. TX (VI, 9-6-64} (Olson
    Const., Inc.) (subcontractor
    responsibility normally determined
    by prime contractor unless grantee
    reserves right to do so in IFB).

Subcontract—Award
83:08  Hamilton.  MT (Vm, 2-8-83) (4C
  Plumbing & Heating, Inc.) (contractor
  rejected MBE subcontractor for
  business reasons).
83:29  Fargo, ND (Vm. 5-18-83} (Von
  Bergen SrMarkson. Inc.; The Gray
  Engineering Group, Inc. &
  Conservatek, Inc.) (business reasons
  for substituting subcontract).
83:24  Oklahoma City, OK
  [Reconsideration] (VI, 5-23-83)
  (Fiberglass Engineered Products, Inc.)
  (anticipated receipt of contract not
  protected by Fifth Amendment due
  process).
83:57  Sod Run, Harford County. MD
  (HI. 10-7-83) (CESCO, Inc.)
  (equipment substitution by contractor
  not protestable).
83:58  Evanston, WY (Vffl, 10-18-83)
  (WesTech Engineering, Inc.)
  (equipment substitution not
  protestable).
83:81  Johnstown, OH (V, 10-24-83)
  (Zimpro, Inc.) (subcontractor
  substitution by contractor not
  protestable).
 (Continued on  Next  Page)
                                   -94-

-------
SUBCONTRACT  AWARD
                      (CONTINUED)
 Subcontract—Award
   81:06  Oceanside, CA (DC, 1-30-81)
 (Bird Machine Co.) (prime bid
 responsive though listed nonresponsible
 subcontractor).
   81:23  Passaic Valley. NJ (U, 4-20-32)
 (Rochester Pump and Machine. Inc.) (no
 EPA regulation for subcontractor
 procuring supplies) (competitive

 negotiation principles do not apply to
 subcontractor selection).
   81:55  Centerville. IA (VII, 7-21-81)
 (Grady Unlimited)  (MBE policy
 establishes no right to award).
   81:63  Honolulu. HI (IX. 8-12-81)
 (Nichols Engineering 4 Research Co.)
 (equipment procurement by subcontract
 instead of separate direct contracts).
   81:101  Ewing Lawrence Sewerage
 Authority. NJ (II. 12-14-81) (Neshamir.y
 Const.) (substitution of subcontractors
 not protestable).
   82:22  Goldendale, WA (X, 4-16-82)
 (IMCO General Const.)  (failure to list
 subcontractors made of responsiveness).
   82:64  Shady Spring PSD, WV (HI, 11-
 22-82) (Davis Water & Waste Industries)
 (subcontractor substitution not
 protestable).
   82:71  Columbus, OH (V, 12-29-82)
 (Zimpro) (grounds for subcontractor
 protest).
   82:72  Alliance,  OH (V. 9-10-82) (R&S
 Engineering) (no standing where
 subcontractor failed to attempt
 prequalification).

 Subcontract*—Award
   1. Tacoma. WA (X 4-3-80) (Worthington
 Pump Corporation) (cancellation of
 subcontract).
   2. Moorhead. MN (V, 8-3-80) (Waldor
 Pump & Equipment Company) (coat savings
 in alternate bid).
   3. County of Nassau. NY (IL 8-7-00)
 (Komline-Sanderson  Engineering
 Corporation) (supplier obtains no protest
 rights by being listed).

 Subcontracts—Award
 1. Aurora Sanitary District. IL (V, 7-3-
   79)  (Ralph B. Carter Co.)
 2. Gainesville, GA  (IV, 6-15-79)
   (National Hydro Systems, Inc. (H))
   (substitution of equipment business
   judgment)
 3. Uainesville, GA (IV. 11-5-79)
   (National Hydro Systems, Inc. (HI))
 4. Hannibal, MO (VH, 6-7-79) (U.S.
   Enviro-Con, Inc.) (business judgment)
 5. Howard County, MD (ffl. 2-15-79)
   (Water Pollution Control Corp.)
   (business judgment).
 6. Sterling, IL (V. 3-9-79) (Neptune CPC
   Engineering Corp.) (substitution,
   business judgment)'
 7. Stillwater, OK (VL 3-1-79) (Robicon
   Corp.)

 Subcontracts. Awards of (§§ 35.937-12.
 35.938-9 and 35.939(j)(6|).

  1. Mountamlop. Pennsylvania (III. 1-5-78)
(National lljdro Systems Inc.) (substitution)
  2. Gainesville. Georgia (IV. 1-17-78)
(National lUdro Systems Inc. and Tultle/
While Constructors)
  3. North Little Rock. Arkansas (VI. 2-1-78)
(Environmental Equipment Corp.) (fairness:
selection by  grantee)
  4. Cynlhiana. Kentucky (IV, 2-9-78) (|ames
N. Gray Construction Co.) (prequahficalion)
  5. Webster. Iowa (VII. 2-10-78)
(Environmental Systems  Division of George
A. Hormel S Co.. Inc.)
  6. East Bay Dischargers Authority
California (IX. 2-15-78) (R. D. Smith) (A/E
subagreements: minority business enterprise)
  7. Fairfax County. Virginia (III. 3-17-78)
(John W. Cowper Co. Inc.)
  8. Antigo. Wisconsin (V. 3-24-78) (General
Filter Co.) (obligation of prime to furnish
conforming equipment)
  *9. Cumberland County. New jersey (II. 3-
31-78) (Dorr-Oliver Inc.) (restrictive effect of
mistaken specification listing as equivalent)
  10. Newlon. North Carolina (IV. 4-25-78)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.) (pipe: alternate
materials)
  11. Waterford. Connecticut (I. 5-19-78)
(Mulholland  Construction Co.)
  '12. Prince William County. Virginia (III. 8-
4-78) (Spencer Turbine Co.) (prequalification.
rational basis as standard)
  '13. Newcastle. Indiana—Reconsideration
(V. 8-23-78)  (Newcastle.  Indiana) (EPA
overview)
  14. Oklahoma  City. Oklahoma (VI. 8-25-78)
(Automatic Engineering Inc.)
  15 Frankfort. Kentucky (IV. irMR-7H|
(PiissiiVfint)
  IB Urb.ind-Champriign. Illinois (V. ]1-9-r8|
(Norton Co |
  17. Lake County. Illinois (V. il-17-78)
(Envirex)
  18. Delaware County. Ohio (V. 11-21-78)
(R. B. Carter)
                                       -95-

-------
 SUBCONTRACT AWARD
                      (CONTINUED)
Subcontracts, Award of (§§ 35.938-9.
   and 3S.939(j)(6».
  1. Hollywood. Florida (IV. 3-13-74)
(equipment   manufacturer   listing)

-------
WAIVER
 Waiver
 84:01  Gwynns Falls, MD (III, 1-13-84)
     [Joseph L Cardinale & Sons, Inc.]
     (bid in amount less than required]
     (late submittal of payment and
     performance bond].
 84:03  Town of Williston, VT (1,1-25-
     84] (Cooley Corp.] (failure to submit
     bid bond with bid is nonwaivable).

 84:07  Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
     Greater Chicgo, IL (V, 2-6-84] (A.J.
     Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind., Inc., and
     Klein  Const. Co.) (minor
     irregularities must be waived].
 84:36  Austin, TX (VL 9-6r64) (Olson
     Const., Inc.] (failure to bid on an
     alternate that was unnecessary for
     bid eva.lua.tion was minor
     informality].
 84:56  City of Fort Lauderdale, FL (VI.
     12-27-84) (Gray Engineering Group,
     Inc.) (bidder cannot waive right to
     have bid withdrawn where he
     admits mistake).
 84:57  Neenah-Menasha Sewerage
     Commission (V, 12-31-64) (Flour
     Bros. Const. Co.) (failure to file bid
     on time may not be waived as
     minor irregularity).

 Waiver
 83:05  Morton. MS (IV. 1-25-83)
   (Associated Const., Inc.) (license
   requirement waived as technicality).
 83:07  Oklahoma City, OK (VT, 2-4-83)
   (D.J. Domas, Inc.) (grantee must have
   rational  basis for refusing to waive
   minor informalities).
 83:09  Covington, GA (IV. 2-9-83)
   (Griffin  Const. Co., & Ethridge
   Brothers Const., Inc.) (discretionary
   authority of grantee cannot be
   compelled by bidder).
 83:32  Los Angeles, CA (DC. 6-6-83)
   (Advanco Constructors, Inc.)
   (irregularities hi listing subcontractors
   must be waived as minor where IFB
   did not make it matter of
   responsiveness).
 83:34  New Concord. OH (V. 6-10-83)
   (Adams Robinson Enterprise, Inc.)
   (failure to acknowledge receipt of
   addendum not waivable where
   material).
 83:40  Elkhart, IN (V. 6-22-83)\(Penn
  Equipment & Tool Corp.) (minor
  deviations involving bid bond surety
  form caused no competitive
  advantage).
 83:46  Palatine. IL (V, 7-19-83) (Di
  Paolo-Rossetti, Joint Venture) (where
  MBE requirements are responsiveness
  matters, waiver not permitted).
 83:68  Tri-City, OR (X12-9-83)
  (Dresser Industries, Inc.) (bidder
  waives protest issue by not submitting
  evidence).

 Waiver
   81:20  Tomah. WI (V, 4-10-81) (W.G.
 Jaques) (MBE requirement designated
 responsiveness not waivable).
   81:24  El Dorado Irrigation District
 CA (DC. 4-13-81) (Lotus Const.] (failure
 to acknowledge addenda).
   81:48  Cleveland. MS (IV, 7-1-81)
 (Roland Pugh Const.) (wavier of minor
 deviation not giving bidder advantage).

  81:50  Kalida, OH (V, 7-2-81)
 (Sherbum Co.) (failure to list unit prices
 not waivable).
  81:107  Colchester, CT (112-31-81)
 (Clark Sewer Const.} (failure to bid on
 alternate waivable).
  82:03  Fort Wayne, IN (V, 1-25-82)
 (Bates & Rogers Cjnst.)  (waiver of fiscal
 integrity requirements).
  82:21  Fallbrook Sanitary District CA
 (IX. 4-6-82) (Metro-Young/Lopez Const,
 A Joint Venture} (demonstration of
 positive MBE requirements).
  8227  Eveleth, MN (V, 5-3-82)
 (Gridor Const) (may waive dib defect
 where immaterial).
  82:35  Van Biiren County, MI (V, 8-
 28-82) (Union Const.) (omission
 waivable as  minor where no competitive
edge results).
  82:68  Atwood. OH (V, 12-1-82)
 (Munitech) (Waiver of deviation from
specifications) (appeal filed with EPA 5
days late).
  82:89  Globe, AZ (DC, 12-8-82)
(Mercury Const.} (failure to
acknowledge addenda).
                                        -97-

-------
VVAIVER     (CONTINUED)
 Waiver

 1. Alpine Sanitary District AZ (DC, 9-26-
   79) (Gus's Trenching and Pipeline Co.)
 2. Bardstown, KY (IV, 1-3-79) (E. H.
   Hughes Co.) (I)
 3. Detroit, MI (V, 12-11-79) (Dynamic
   Construction Co., Inc.)
 4. Jackson, CA (DC, 7-5-79) (Joseph R.
   Ramos Pipeline Engineering)
 5. James Island Public Service District,
   SC (IV, 5-2-79) (Pyramid Builders,
   Inc.)
 8. Kansas City, MO (Vn, 12-20-79)
   (Carney Companies)

 Waiver.
   1. Cynthiana. Kentucky (IV, 2-9-78) (James
 N. Cray Construction Co.) (luting
 nonapproved equipment)
   2. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-6-78) (Mautz ft
 Oren Inc.) (omissions of line item*)
   3. Chicago (Metropolitan Sanitary District
 of Greater Chicago). Illinois (V. 3-12-78)
 (Howard Martin Construction) (local
 procedures)
   4. Amherst. New York (IL £-15-78) (CImato
 Bros. Inc.)
   *5. Bay County. Michigan (V. 8-11-78)
 (Frank V. Louis Equipment Co.) (Contract JJo,
 1) (addendum acknowledgment—Minor
 informality)
   6. Onondaga County. New York (DL 8-23-
 78) (Pizzagalli Construction Company and
 John W. Cowper)

  Waiver.
   1. Denver. (City) Colorado  (VIII, 4-
  22-74)   (price  omission—subtler  (1
  item)) (Pinkard Donovan)
   2. Manitowoc. Wisconsin (V,  12-18-
  74) (grantee cannot waive failure to in-
  clude bid bond) (P. A. Lawrence Co.)
   3. Alexandria. Virginia (III, 4-4-75)
  (non-computation   of  state  taxes)
  (John C. Grimberg)
   *4.  Woonsocket, Rhode Island (I. 6-
  20-75)  (failure to complete EO  11246
  Certification of prior work) (Westcott)
   5. South Portland. Maine (I. 10-7-75)
  (pump  data)  (Pizzagalli Construction
  Co.)
   6. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
  (Westerly Plant),  Ohio (V.  11-3-75)
  (rejection of  all bids  context—supply
.  of  subitem)  (Blount  Brothers  and
  Darin 
-------
                          APPENDIX
                GUIDANCE FOR UTILIZATION OF S/M/WBEs







                     CHAPTER 10 - BID PROTESTS
         The hid protest chapter of the Guidance concisely



explains the issues which most often arise in bid protests



concerning small, minority and womens1 business enterprise



requirements.  The OGC Grants Branch recommends that, upon



receiving an appeal concerning these issues, the EPA attorney



refer immediately to this chapter and rely as much as possible



on its analysis of the issues.  This should result in shorter



and more promptly issued decisions.



         Questions and comments concerning this area should



be referred to Kent Holland or Anthony Guadagno, EPA Office



of General Counsel; Phone: (202) 382-5313.
                                99

-------

-------
United States       Office of the Administrator   May 1986
Environmental Protection    Office of Small and
Agency         Disadvantaged Business
            Utilization
Guidance for Utilization
of Small, Minority and
Women's Business
Enterprises in
Procurement
Under Assistance
Agreements - 6010

1986 Edition

-------
                                                                    /86
            EPA GUIDANCE  FOR  UTILIZATION  OF S/M/WBE IN PROCUREMENT
                         UNDER ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
                                    NOTICE
    This guidance  was prepared by the  United  States Environmental Protection
Agency  for  use  by EPA  personnel,  State  and  local government  officials and
business  persons  interested  in  participating  in  EPA  financial assistance
programs.   The  purpose of  the guidance  is  to provide  information regarding
the  utilization  of  small/  minority  and  women-owned business  entities  under
EPA's financial assistance programs.

    In  the  event   there  are  any  conflicts between  this  guidance  and EPA
regulations, the regulations will govern.
PREPARED BY:
PROJECT MEMBERS:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Office of Small and Disadvantaged
  Business Utilization  (A-149C)
Office of the Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.  20460

George K. Mori
Office of Small and Disadvantaged
  Business Utilization  (A-149C)
Office of the Administrator

J. Kent Holland, Jr., Esquire
Grants, Contracts and General
  Law Division  (LE-132G)
Office of General Counsel

Richard A. Johnson
Grants Administration
  Division  (PM-216)
Office of Administration
                            Tod A. Gold
                            Municipal Construction  Division  (WH-547)
                            Office of Municipal Water  Control

                            Camille J. Lee
                            Hazardous Support
                            Response Division  (WH-548)
                            Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

                            Elaine T. Rice
                            Office of Small  and Disadvantaged
                              Business Utilization  (A-149C)
                            Office of the Administrator

-------
                                                                    6010
                                                                    5/22/86
            EPA GUIDANCE FOR UTILIZATION OF S/M/WBB IN PROCUREMENT
                         UNDER ASSISTANCE  AGREEMENTS
                                  CHAPTER 10

                                 BID PROTESTS
A.   CHALLENGES TO MBE/WBE STATUS

     Complaints by firms challenging another firm's status as  an  MBE/WBE will
not  be  entertained  under  the  bid  protest procedures of 40 CFR Part 33.  Any
firm or individual that  files a  false  statement may be prosecuted under 18
U.S.C.   1001.   Because of the interest of  bona fide MBEs/WBEs  in  obtaining
subagreements,  it is reasonable  to conclude  that  such bona  fide  firms will
help EPA  and  appropriate Federal  authorities  identity  "bogus" or  "front"
MBEs/WBEs.    In  the   event   that  allegations   are   made   that  a   firm
misrepresented  its  status  as  an MBE/WBE, the matter may be  investigated by
the  Office of  the  Inspector General and, where appropriate, turned over to
the  Department of Justice  for  criminal and/or  civil prosecution.

     Such  firms can also  be excluded  from  further participation in Federal
programs by  debarment  or  suspension action.   Actions for exclusion  from  all
Federal  Acquisition  activities  are  taken  under  the  Federal  Acquisition
Regulations, 48  CFR Subpart 9.4;  actions for exclusion  from EPA  assistance
programs are taken under  40 CFR Part 32.  See  Chapter 11.

B.  MBE/WBE COMPLIANCE  —  BIDDER RESPONSIBILITY  V8  BID  RESPONSIVENESS

     1.  As  a   general   rule,   MBE/WBE  documentation  (i.e.,  documentation
demonstrating   positive   efforts    or   compliance   with   grantee  MBE/WBE
requirements) is a matter of bidder  "responsibility".

        a.  Responsibility.    The  term  responsibility  means  the   apparent
ability  of  the  bidder  to  successfully  carry   out  the  requirements  of a
contract.   Aspects  of  responsibility  include  such  things  as   financial
resources, technical qualifications,  experience, organization and  facilities
adequate to carry out  the project, ability  to meet  the completion  schedule,
satisfactory contract  performance  record and  compliance  with or willingness
to comply with civil rights  laws and other  legal requirements.   See 40  CFR
33.220.   The   determination   of  bidder  responsibility  focuses   upon  the.
bidder's  apparent ability  to   perform  in  the  required  manner   on  the date
performance  is  required.  Where  a bidder has failed  to  submit information
required  to   demonstrate  its  responsibility,   such   information  may   be
submitted after  bid  opening,  but  prior  to  contract  award.   Consequently, a
bidder who is  not responsible  when bids  are submitted  may still qualify  for
contract award if it  can establish  its responsibility  before  the  contract
award date.

            MBE/WBE compliance documentation serves  the principle purpose of
assisting  the  recipient  in determining  whether the bidder  is  responsible,
i.e.,  has  the  ability  to meet,  or make  good   faith  efforts to  meet,  the
                                    10-1

-------
                                                                 6010
                                                                 5/22/86
           EPA GUIDANCE  FOR  UTILIZATION  OF  S/M/WBE IN PROCUREMENT
                         UNDER ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
recipient's MBE/WBE  goals  and satisfy the EPA MBE/WBE policy.  Therefore,  if
a  bidder  fails to complete  all the MBE/WBE forms with  its  bid  or  fails  to
take  positive  efforts  prior  to submitting the bid, these  shortcomings may be
corrected  after bid  opening.  The  exception to  this rule  occurs when  the
recipient  has   specifically  made MBE/WBE  requirements and  demonstration  of
positive  efforts matters  of  bid  "responsiveness" to  be determined at  the
time of bid opening.

        b.  Responsiveness.   A  "responsive" bid  is  one  which  on  its  face
meets  the  specifications  and the material  terms  of  the  Invitation  for  Bid
(IFB).  Material terms  are those  terms affecting price,  quantity,  quality  or
delivery  and  any other  terms which  are  clearly  identified  by  the   bid
solicitation documents  as requirements that  must be  complied  with at  the
time of bid in order for the  bid to be accepted as "responsive".

            A  failure  of a bid to meet  a  material term of the IFB cannot  be
cured  after  bid opening.   This is  the most  significant  difference  between
matters of responsiveness  and responsibility.

    2.  Careful  and  Clear Drafting.   Recipients may  make  compliance  with
MBE/WBE  requirements a  matter of responsiveness  instead of  responsibility.
However,  because  such  requirements  are normally  matters of  responsibility,
they  will  have to  be  treated  as  such  unless  the recipient  clearly  and
unequivocally  states  in.the   bid solicitation  documents  that failure  to  meet
the   MBE/WBE   requirements   will   cause    the   bid   to  be   rejected   as
nonresponsive.    In   deciding   to  make   these  requirements   matters   of
responsiveness, the  recipient must exercise extreme  care  in drafting  the IFB
and  all bid  solicitation documents.    If  there  is  any  ambiguity in these
documents  concerning whether a  bid  failing to  comply  with the  requirements
will  be automatically  rejected  as  nonresponsive,  the  requirement will  be
considered to  be a matter  of responsibility which can be  cured by  -the bidder
after  bid  opening.   Consequently, where  there is such  ambiguity  in  the  bid
solicitation documents  the recipient must  not reject a  nonconforming bid  as
nonresponsive.

    3.  Protest  Examples.   EPA has  reviewed  numerous  recipient procurement
actions  involving  the  issue  of  whether  MBE/WBE   requirements  were  made
matters of responsiveness  or  responsibility.  The rule which  is  consistently
followed  by EPA is  that  in  order   for  a  recipient to reject  a  bid -as
nonresponsive  due  to a  failure to do something which  is generally a matter
of  responsibiity  (such as  listing subcontractors  and  submitting  positive
efforts  information),  the  solicitation  for  bids   must  have  clearly   and
unequivocally  stated that  such  failure would cause the bid to be rejected  as
nonresponsive.  Many of the  bid protest  appeals  considered  by  EPA  involve
bid  solicitations  which were  ambiguous  as  to when  the  MBE/WBE  requirements
had to be met by the bidder.

        a.  Examples of language which failed to  make  it sufficiently clear
and  mandatory  that  MBE/WBE documentation  and  requirements must be  submitted
with the bid include provisions in the bid  solicitation stating that:
                                    10-2

-------
                                                                6010
                                                                5/22/86

           EPA GUIDANCE FOR UTILIZATION OF S/M/WBE IN PROCUREMENT
                         UNDER ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS


             (1)  Failure to  submit  such information  "may be cause  to reject
the bid,"  City of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan,  (Region  V,  June 25,  1979)   (Protest
of Collavinc Const.,  Inc.);

             (2)  "Failure to list .  . . will render the bid nonresponsive and
may  cause  its   rejection."  Sand  Point,  Idaho  (Region X, March 3,  1983)
 (Protest of Ludig Const.,  Inc.);  and

             (3)  "Failure to complete the  equipment manufacturers  form shall
be grounds for   rejection  of his bid as nonresponsive"   New Hampshire Water
Supply  and Pollution Control Commission  (Region I, March  16,  1984)   (Protest
of Cattamount Const.,  Inc.)

        b.  In each  of these examples the language failed to provide  for the
automatic,  mandatory rejection  of  non-conforming  bids.  The  statement that
failure  to  do   something   may   result  in  the  rejection of  the  bid  is
ambiguous.  The  action verb "may"  is equivocal and non-mandatory  because  of
its  permissive  nature.   The  fact  that  it   may  be  rejected  implies  the
possibility  that it "may  not"  be rejected.  Where such language  is  used  in
the bid solicitation,  the  recipient  cannot reject as  nonresponsive a  bid
which  fails  to  provide documentation  of a  requirement  which is  generally
considered  to be a  matter  of  responsibility.   Where  an IFB  clearly  and
unequivocally states  that  failure  to   submit  a  subcontractor list  or MBE
documentation- will make a  bid nonresponsive, but the  IFB does  not  state what
action will  be  taken  regarding  such  a  nonresponsive  bid  (e.g., rejection),
it  is  nevertheless  correct  to  reject  the bid   since  pursuant .to  40 CFR
Sec.  33.430(b),   award  can  only  be  made  to responsive  bids.   See Monterey,
California (EPA Region  IX,  September 12, 1985)  (Protest of Mortenson/Natkin).

    4.  In reviewing  bid solicitations  to determine whether MBE/WBE  matters
have  been  made  matters of responsiveness,  EPA  looks  beyond the specific
language  in  the  bid  form  or  IFB  and  examines  all  areas of the bid
solicitation documents  to determine whether they are clear and unequivocal.
For example,  if  the  language  in one  portion  of  the  bid documents  clearly
states  that  documentation  is a  matter of  responsiveness  but the language
which  appears elsewhere  in  the document  gives  a  different  meaning,  the
requirement  cannot  be  considered  a   matter  of  responsiveness.    See, New
Hampshire  Water   Supply  and  Pollution  Control Commission.  supra.   If the
recipient chooses  to  make  certain  items,  such  as commitment to a  fair  share
percentage, a matter  of responsiveness, and other  items, such  as  submission
of data  sheets,   a matter  of responsibility,  the  recipient  should  clearly
separate these items and make it clear  to bidders  which  items  are  matters  of
responsiveness and which are matters of responsibility.

    5.  Consequence  of  Responsiveness.   If   the   recipient   makes   MBE/WBE
documentation  and  requirements,  matters  of  responsiveness,   it   must  then
reject any  bid  which  fails to  satisfy  the  requirements of the solicitation
as of the  time  of  bid opening.   The   recipient  has no  real  discretion  in
making  this  decision because  a  nonresponsive  bid cannot  be cured and  made
                                    10-3

-------
                                                                6010
                                                                5/22/86
           EPA GUIDANCE FOR UTILIZATION OF S/M/WBE  IN  PROCUREMENT
                         UNDER ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
responsive  after  bid opening.  Consequently,  a bid which  is not  responsive
to  the  MBE/WBE requirements must be  rejected  even if the recipient  believes
that  accepting the bid  is  in its best  interests and the  best interests  of
the MBE/WBE program.   For example, it would  be necessary to reject  a  bidder
that  did  not  submit  documentation (if  it were a  matter of responsiveness)
even  though after  bid  opening  that  bidder  demonstrates  it  satisfies  the
affirmative  steps  and attained or  promised to  attain MBE/WBE participation
exceeding  the  grantee's goals  and/or  exceeded  the MBE/WBE  participation
offered by the  next low bidder.   See, Village of Palatine,  Illinois  (EPA
Region  V,  July  19,  1983)   (Protest of   Di   Paolo-Rossetti).   However  in
Toronto,- Ohio  (EPA  Region V,  February 2, 1984)  (Protest of Cavanaugh Co.),  a
bid that  failed  to  submit documentation  required by the  IFB  was nevertheless
responsive  because  it  specifically  committed  to meeting  the  grantee's  MBE
goals.   Since  the  bidder  was  contractually  committed  to  the   goal,  the
documentation  was  only  relevant  to  evaluating  the bidder's responsibility,
that  is, its ability to meet the goal.

    6.  Effective Use  of Responsibility  Criteria.  Assistance recipients can
effectively  use  definitive  responsibility criteria  to  assure  that bidders
exercise the affirmative  steps required  by 40 CFR Sec. 33.240.  For  example,
the Invitation For  Bids  (IFB) may require  that bidders advertise  in various
newspapers  and  trade  journals,  solicit  subcontractors by  using  lists  of
MBE/WBEs  provided  by  federal,  state  or  local  agencies,  and  take   other
specific  action  to demonstrate that  the affirmative  steps  were  taken.   The
recipient  can  then  determine  after bid-opening  (before  contract  award)
whether  the  low bidder satisfied  the  required  definitive responsibility
criteria and reject any  bidder  that  failed to  meet  the criteria.    See,  San
Bernardino,  Ca.   (EPA,   Region   9,   January   15,   1986)  (Protest  of   MCI
Cons tr uctor s,  Inc.).

C.  EPA PROTEST APPEALS PUBLICATION

    A publication  containing extracts of  EPA  protest appeal determinations
concerning  MBE/WBE matters  is available  from  OSDBU and  the Regional  EPA
offices.
                                    10-4

-------