Marc Avenue Corporation

B-261968.2 Jan 11, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The wheel and brake assemblies sought under the RFP are a part of the main landing gear for the aircraft. They are considered flight critical items because a failure of the wheel and brake assembly during operation of the aircraft could significantly affect flight safety. The ABSC 40/42 assembly and the BFG 50/52 assembly were each qualified to the same design specification. ABSC and BFG were the sole source suppliers of replenishment spares. The Air Force decided that it was in the agency's best interest to replace the existing ABSC 40/42 assembly with the BFG assembly. Which was closer to the design objective of 1. The proposed sole source award was canceled on September 16. As the agency realized that it could not justify a sole source acquisition since there were two qualified sources. View Decision Matter of: Marc Avenue Corporation File: B-261968.2 Date: January 11, 1996 protest against agency decision to reject proposal is denied where protester had not met qualification requirements for solicited wheel and brake assembly and failed to demonstrate that it could become qualified in time for award. Attorneys DECISION Marc Avenue Corporation protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. F42630-95-R-22041, issued by the Department of the Air Force for improved wheel and brake assemblies for certain F-16 aircraft. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. The F-16 C/D fleet consists of two blocks, or types, of aircraft, block 40/42 and block 50/52. The wheel and brake assemblies sought under the RFP are a part of the main landing gear for the aircraft. They are considered flight critical items because a failure of the wheel and brake assembly during operation of the aircraft could significantly affect flight safety. The prime contractor for the F-16 fleet, General Dynamics Corporation, Fort Worth Division, equipped the block 40/42 aircraft with a wheel and brake assembly manufactured by Aircraft Braking Systems Corporation (ABSC), and the block 50/52 aircraft with a wheel and brake assembly manufactured by BF Goodrich Aerospace (BFG). The ABSC 40/42 assembly and the BFG 50/52 assembly were each qualified to the same design specification. ABSC and BFG were the sole source suppliers of replenishment spares, ABSC for the 40/42 block and BFG for the 50/52 block. As a result of a critical shortage of 40/42 assembly spares and reliability and maintenance problems associated with the ABSC assembly, in January 1994, the Air Force decided that it was in the agency's best interest to replace the existing ABSC 40/42 assembly with the BFG assembly, which had previously been qualified for use on the 40/42 aircraft and had a documented performance rate of 767 landings, which was closer to the design objective of 1,000 landings. On June 10, 1994, the Air Force published a notice in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) stating its intent to issue a sole source contract to BFG for a quantity of 40/42 assemblies. The proposed sole source award was canceled on September 16, as the agency realized that it could not justify a sole source acquisition since there were two qualified sources, ABSC and BFG. On January 12, 1995, the Air Force published a synopsis in the CBD to identify interested sources with the capabilities to produce a replacement wheel and brake assembly for the block 40/42 F-16 aircraft. The synopsis advised that the replacement system should provide a wheel design that can accommodate both a bias ply and a radial ply tire, and a brake design that can provide a minimum of 750 landings before repair or replacement. The synopsis also stated that the replacement wheel and brake must fit within the present envelope of the 40/42 wheel well fitting and be compatible with existing aircraft/landing gear in form, fit, and function. The agency received eight expressions of interest in response to the notice. On April 17, the Air Force synopsized the RFP in the CBD; that notice restated the requirements set forth in the January 12 synopsis. The RFP was issued on June 16 and, as amended, established the closing date for receipt of proposals as July 31. The RFP stated that the acquisition was subject to a qualification requirement, that "THIS IS AN EXTREMELY URGENT REQUIREMENT," and that contract award would not be delayed to give an offeror an opportunity to meet the standards specified for qualification "unless determined to be in the best interest of the government." Marc submitted a proposal, which, after discussions were conducted, the Air Force rejected by an August 21 letter which stated: "This is to inform you that based on the information you submitted for review, you do not meet the qualification requirements. Your proposal outlines a design, development effort. The RFP specifically states that a design, development effort is not acceptable.