B-297137, Testek, Inc., October 28, 2005

B-297137 Oct 28, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Testek, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Avtron Manufacturing, Inc. under solicitation No. SP0490-05-R-0489, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the upgrade and modernization of aircraft generator test stands. The protester argues that the agency improperly solicited the requirement on a sole-source basis and improperly rejected its alternative proposal as technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297137, Testek, Inc., October 28, 2005 Decision Matter of: Testek, Inc. File: B-297137 Date: October 28, 2005 Sanjiv Joshi for the protester. Robert Sebold, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where agency reasonably determined offeror's proposed alternative approach to meeting sole-source requirement did not comply with solicitation criteria. DECISION Testek, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Avtron Manufacturing, Inc. under solicitation No. SP0490-05-R-0489, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the upgrade and modernization of aircraft generator test stands. The protester argues that the agency improperly solicited the requirement on a sole-source basis and improperly rejected its alternative proposal as technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 8, 2005, the agency issued a presolicitation notice stating that the agency intended to procure on a sole-source basis –modernization and upgrades— for three Avtron generator drive test stands, model Nos. 738/K and 400, at the Naval Aviation Depot, Naval Air Station, North Island, in San Diego, California.[1] The test stands are used to measure the performance of generators that provide power for various aircraft systems and components. Because the computer components used in the Avtron test stands currently owned by the agency are considered obsolete, Avtron offers an upgrade kit to modernize the parts, thereby extending the life of the test stand. The statement of work required the upgrade of the three test stands by replacement of the data control and data acquisition systems in a manner compatible with existing software, the upgrade of two gearboxes, and the installation of the upgrades. The upgrades were also intended to provide expanded capabilities for testing newer aircraft generators. The solicitation, issued on April 11, stated that the procurement was conducted on a sole-source basis because –highly specialized components [are] available only from this contractor,— i.e., Avtron. Agency Report (AR), Tab D, Presolicitation Notice, at 1. The solicitation established a closing date of May 11. The agency prepared a justification for other than full and open competition supporting the sole'source award to Avtron. AR, Tab E, Justification and Approval (J&A), at 1. The J&A stated that the sole-source award was required because the existing Avtron test stands lack the capability to meet current generator test requirements, and that an upgrade of those test stands or the purchase of new test stands was required. Id. at 4. The J&A further stated that upgrade packages for the Avtron test stands could not be obtained from another source. Id. at 1. Although the solicitation stated that alternative proposals would not be accepted, on May 11, Testek submitted, and the agency evaluated, a proposal from this firm to upgrade the Avtron test stands using parts from Testek's AECTS test stand, a model currently offered by Testek. Based on its evaluation, the agency rejected Testek's proposal as technically unacceptable. Testek filed an agency-level protest, which was denied. Testek then filed its protest with our Office. DISCUSSION As an initial matter, Testek raises several protest issues that are untimely because they were not raised prior to the time established for the receipt of proposals. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2005). Testek challenges the agency's decision to upgrade the existing test stands instead of purchasing new test stands, and the agency's conclusion that the upgraded Avtron test stands described in the solicitation actually meet the solicitation requirements.[2] Because Testek did not challenge the terms of the solicitation prior to the time established for the receipt of proposals, it cannot do so now. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1). The remaining protest ground addresses the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of Testek's alternative proposal under the terms of the solicitation. An offeror who submits an alternative proposal to a sole-source solicitation has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the alternative product is an acceptable substitute. Sterling Mach. Co., Inc., B-246467, Mar. 2, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 253 at 2-3.