Precision Metal Products, Inc.

B-261680 Sep 08, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where solicitation was restricted to qualified sources. Which were actual manufacturers of the part. Was insufficient to demonstrate that the firm could manufacture the part in accordance with the strict quality control required. The blades are critical rotating engine components. The RFP therefore was restricted to qualified sources. The agency determined that only actual manufacturers that have successfully completed all testing required by the OEM (Pratt & Whitney) could be considered approved sources. The agency determined that the firm's involvement in the manufacture of blades similar to the ones solicited was not acceptable evidence of the firm's capability to produce the blades under this solicitation. View Decision Matter of: Precision Metal Products, Inc. File: B-261680 Date: September 8, 1995 Protest that agency improperly denied protester's source approval request for flight critical part, thereby precluding protester from competing, is denied where solicitation was restricted to qualified sources, which were actual manufacturers of the part, and agency reasonably concluded that protester's limited experience in the manufacture of similar parts, and the technical data submitted in that regard, was insufficient to demonstrate that the firm could manufacture the part in accordance with the strict quality control required. Attorneys DECISION Precision Metal Products, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's refusal to approve it as an alternate source, and the award of a contract to Pratt & Whitney (the original equipment manufacturer (OEM)), under request for proposals (RFP) No. F34601-95-R-53025, for 3,018 two-blade sets applicable to the TF-33/TF-5/TF-9/TF-102 engines for the C-18/C-135 aircraft. [1] We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. The blades are critical rotating engine components, whose reliability depends on strict quality control, and failure of which can lead to loss of aircraft. The Air Force determined that the government lacked the manufacturing knowledge or technical process data essential to maintaining the quality control of the part and which would permit a full and open competitive procurement. The RFP therefore was restricted to qualified sources. Due to the complexity and criticality of the part, the agency determined that only actual manufacturers that have successfully completed all testing required by the OEM (Pratt & Whitney) could be considered approved sources; this resulted in two approved sources--Pratt & Whitney and Airfoil Textron, Inc., a division of Compressor Components. The qualification requirements, referenced in the solicitation, advised offerors that to be considered for award, they must (1) be an approved source; (2) submit evidence of having satisfactorily supplied the required part directly to the government or to the OEM; or (3) submit other documentation such as engineering data and quality assurance procedures that would allow the Air Force to determine the acceptability of the part offered. Precision Metal submitted a source approval request (SAR), seeking qualification as an alternate approved source on the basis that it had manufactured and/or forged blades similar to those solicited. [2] According to the protester, it had (1) manufactured similar blades, P/N 9531M21P04, for the General Electric Company (GE) F-110 engine, and (2) forged similar blades, P/N 694301, for the Pratt & Whitney TF-33 engine for Ex-Cell-O Corporation (now known as Airfoil Textron, one of the two approved sources here). The protester submitted a data package with its approval request. The Air Force denied Precision Metal's source approval. The agency determined that the firm's involvement in the manufacture of blades similar to the ones solicited was not acceptable evidence of the firm's capability to produce the blades under this solicitation, and that there was insufficient technical data to evaluate the firm as an alternate source based on similar manufacture. The Air Force's inquiry revealed that while Precision Metal had supplied forgings for GE's F-110 first stage blade, it was never an approved source for the manufacture of the blade. Moreover, the agency determined, even if Precision Metal had manufactured the GE blade, that alone would not qualify the firm to provide the Pratt & Whitney blade here, since GE and Pratt & Whitney utilize different manufacturing processes and process controls. The Air Force also determined that the protester's claimed forging of the similar Pratt & Whitney blade did not warrant approval; forging alone did not qualify as manufacturing and, in any event, Precision Metal provided no evidence that its performance under that contract included the technical process data essential to maintaining the quality of the part.