United Valve Company, B-295879, April 25, 2005

B-295879 Apr 25, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights United Valve Company (UVC), a small business, protests the award of a contract to Logistical Support, LLC (LS) by the United States Army Materiel Command (AMC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W58RGZ-04-R-0567 for flutter dampeners, a part used in the UH-1 Huey helicopter. UVC argues that the agency unreasonably regarded LS as an approved source, and improperly granted LS a relaxed delivery schedule, which LS requested after the deadline for submission of its final proposal revision (FPR). We deny the protest. View Decision B-295879, United Valve Company, April 25, 2005 Decision Matter of: United Valve Company File: B-295879 Date: April 25, 2005 Brian J. Donovan, Esq., and Peter B. Jones, Esq., Jones & Donovan, for the protester. Capt. Victor G. Vogel and Capt. Danny Lee, United States Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is denied where agency reasonably granted source approval to awardee after concluding that awardee was operating a previously approved source, and would produce part using same manufacturing facility, machinery, trained personnel, and test stands. 2. Protest is denied where, although agency awarded contract based on longer delivery schedule that awardee requested after deadline for submission of final proposal revisions, the record shows that agency had waived schedule specified in the solicitation for both competitors, and protester has not shown competitive prejudice, since its own requested schedule was already longer than schedule granted to awardee, and protester's proposal offered a higher price. DECISION United Valve Company (UVC), a small business, protests the award of a contract to Logistical Support, LLC (LS) by the United States Army Materiel Command (AMC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W58RGZ-04-R-0567 for flutter dampeners, a part used in the UH-1 Huey helicopter. UVC argues that the agency unreasonably regarded LS as an approved source, and improperly granted LS a relaxed delivery schedule, which LS requested after the deadline for submission of its final proposal revision (FPR). We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals from two qualified sources, [1] to supply a base quantity of 316 flutter dampeners, and included two options for additional quantities of 316 units each, to be exercised later. RFP at 1-3. Award was to be made to the lowest-priced acceptable offeror. RFP at45. UVC objects that the source approval of LS was unreasonable. The record shows that, at the time that the RFP was issued, Hill Aerospace & Defense LLC was an approved source. The agency subsequently granted a source approval to LS on November 4, 2004, "in lieu of Hill Aerospace and Defense." Agency Report (AR), Tab Q, Source Approval Memorandum, at 1. UVC argues that the source approval of LS was erroneous because it was allegedly based on an "operations agreement" that had expired prior to the date of the approval and, in any case, that agreement did not provide LS with rights to use Hill's "proprietary information." Protester's Supplemental Comments (Mar.10, 2005) at 2. A contracting agency has the primary responsibility for determining its minimum needs and for determining whether a previously unapproved source will satisfy those needs, since it must bear the burden of difficulties incurred by reason of a defective evaluation. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp. , B-234272, May 17, 1989, 89-1 CPD 474 at2. Whether an offeror seeking source approval has submitted sufficient information to convince the agency that it will meet the agency's minimum needs is essentially a technical judgment committed to the agency's discretion, id. at 3, which we will not disturb unless it is unreasonable. Service & Sales Inc. , B-247673, June 29, 1992, 92-1 CPD 545 at3. A protester's mere disagreement with an agency's technical judgment does not render the judgment unreasonable and does not provide a legal basis for sustaining a protest. Astrosystems, Inc. , B-261673, B-261673.2, Dec.7, 1995, 95-2CPD 267 at4. Here, we have no basis to question the Army's decision to grant source approval to LS. [2] Despite the fact that LS submitted the operations agreement to support its source approval request, the agency's conclusion that LS was operating Hill in connection with the production of this part was not based on the particular terms and restrictions of the operations agreement.