Kitco, Inc.

B-272067 Sep 16, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that delay in providing details of the reasons for disapproving protester's source approval request resulted in competitive prejudice is denied where protester alleges only that. It would have pursued commercial markets for its product in lieu of attempting to supply the product to the government. BACKGROUND The proposed acquisition was synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) on January 16. Although the time required for approval of new sources is normally such that award cannot be delayed pending approval of a SAR. The RFQ was issued to Sundstrand for a quantity of 293 pump assemblies. Award was subsequently made to Sundstrand for 144 assemblies on the basis of urgency. View Decision Matter of: Kitco, Inc. File: B-272067 Date: September 16, 1996 Language in synopsis of proposed source approved procurement inviting potential offerors to submit source approval requests did not guarantee that agency possessed data from the original equipment manufacturer sufficient to determine whether protester's reverse engineered product would be equivalent to the approved product. Protest that delay in providing details of the reasons for disapproving protester's source approval request resulted in competitive prejudice is denied where protester alleges only that, had it known the reasons earlier, it would have pursued commercial markets for its product in lieu of attempting to supply the product to the government. Attorneys DECISION Kitco, Inc. protests the award of a contract to the Sundstrand Corporation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00383-96-Q-F018, issued by the Department of the Navy for pump diaphragm assemblies. The protester alleges that the agency unduly delayed in providing detailed reasons for the denial of Kitco's source approval request (SAR) and that this delay competitively prejudiced Kitco. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The proposed acquisition was synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) on January 16, 1996. The synopsis advised potential offerors that the pump diaphragm assemblies had to be obtained from Sundstrand--the only currently approved source for this flight critical item. The synopsis further provided that, although the time required for approval of new sources is normally such that award cannot be delayed pending approval of a SAR, requests for approval could be submitted by firms other than Sundstrand. On January 27, the RFQ was issued to Sundstrand for a quantity of 293 pump assemblies. Kitco requested and received a copy of the RFQ, submitted a quotation and submitted a SAR for a reverse engineered assembly. Following the denial of the firm's SAR, Kitco filed this protest. Award was subsequently made to Sundstrand for 144 assemblies on the basis of urgency, notwithstanding the pendency of the protest. On August 29, 1994, Kitco had submitted a SAR to the Navy for the assemblies in question, indicating that source approval based on reverse engineering efforts had previously been granted by the Air Force to a predecessor firm which Kitco had acquired. At about the same time, Kitco submitted a SAR to the Air Force which was disapproved in March of 1995 because the agency lacked detailed drawings and a data package which are proprietary to Sundstrand and which are necessary for the analysis of an SAR based on a reverse engineering effort; the record indicates that Kitco disagreed with the Air Force's decision. Shortly after this decision, the Air Force terminated a contract with Kitco that included the pump assemblies in question. During the course of its own investigation, the Navy made internal inquiries as to the availability of the drawings, sought without success to obtain them from the manufacturer and, because Kitco had referenced the Air Force approval in its SAR submitted to the Navy, contacted Air Force officials regarding the matter. On May 1, 1995, the contracting activity forwarded the matter, together with the materials obtained from the Air Force, to the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), the design control activity for Naval aircraft, which has exclusive authority to perform final engineering reviews for flight critical components. On August 16, NAVAIR advised the contracting activity that the SAR had been disapproved; Kitco was advised of the disapproval in a letter dated September 15 which did not provide any specific reasons for the disapproval. Thereafter, Kitco made several inquiries seeking the details for the disapproval of its SAR, including a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated January 3, 1996. The Navy responded on February 15, providing responsive records including a technical data package review checklist which summarily set forth deficiencies in the SAR which contributed to its disapproval.