Greenwich Air Services, Inc., B-277656, November 5, 1997

B-277656 Nov 05, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST RFP requirement that technical representative of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) be present during six critical phases of the overhaul and repair work of power turbines is not unduly restrictive where requirement is based on agency's reasonable concerns regarding safe operation of ships. Protester's unsupported speculation that involvement of OEM technical representative will undermine contract performance. Inc. is the only known company possessing the original drawings. Inc. is the only known source for the technical expertise required to ensure: that repairs recommended by the contractor are necessary. Inspection criteria are used. That all Pratt and Whitney Standard Practices are met. View Decision Matter of: Greenwich Air Services, Inc. File: B-277656 Date: November 5, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Greenwich Air Services, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG40-97-R-70026, issued by the Coast Guard for the overhaul and repair of Pratt & Whitney power turbines. [1] Greenwich contends that the solicitation requirement that a technical representative of the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) be present during certain phases of the overhaul and repair process improperly restricts competition and creates an organizational conflict of interest for Turbo Power and Marine Systems, Inc., the OEM. [2] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 9, 1997, the agency issued the RFP, which contemplated the award of a requirements contract for a base year with one 1-year option period. The solicitation required that OEM brand name parts be used and that an OEM technical representative be on site during six critical phases of the overhaul and repair process. [3] Prior to issuing the solicitation, the agency executed a "Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition" (JOTFOC) which stated: Pratt & Whitney/Turbo Power & Marine Systems, Inc. is the only known company possessing the original drawings, specifications, engineering control procedures and proprietary methods to ensure the latest design configuration, manufacturing and quality control required to produce parts to current engineering specifications and requirements. . . . Power Turbines which explode with flying debris due to faulty parts, may severely mangle or kill anyone in the engine room . . . . Catastrophic failure of the Power Turbine during engine operation could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage, not only to itself, but the gas generator that the power turbine drives, and the area surrounding the turbine on the vessel. Subsequently, the agency amended the JOTFOC to also state: Pratt & Whitney/Turbo Power & Marine Systems, Inc. is the only known source for the technical expertise required to ensure: that repairs recommended by the contractor are necessary; that Pratt and Whitney authorized repair procedures, modifications, limits/tolerances, and inspection criteria are used; and that all Pratt and Whitney Standard Practices are met. On May 30, Greenwich filed an agency-level protest challenging the terms of the solicitation as being overly restrictive. The agency denied that protest on July 22. On July 23, Greenwich and Turbo each submitted a proposal responding to the solicitation. The total evaluated price of Greenwich's proposal was $[deleted] and the total evaluated price of Turbo's proposal was $[deleted]. On July 30, Greenwich filed this protest with our Office. DISCUSSION Greenwich first argues that the RFP requirement for an OEM technical representative requirement improperly restricts competition because of the control it gives to Turbo, the OEM, over its competitors' prices. Greenwich argues that the requirement permits Turbo to quote an unreasonably high price for the services of its OEM representative, thereby ensuring for itself an "insurmountable price advantage," maintaining that "the complete elimination of these OEM Representative clauses is necessary to avoid the unfair competitive disadvantage." Although Greenwich acknowledges that, under previous contracts, it "[has] utilized the regional [OEM] representative for consultation and added expertise--when necessary," Greenwich nonetheless asserts "there is no reason to require any OEM Representative services, as inspections can be accomplished by others, including Greenwich, in accordance with the OEM's manual." The agency responds that the RFP requirement for an OEM technical representative is necessary because of recent restructuring within the contracting activity that has depleted staffing, leaving a current staffing level without the necessary expertise to ensure that repairs recommended by the contractor are necessary and that the appropriate repair procedures and inspection criteria are used.