Astrosystems, Inc.

B-261673.2 Dec 07, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest challenging agency's determination to qualify awardee as an approved source is denied where record shows that the agency's determination was reasonably based. The protester principally maintains that SSAI was improperly approved as a qualified source. Offerors which had not been previously approved were invited to submit a source approval request (SAR) information package to enable the government to determine whether they could meet the government's needs. The SAR package was to contain the following: (1) Evidence of capability (e.g.: brochures. Purchase orders or contract for similar items showing equal or greater degree of difficulty than equipment being considered). (2) Company experience and experience of the work force. (3) Facilities description. (4) Support and test equipment availability. (5) Kits and piece parts availability. (6) List of current applicable technical orders or commercial literature/manuals and supplements which are available for repair/overhaul. (7) Description of Quality Program. (8) Safety program for protection of government assets. (9) Copy of any warranty which will be provided. [1] Four offers were received. View Decision Matter of: Astrosystems, Inc. File: B-261673.2 Date: December 7, 1995 Protest challenging agency's determination to qualify awardee as an approved source is denied where record shows that the agency's determination was reasonably based. Attorneys DECISION Astrosystems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Support Systems Associates, Inc. (SSAI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41608-95-R-0194, issued by the San Antonio Air Logistics Center, Department of the Air Force, for services including the repair, testing, and calibration of automatic test equipment used on B-1B aircraft. The protester principally maintains that SSAI was improperly approved as a qualified source. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the lowest-priced offeror determined to be an approved source for the technical services to be performed under the contract, and listed Astrosystems as one of two previously approved sources. Offerors which had not been previously approved were invited to submit a source approval request (SAR) information package to enable the government to determine whether they could meet the government's needs. The SAR package was to contain the following: (1) Evidence of capability (e.g.: brochures, technical information, FAA certification, purchase orders or contract for similar items showing equal or greater degree of difficulty than equipment being considered). (2) Company experience and experience of the work force. (3) Facilities description. (4) Support and test equipment availability. (5) Kits and piece parts availability. (6) List of current applicable technical orders or commercial literature/manuals and supplements which are available for repair/overhaul. (7) Description of Quality Program. (8) Safety program for protection of government assets. (9) Copy of any warranty which will be provided. [1] Four offers were received. SSAI submitted the lowest offer of $1,003,978.13 and Astrosystems submitted the second lowest offer of $1,257,617.28. SSAI submitted a SAR information package which was reviewed by agency engineers and approved. SSAI was awarded a contract based on its low price and this protest followed. As indicated above, Astrosystems principally maintains that the agency improperly qualified the awardee as an approved source. Prior to discussing this allegation, however, we address certain of the protester's other complaints which are not for review by our Office. First, Astrosystems challenges the contracting officer's determination that the awardee was responsible both in a general context and with respect to what the protester asserts are definitive responsibility criteria. Because a determination that an offeror is capable of performing a contract is based largely on subjective judgments which generally are not susceptible of reasoned review, an affirmative determination of responsibility will not be reviewed by our Office absent a showing that such determination was made fraudulently or in bad faith or that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation were not met. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)(5) (1995); Bomem, Inc., B-234652, May 17, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 475. Astrosystems has not alleged, nor does the record contain any suggestion of, fraud or bad faith on the part of the contracting activity. With respect to the protester's presumption that the nine quoted information categories of the SAR package constitute definitive responsibility criteria, which SSAI allegedly did not meet, Astrosystems's argument lacks legal merit.