Bridgeport Machines, Inc.

B-265616 Dec 06, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contracting officer properly may rely on awardee's self-certification that it will provide United States or Canadian machine tools. Where there is no indication that certificate is inaccurate and that the awardee in fact is proposing a foreign end product. Protest that awardee's proposed milling machine does not meet certain specification requirements because awardee's descriptive literature did not address areas at issue is denied where agency accepted similar general statements of compliance from both offerors. Bridgeport asserts that the machine offered by AIT is not in compliance with restrictions on the acquisition of foreign machine tools and several specification requirements. Requirements not addressed in the descriptive literature were to be "submitted in a narrative form.". View Decision Matter of: Bridgeport Machines, Inc. File: B-265616 Date: December 6, 1995 Contracting officer properly may rely on awardee's self-certification that it will provide United States or Canadian machine tools, where there is no indication that certificate is inaccurate and that the awardee in fact is proposing a foreign end product. Protest that awardee's proposed milling machine does not meet certain specification requirements because awardee's descriptive literature did not address areas at issue is denied where agency accepted similar general statements of compliance from both offerors, and thus treated them equally. Attorneys DECISION Bridgeport Machines, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Advanced Industrial Technology, Inc. (AIT) under request for proposals (RFP) SP0490-95-R-3004, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense General Supply Center, for milling machines. Bridgeport asserts that the machine offered by AIT is not in compliance with restrictions on the acquisition of foreign machine tools and several specification requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP solicited offers to supply 10 milling machines in accordance with military specification (MIL-SPEC) MIL-M-80016C, as amended. The solicitation stated that the equipment must be "new (not a prototype) and one of the manufacturer's current production models." The RFP required the submission of descriptive literature to establish compliance with "each paragraph" of the requirements; requirements not addressed in the descriptive literature were to be "submitted in a narrative form." The RFP also contained the preference for United States and Canadian machine tools clause, Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Sec. 252.225-7017. This clause defines machine tools meeting the preference as those manufactured in the United States or Canada for which the cost of components manufactured in either country exceeds 50 percent of the total cost of all components. Under this provision, machine tools which are not of United States or Canadian manufacture are evaluated on the basis of the offered price plus a 50-percent evaluation factor. DLA received five offers. Only the offers submitted by AIT and Bridgeport were evaluated as technically acceptable. Both offers indicated that the proposed machines were of domestic origin, and both included statements of compliance with the specification requirements, descriptive literature, and additional narrative technical information. During the ensuing discussions, AIT, at the request of the agency, certified that its offered machine "is manufactured in the United States or Canada and the cost of its components manufactured in the United States or Canada exceeds 50 percent of the costs of all its components." Best and final offers (BAFO) were requested. AIT offered the low BAFO total price ($383,750); Bridgeport offered the second low BAFO price ($476,960). DLA made award to AIT based on its low, technically acceptable proposal. DOMESTIC MANUFACTURE Bridgeport argues that AIT's offered milling machine is not of United States or Canadian manufacture, and that a 50-percent evaluation factor therefore should have been added to AIT's price for evaluation purposes, thus displacing it as the low offeror. Bridgeport challenges the agency's reliance on AIT's certification of United States or Canadian manufacture, arguing that the agency was required to conduct further investigation. Although an agency should not automatically rely on a United States/Canadian end product self-certification if it has reason to question whether a United States/Canadian product will in fact be furnished, where the agency has no information prior to award indicating that the product to be furnished is a foreign end product, the agency may properly rely on the offeror's self-certification without further investigation. See Intermagnetics Gen. Corp., B-255741.2; B-255741.3, May 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 302; Manufacturing Technology Assocs., Inc., B-251759, Apr. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 293.