Engineered Fabrics Corporation, B-284154; B-284154.2; B-284154.3, February 23, 2000

Engineered Fabrics Corporation, B-284154; B-284154.2; B-284154.3, February 23, 2000 TITLE: Engineered Fabrics Corporation, B-284154; B-284154.2; B-284154.3, February 23, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284154; B-284154.2; B-284154.3 DATE: February 23, 2000 ********************************************************************** Engineered Fabrics Corporation, B-284154; B-284154.2; B-284154.3, February 23, 2000 Decision Matter of: Engineered Fabrics Corporation File: B-284154; B-284154.2; B-284154.3 Date: February 23, 2000 Cyrus E. Phillips, IV, Esq., and Douglas K. Olson, Esq., Kilcullen, Wilson and Kilcullen, for the protester. Michael D. Hays, Esq., Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, and Mike Kinard, Esq., Kinard, Crane and Butler, for American Fuel Cell and Coated Fabrics Company, the intervenor. Niketa L. Wharton, Esq., and Philip F. Eckert, Jr., Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Solicitation for fuel tanks for F-15 aircraft is not ambiguous where the solicitation specifically lists the part numbers of the two manufacturers whose products have been approved for use in the aircraft by the aircraft's original manufacturer and includes a "products offered" clause, which allows firms to offer alternate products that are physically, mechanically, electrically, and functionally interchangeable with the products identified in the solicitation. DECISION Engineered Fabrics Corporation (EFC) protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0475-99-R-2508, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for fuel tanks for the Department of the Air Force's F-15 aircraft. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued August 23, 1999, provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for fuel tanks for the Department of the Air Force's F-15 aircraft. RFP at 2-4, 31. The RFP was restricted to EFC and American Fuel Cell and Coated Fabrics Company (AmFuel), "the only sources of supply known to have the capability to furnish the required [fuel tanks]." RFP at 5-13; Agency Response to Issues Raised in Conference Call, Jan. 27, 2000, Attach. No. 1, Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition. The RFP's procurement item description specified for each of the five requested types of tanks the appropriate national stock number, as well as the EFC and AmFuel part numbers. RFP at 5-13. The agency explains that the EFC and AmFuel fuel tanks that correspond to the part numbers listed in the RFP were approved for use in the F-15 aircraft more than 10 years ago by McDonnell Douglas Corporation [1] (the manufacturer of the F-15 aircraft) using the applicable McDonnell Douglas procurement specifications. [2] Agency Response to Issues Raised in Conference Call, Jan. 27, 2000, at 1-2. The RFP included DLA's "Conditions for Evaluation and Acceptance of Offers for Part Numbered Items" clause (similar to DLA's former "Products Offered" clause), which allows firms to offer alternate products which are physically, mechanically, electrically, and functionally interchangeable with the products identified in the solicitation. RFP at 31-32; see Henschel, Inc., B-275390.5, May 14, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 184 at 2. The RFP added that technical data packages were not available from the agency for the specified EFC and AmFuel part numbers, and that firms offering alternate products were required to submit sufficient technical data on any alternate product offered, as well as the named part number, to enable the agency to evaluate the alternate product to determine whether it is interchangeable with the named part number. RFP at 5-13, 31. The RFP also noted that "configuration control applies," and included a configuration control clause providing, in part, that "[t]he furnished item(s) shall conform to the approved configuration requirements/revision as shown in the Procurement Item Description unless a variation is processed and approved as provided . . . in accordance with MIL-STD-973." [3] RFP at 5-13, 25 The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering price and past performance. RFP at 34-35. EFC, the original equipment manufacturer of the fuel tanks, protests that the RFP's requirements regarding the fuel tanks' weight limitations and self-sealing capabilities are ambiguous. The protester argues that, because it believes that the AmFuel products identified by part number in the solicitation weigh more than do EFC's fuel tanks, and do not self seal to the extent required by MIL-T- 5578C (as incorporated in the applicable McDonnell Douglas/Boeing procurement specification), it is unclear to EFC what the RFP's actual requirements are. Protest at 5-7, 10-11; Protester's Comments, Jan. 5, 2000, at 5; Protester's Comments, Jan.