Sabreliner Corporation, B-288030; B-288030.2, September 13, 2001

Case: B-288030 Agency: Protester: Sabreliner Corporation, B Date: 2001-09-13 Sustained
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
Sabreliner Corporation, B-288030; B-288030.2, September 13, 2001 TITLE: Sabreliner Corporation, B-288030; B-288030.2, September 13, 2001 BNUMBER: B-288030; B-288030.2 DATE: September 13, 2001 ********************************************************************** Sabreliner Corporation, B-288030; B-288030.2, September 13, 2001 Decision Matter of: Sabreliner Corporation File: B-288030; B-288030.2 Date: September 13, 2001 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., Shlomo D. Katz, Esq., and Tammy Hopkins, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, for the protester. Christine S. Trafford, Esq., and John L. Rice, Esq., Miller & Chevalier, for Rolls-Royce, Corporation, the intervenor. Vera Meza, Esq., Rachel M. Howard, Esq., and Wade Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 Agency's proposed award of a sole-source contract for engineering and overhaul services for helicopter engines, on the basis that only one firm is capable of meeting the agency's needs, is not reasonably based where the justification and approval prepared in support of the proposed sole-source award, other agency documentation, and the agency's submissions prepared in response to this protest as well as the testimony of the agency representatives at the hearing held at our Office in connection with this protest, are inconsistent and inaccurate. DECISION Sabreliner Corporation protests the proposed award of a contract on a sole-source basis to Rolls-Royce, Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAH23-01-R-0067, issued by the Army Aviation and Missile Command, Department of the Army, for certain engineering services and the overhaul of helicopter engines. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The T63-A-720 engines to be overhauled under the Army's proposed sole-source contract to Rolls-Royce are used in the Army's OH-58 "Kiowa" helicopter. Agency Supplemental Report (Aug. 6, 2001) at 2. The Kiowa helicopter has been in service for approximately 30 years. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 14. Up until the mid-1990s, the Army had an "organic" (i.e., in-house) ability to overhaul the engines. Agency Supplemental Report at 2; Tr. at 15-16. As part of its in-house ability, the Army maintained an "instruction manual describing the operations, procedures, and practices required to overhaul the engines." Agency Supplemental Report at 2. This instruction manual, called a "Depot Maintenance Work Requirement" (DMWR), also listed the required tooling and test equipment to perform the overhauls. Id. The Army maintained and updated the DMWR through amendments made by its own engineers, as well as through its receipt of commercial engine bulletins from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the T63 engine. [1] Tr. at 19-20. The DMWR was also used to competitively procure engine overhaul services from commercial vendors, with the last such contract being let in 1993. Agency Report, Tab B, Justification and Approval for Other than Full and Open Competition (J&A) (Jan. 2, 2001) at 4; Tr. at 24, 145-46. The Army decided in the mid-1990s to phase out the Kiowa helicopter in 2004, and stopped maintaining its DMWR as of 1993. Tr. at 21, 144, 146, 394. The last overhauls of the engines were performed in-house in 1997 using the DMWR and available updates. Tr. 25-27, 146-47. The agency states that it needs to procure the engineering services from Rolls-Royce because the Army's DMWR is out of date, and it needs to procure the overhaul services from Rolls-Royce because the Army has divested itself of the tooling and equipment needed to overhaul the engines. [2] Agency Supplemental Report at 3 n.1; Tr. at 16. On January 13, 2001, the Army published a notice in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) of its intention to award a sole-source contract to Rolls-Royce. The CBD referenced solicitation No. DAAH23-01-R-0067, and stated, among other things, that the contractor would be required to "furnish all depot-level labor, facilities, special tooling, test equipment, and materials for the maintenance, overhaul/repair modification" of up to 300 of the engines, and that "[t]he contractor will also upgrade Engine configuration to commercial and provide all technical data to identify the engineering changes." Agency Report, Tab E, CBD Notice. Shortly after the CBD notice was published, Sabreliner and two other firms requested copies of the solicitation. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1; Agency Report, Tab F, Sabreliner's Letter to Agency (Jan. 19, 2001). The agency did not respond to the firms' requests, but rather, the contracting officer continued to meet with, and receive proposals from, Rolls-Royce with the intent of awarding Rolls-Royce a sole-source contract.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...