Vision Blocks, Inc., B-281246, January 14, 1999

B-281246 Jan 14, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Contracting agency reasonably waived first article test requirement for a firm where the firm had successfully supplied production quantities of similar items to the government under a previous contract and the firm's first article was tested and approved under that contract to the same military specification that applies in the current procurement. The contracting officer determined that MHI's offer was lower-priced than VBI's and that MHI's offer represented the best value. VBI's president was informed by the contracting officer of the agency's decision to waive the FAT requirement for MHI. VBI filed this protest with our Office. /3/ The protester alleges that DLA had no reasonable basis for determining that the vision blocks MHI previously supplied to the Army were "similar or identical" to the parts being purchased in this procurement. View Decision Matter of: Vision Blocks, Inc. File: B-281246 Date: January 14, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Vision Blocks, Inc. (VBI) protests the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) decision to waive first article testing (FAT) for Miller-Holzwarth, Inc. (MHI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO750-98-R-2022, for direct vision blocks. We deny the protest. Issued on April 2, 1998, by the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC) the RFP solicited offers for supplying 1,797 direct vision blocks, national stock number 2510-00-630-0790 (hereinafter referred to as No. 0790), for use on the M88 recovery vehicle. /1/ RFP at 1, 3-4; Contracting Officer's Report at 1. The RFP required the selected contractor to provide a first article for testing and a FAT report for approval by the agency. RFP Sec. I43(a), (b). The RFP also provided that the agency could waive the FAT requirement where an offeror had previously furnished identical or similar supplies to the government. RFP Sec. I43(h). The protester and MHI submitted offers and requested waiver of FAT; after determining that each had previously performed FAT and furnished identical or similar vision blocks to the Army, the agency waived the requirement for both firms. Contracting Officer's Report at 1. After a comparative assessment of the offers, the contracting officer determined that MHI's offer was lower-priced than VBI's and that MHI's offer represented the best value. Letter from DLA Regional Counsel to General Counsel of the General Accounting Office at 2 (Oct. 21, 1998). On September 17, VBI's president was informed by the contracting officer of the agency's decision to waive the FAT requirement for MHI. Protest at 2. By letter of September 21, VBI protested to the contracting agency the decision to waive FAT for MHI. Contracting Officer's Report at 2. The contracting officer denied VBI's protest on September 30, explaining that MHI had passed the FAT requirement for a similar item it previously supplied to the government. /2/ Id. Shortly thereafter, VBI filed this protest with our Office. /3/ The protester alleges that DLA had no reasonable basis for determining that the vision blocks MHI previously supplied to the Army were "similar or identical" to the parts being purchased in this procurement. Protest at 3. Therefore, VBI contends that the agency improperly waived the FAT requirement for MHI. Id. An agency's decision to waive a FAT requirement is largely discretionary since the requirement is for the protection and benefit of the government, and our Office will not disturb that decision unless we find it to be unreasonable. Marine Instrument Co., B-241292.3, Mar. 22, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 317 at 3. Based upon our review of the record, we find that the agency reasonably waived the FAT requirement for MHI. In its request for waiver of the FAT requirement, MHI stated that it had manufactured three vision blocks that were similar in configuration to the vision blocks being purchased by DLA. Letter from the President of MHI to DSSC at 1 (May 1, 1998). MHI also stated that it had successfully completed FAT for two of the three similar vision blocks, and MHI provided a copy of a DLA letter (dated December 18, 1998) approving MHI's FAT report. /4/ Id., Attachment, at 1. MHI also listed four contracts that it had been awarded by the Army for the manufacture of vision blocks. Id. at 2. Here, DLA waived FAT for MHI primarily on the basis of the Army's previous approval of MHI's FAT report for vision block No. [deleted]. Contracting Officer's Report at 2. The agency was aware that there were some differences between vision block No. [deleted] and vision block No. 0790, but the agency considered them to be "minor differences in characteristics and construction" and determined that vision block No. [deleted] was "still very similar to the item solicited as it has the same critical characteristics." Id.