Aeronautical Instrument & Radio Company, B-281635, February

B-281635 Feb 24, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency is not required to delay award pending inclusion of protester's product on qualified products list (QPL) where protester has had ample opportunity to complete QPL testing over period of years. The protester asserts that the agency is required to delay award until it has completed testing of its product for inclusion on the qualified products list (QPL). Proposals were due by July 8. That it was currently manufacturing and selling the ID-663D/U to the government of Canada and to Lockheed Martin Corporation for incorporation into C-130 aircraft ordered under a U.S. The contracting officer notified AIRCO that its technical documentation was inadequate for approval as a source for the required items. View Decision Matter of: Aeronautical Instrument & Radio Company File: B-281635 Date: February 24, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Aeronautical Instrument & Radio Company (AIRCO) protests the award of any contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00383-98-R-0064, issued by the Naval Inventory Control Point (NAVICP) for 81 bearing distance heading indicators, P/N ID-663D/U. The protester asserts that the agency is required to delay award until it has completed testing of its product for inclusion on the qualified products list (QPL). We deny the protest. The RFP provided that required items must be procured from sources listed in QPL 22075-14, which provides for qualification inspection and quality conformance testing in accordance with MIL-I-22075C. /1/ RFP Sec. C-321a, b. Proposals were due by July 8, 1998. On July 1, AIRCO contacted the agency and provided information showing that it had been an approved source for previous versions of the required indicator, and that it was currently manufacturing and selling the ID-663D/U to the government of Canada and to Lockheed Martin Corporation for incorporation into C-130 aircraft ordered under a U.S. Air Force contract. AIRCO and other offerors submitted proposals by the closing date. By letter of August 19, the contracting officer notified AIRCO that its technical documentation was inadequate for approval as a source for the required items, and identified a contact who could provide more information concerning the evaluation. Enclosed and referenced in this letter was a NAVICP source approval brochure, which mistakenly suggested that AIRCO could seek NAVICP source approval for its product, rather than inclusion on the QPL. On August 19, the Navy issued amendment 0001 to reduce the base period from 2 years to 18 months, in order to open up the possibility that the requirement could be recompeted sooner if AIRCO were able to qualify its product. On August 24, AIRCO filed an agency-level protest challenging the agency's rejecting its proposal without contacting AIRCO regarding further information necessary to cure the deficiencies cited. On October 1, in response to the protest, the agency met with AIRCO. NAVICP clarified to AIRCO that its product had to be QPL-approved, in accordance with the requirements of MIL-I-22075C, and that the source approval brochure erroneously provided to AIRCO was not applicable to this procurement. The agency directed AIRCO to contact Raytheon Technical Services Company, the government's agent for testing the ID-663D/U indicators. AIRCO maintains that NAVICP then agreed to delay award until testing of AIRCO's product was complete, but NAVICP asserts it only agreed to delay the award as long as possible, not indefinitely. AIRCO also maintains that NAVICP agreed to have Raytheon expedite the testing; the Navy denies this. On November 2, the contracting officer was advised by Raytheon that AIRCO had not provided a unit for testing until the end of October and that, as of November 2, it would take an additional 6 to 8 weeks to complete testing. (The exact date of receipt is unclear, but the record does show that AIRCO did not ship the unit until October 21, and that two more units were hand-carried by AIRCO representatives to Raytheon on October 28. Protester Comments, January 8, 1999, attached "Declaration of Mr. Evo Nicoletti," paragraphs 6, 7, attached packing ticket.) Subsequently, the contracting officer was notified that delivery of the required items was required by April 1999, in order that the aircraft retrofitting program not be disrupted. Because of this urgency and the projected timeframe for completion of AIRCO's product testing, the contracting officer sent AIRCO a November 24 letter in which she denied the agency-level protest and informed AIRCO that the Navy would proceed to award a contract because she did not believe AIRCO could be approved in time for award. One of the factors that influenced this decision was the fact that the Navy had authorized AIRCO to pursue qualification of its product to MIL-I-22075C in May 1993.