Phaostron Instrument & Electronic Company, B-284456, April 20, 2000

B-284456 Apr 20, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that award was improper because contracting activity that approved awardee's part for addition to qualified products list did not have approval authority is denied. Phaostron asserts that AIC's part was not properly included on the qualified products list for this requirement. The pressure indicators are a critical application item and. Competition for the requirement was limited to firms whose items were approved for the qualified products list (QPL) at the time of contract award. At the time the RFQ was issued. Only the protester and one other firm were listed on the QPL. AIC's quotation was low and. Was determined to offer the best overall value to the government. Because AIC's part was not listed on the most recent iteration of the QPL. View Decision Matter of: Phaostron Instrument & Electronic Company File: B-284456 Date: April 20, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Phaostron Instrument & Electronic Company protests the issuance of a purchase order to Aircraft Instruments Company (AIC) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPO440-99-Q-W731, issued by the Defense Supply Center, Richmond (DSCR), Defense Logistics Agency, for a quantity of pressure indicators. Phaostron asserts that AIC's part was not properly included on the qualified products list for this requirement. We deny the protest. The pressure indicators are a critical application item and, as indicated in the RFQ, competition for the requirement was limited to firms whose items were approved for the qualified products list (QPL) at the time of contract award. RFQ at 3. At the time the RFQ was issued, only the protester and one other firm were listed on the QPL. QPL-27190-9, Mar. 30, 1998. In response to the solicitation, the agency received several quotations, including the protester's and AIC's. AIC's quotation was low and, based on an evaluation of all the quotations under the agency's automated best value model technical rating scheme, was determined to offer the best overall value to the government. Because AIC's part was not listed on the most recent iteration of the QPL, however, the contract specialist contacted DSCR's quality assurance specialist to determine whether AIC's part was in fact approved for the manufacture of this item. Contracting Officer's Statement at 3-4. After being contacted by the agency, AIC furnished an August 13, 1996 letter from DSCR stating that, based on test data that had been furnished by AIC, its part would be added to the QPL. Id. at 4. The agency also contacted the cognizant personnel at the Defense Supply Center, Columbus (DSCC), since that activity had been indicated on the QPL as the one responsible for maintaining the QPL. Id. In response to that query, DSCC advised that the firm's part was in fact qualified, and that it would be added to the QPL. Id. Based on this information, DSCR concluded that the AIC part was qualified, and awarded the firm a purchase order on November 9, 1999. Phaostron challenged the award decision in an agency-level protest, which was denied. Phaostron then filed this protest in our Office. Phaostron asserts that the award was improper because AIC's part has not properly been approved for inclusion on the QPL. /1/ The sole basis for Phaostron's position is its assertion that DSCR lacks authority to approve products for inclusion on this QPL; it claims that only Kelly Air Force Base (Department of the Air Force), has this authority. /2/ Phaostron concludes that AIC was not eligible for award. Phaostron's argument is without merit. The applicable statute, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2319 (1998), is designed to encourage competition for products subject to qualification requirements by providing prospective offerors an enhanced opportunity to have their products qualified prior to the award of a contract in a given acquisition. To that end, the statute affords contracting officers the authority to find that a product meets (or will meet) a qualification requirement by the time of contract award, regardless of whether the item is listed on the QPL. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2319(c)(3); Federal Acquisition Regulation Secs. 9.202(c), 9.206-1(c). Nothing in the statute limits the contracting officer's authority to approve a product for a procurement based on whether the product has been tested or approved by a particular entity. Indeed, consistent with the statutory objective of enhancing competition for products subject to a qualification requirement, we have approved an agency's use of an alternate method of source approval--a licensing agreement with the original equipment manufacturer--in lieu of approval by an authorized agency activity. B.F. Goodrich Aerospace, B-261561 et al., Sept. 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 137 at 4. The contracting officer's actions here were consistent with the statute.