B-298698; B-298698.2, General Electrodynamics Corporation, November 27, 2006

B-298698; B-298698.2, General Electrodynamics Corporation, November 27, 2006 TITLE: B-298698; B-298698.2, General Electrodynamics Corporation, November 27, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298698; B-298698.2 DATE: November 27, 2006 **************************************************************************** B-298698; B-298698.2, General Electrodynamics Corporation, November 27, 2006 Decision Matter of: General Electrodynamics Corporation File: B-298698; B-298698.2 Date: November 27, 2006 Paul J. Seidman, Esq., and David J. Seidman, Esq., Seidman & Associates, for the protester. Vera Meza, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Under solicitation for digital aircraft weighing scales, requirement that the scales not utilize hydraulic components or mechanical load sensing devices, which excludes protester's product, is not unduly restrictive of competition where the record supports the reasonableness of the agency's determination that scales utilizing fully electronic load cells are necessary to meet its needs. DECISION General Electrodynamics Corporation (GEC) protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W58RGZ-06-R-0473, issued by the Army Aviation and Missile Systems Command (AMSAM), Army Material Command, Department of the Army, for digital aircraft weighing scales (DAWS). GEC argues that the RFP's requirement that the scales not utilize hydraulic components or mechanical load sensing devices is unduly restrictive of competition. We deny the protest. On February 22, 2006, AMSAM synopsized solicitation No. W58RGZ-06-R-0185 on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website. On March 9, the Army amended the notice to advise that "the proposed contract action is for supplies or services for which the Government intends to solicit and negotiate with one source under authority of [Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect.] 6.302." Agency Report (AR), Tab J2, Modification of Presolicitation Notice for 0185, at 1. The notice identified Intercomp Company Inc. as the intended sole-source contractor, but stated that "[i]nterested persons may identify their interest and capability to respond to the requirement or submit proposals . . . [and that] all proposals received within forty-five days . . . after date of publication of this synopsis will be considered by the government." Id. GEC submitted a response to the synopsis. The Army issued the solicitation on April 20, including a purchase item description (PID) requiring the purchase of an Intercomp brand DAWS. GEC protested to our Office on May 9, alleging that the Army improperly used other than full and open competition, that the brand-name only PID was unduly restrictive of competition, and that the Army failed to conduct market research and advance procurement planning. The Army canceled the proposed sole-source solicitation and stated that a new solicitation with performance specifications would be issued to provide for full and open competition. We dismissed the protest on May 19. On May 26, the Army posted a new synopsis of its requirement on FedBizOpps and, on July 28, issued the subject solicitation, calling for award of a 5-year indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for DAWS. The scales will be used worldwide to weigh aircraft within the Army inventory, in and out of battle conditions, to ensure that the weight of the aircraft does not exceed safe limits. The PID includes several system requirements, among them para. 3.3, which states that the "scale shall not utilize any hydraulic components or mechanical load sensing devices." AR, Tab E3, PID, at 1. GEC requested removal of PID para. 3.3 from the solicitation; the contracting officer denied the request. GEC then filed this protest on August 22.[1] GEC argues that the solicitation is unduly restrictive because para. 3.3 of the PID excludes scales with hydraulic or mechanical load sensing devices. In response, the agency maintains that the restriction in para. 3.3 properly reflects its requirement for fully electronic scales.[2] In support of its position, the agency argues that scales utilizing fully electronic load cells are: easier to calibrate; more reliable and easier to maintain; as the more recent design, are the trend in weighing scale technology, and therefore have less risk of losing supportability due to technological obsolescence; and are better suited to the extremes of geography and the treatment that the scales are likely to receive from Army soldiers in the field.