Hi-Shear Technology Corporation--Reconsideration

B-261206.2 Feb 12, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Request for reconsideration is denied where requesting party merely expresses disagreement with prior decision and continues argument that contracting officer did not have discretion. The selection decision was a choice between Teledyne. The contracting officer noted that Teledyne was producing the same sequencers for McDonnell Douglas. Did not have extra long-lead time items. Would have to hire more assemblers. Which might have a short-term impact on quality. Although both offerors were qualified sources and equally capable of manufacturing the sequencers. Although it was not a BRC. Recognizes that responsible contractors have "varying degrees of quality and delivery performance. We agreed with the Air Force that while it was permitted under the BRC program to make award based on considerations other than price. View Decision Matter of: Hi-Shear Technology Corporation--Reconsideration File: B-261206.2 Date: February 12, 1996 Request for reconsideration is denied where requesting party merely expresses disagreement with prior decision and continues argument that contracting officer did not have discretion, where solicitation provided for consideration of Blue Ribbon Contractor (BRC) status, to consider price in the selection decision; prior regulation, provided by protester with its initial filing, and current regulation, provided by agency in its response to the protest, both grant the contracting officer discretion to make award to a lower-priced non-BRC, considering similar factors. Attorneys DECISION Hi-Shear Technology Corporation requests reconsideration of our decision, Hi-Shear Technology Corp., B-261206, Aug. 31, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 97, denying its protest of the award of a contract to Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical, McCormick Selph Electronics, under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41608-95-R-10105, issued by the Department of the Air Force for aircraft recovery sequencers. Hi-Shear, a participant in the Air Force Materiel Command's (AFMC) Blue Ribbon Contractor (BRC) program, contended that the agency did not consider the protester's BRC status in its selection decision, contrary to solicitation provisions. We deny the request for reconsideration. The selection decision was a choice between Teledyne, which offered the lower price, and Hi-Shear, a BRC. In making this decision, the contracting officer noted that Teledyne was producing the same sequencers for McDonnell Douglas, possessed the excess capacity to deliver an additional 30 per month, and already had the long-lead time items in-house. Hi-Shear, by contrast, although a designated BRC, did not have extra long-lead time items, might not be able to meet short-term, urgent requirements, and would have to hire more assemblers, which might have a short-term impact on quality. Although both offerors were qualified sources and equally capable of manufacturing the sequencers, the contracting officer found little risk in selecting the lower-priced contractor, Teledyne, although it was not a BRC. As we noted in our earlier decision, the solicitation provided that the selection decision would consider the AFMC BRC Program, as well as price. The BRC program, which applies to spare parts acquisitions, recognizes that responsible contractors have "varying degrees of quality and delivery performance," and provides a framework for contracting officers to exercise business judgment in making selection decisions normally dictated solely by price. See AFMC Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFMC FARS) Part 5315.605-90. Our decision noted that the AFMC FARS set forth factors for consideration in deciding whether to select a higher-priced BRC for award. Although the Air Force had provided our Office with a copy of the current regulation, dated September 30, 1994, we reviewed the selection decision in terms of the factors listed in a prior version of the regulation (dated July 1, 1992), which Hi-Shear had submitted with its protest. In our prior decision, we agreed with the Air Force that while it was permitted under the BRC program to make award based on considerations other than price, neither the language of the solicitation nor the underlying regulations required it to do so. The underlying regulation essentially requires an award in the government's best interest and, where the BRC is higher in price, requires a written justification regardless of which offeror--BRC or non-BRC--the contracting officer chooses. See AFMC FARS Sec. 5315.605-90(h)(9)(ii),(iii). We found the Air Force's consideration of the factors set forth in the regulation both reasonable and consistent with that guidance. In requesting reconsideration, Hi-Shear essentially argues that the factors for consideration differ between the older regulation that it cited in its protest and the newer version.