Supreme Edgelight Devices, Inc., B-295574, March 4, 2005

B-295574 Mar 04, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Supreme Edgelight Devices, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPO470-04-Q-6455, issued by Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for aircraft light plates. We deny the protest. View Decision B-295574, Supreme Edgelight Devices, Inc., March 4, 2005 Decision Matter of: Supreme Edgelight Devices, Inc. File: B-295574 Date: March 4, 2005 Darren Cuoghi for the protester. Robert E. Sebold, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Saturday receipt of an agency-level protest decision by a clerk employed by the protester did not constitute actual or constructive knowledge of the initial adverse agency action on that date, where Saturday was a non-business day for the protester and the envelope containing the decision was not opened until Monday, the first business day after receipt. 2. Agency had a reasonable basis to cancel a request for quotations for an aircraft part, which the solicitation indicated was a critical application item and for which the agency did not have technical data, where the agency wished to investigate the impact of a change in revision levels for the drawing that controlled the manufacture of the part and determine whether the protester's quoted part would satisfy the agency's needs. DECISION Supreme Edgelight Devices, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPO470-04-Q-6455, issued by Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for aircraft light plates. We deny the protest. DSCR is responsible for buying and managing spare parts for United States military aircraft. On September 27, 2004, DSCR issued the RFQ for 174 light plates, which connect to the oxygen regulator panel on various military aircraft. The light plates were identified as Carleton Life Support Systems, Inc. part number 1611735-1, National Stock Number (NSN) 1660-00-967-3664. Vendors were informed that the light plates were a "critical application item" subject to configuration control and that DCSR did not currently have a technical data package available for this NSN. RFQ at 2. Apart from identifying the light plates as a Carleton Life Support Systems part, the solicitation did not specifically identify any approved sources for the light plates. DSCR received quotations from Supreme and Derco Aerospace, Inc., an authorized distributor for Carleton Life Support Systems. Although Supreme had provided this item under prior contracts as an approved source, Supreme's name had been removed from the source approved list because the design drawings had been revised. DSCR rejected Supreme's quote and awarded a purchase order to Derco, whose quotation indicated that Derco would provide Carleton Life Support Systems Inc. part No. 1611735. Supreme timely protested to the agency, arguing that it had previously provided the " exact item" to DSCR as an approved source and in accordance with drawings Supreme had legally received from Drgerwerk AG, a company that Supreme contends is strategically allied with Carleton Life Support Systems. Agency-Level Protest at 1-2. In response, DCSR informed Supreme that Supreme was not considered an approved source because there was a new revision level for this item--that is, the drawing, upon which Supreme relies, is at revision level "AK" but that the more recent drawing for the item is at revision level "AL." The agency states that "DCSR does not at this time know whether an offer for material built to an earlier revision level is acceptable." Response to Agency-Level Protest at 1. The agency also noted that the RFQ inadvertently failed to include DLA's required clause No. 52.2179002, "Conditions for Evaluation and Acceptance of Offers for Part Numbered Items," which informed vendors that only the exact item identified in the solicitation is known to be acceptable and informs vendors who wish to quote parts from other sources what information and/or data must be submitted to demonstrate that the offered product is interchangeable with the listed product. Id. ; Contracting Officer's Statement at 4-5. Accordingly, the agency decided to terminate the award to Derco, cancel the RFQ, and resolicit this requirement. This protest to our Office followed. DCSR requests that we dismiss as untimely Supreme's protest to our Office because, although Supreme admitted receiving a copy of the agency's decision on Saturday, December 11, it did not file its protest with our Office until December 23, more than 10 days after receipt of the agency-level protest decision.