B-299870.2, Barnes Aerospace Group--Costs, September 17, 2007

B-299870.2 Sep 17, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Barnes Aerospace Group requests that our Office recommend reimbursement of its protest costs in connection with its protest of the Department of the Air Force award of an interim sole-source contract to Ferrotherm Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8104-07-0401, issued by the Air Force to procure the repair of 2,431 F100 engine parts over an 11-month period. That protest was dismissed after the agency determined that corrective action was appropriate. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299870.2, Barnes Aerospace Group--Costs, September 17, 2007 Decision Matter of: Barnes Aerospace Group--Costs File: B-299870.2 Date: September 17, 2007 Jason A. Carey, Esq., Kara M. Klaas, Esq., and John G. Horan, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge, for the protester. Maj. Chad L. Diederich, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation that agency reimburse protest costs for second protest of an allegedly improper sole source award on the basis that the agency failed to promptly implement corrective action recommended by our Office in prior protest is denied where agency promptly proposed corrective action in response to second protest and protester's actions contributed to the delay in the agency's implementation of our original recommendations. DECISION Barnes Aerospace Group requests that our Office recommend reimbursement of its protest costs in connection with its protest of the Department of the Air Force award of an interim sole-source contract to Ferrotherm Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8104-07-0401, issued by the Air Force to procure the repair of 2,431 F100 engine parts over an 11-month period. That protest was dismissed after the agency determined that corrective action was appropriate. We deny the request. On September 25, 2006, Barnes protested the decision of the Air Force to award a sole-source contract to Ferrotherm under RFP No. FA8104-06-R-0276, issued by the Air Force to procure the repair of certain F100 engine parts. Barnes argued that the Air Force unreasonably delayed review of Barnes' request for source approval, and awarded a sole source contract to Ferrotherm at an unreasonable price. In a supplemental protest, Barnes argued that the agency unfairly required Barnes to comply with the agency's source approval rules, while ignoring requalification requirements in those same rules with regard to Ferrotherm. Our Office sustained the protest on the basis that the agency improperly proceeded with a sole source award without considering the viability of Barnes as a second source as part of the agency's justification process and because the agency treated offerors unequally with respect to the application of its qualification requirements. We recommended, in part, that the Air Force proceed as expeditiously as possible with providing a part for repair to Barnes so that the source approval process could be completed, and that the Air Force reimburse the protester its costs of pursuing the protest. Barnes Aerospace Group, B-298864, B-298864.2, Dec. 26, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 204 at 14. According to the agency, the qualification process consists of two parts. After interested vendors complete Part I of the process, they are provided parts to perform the source demonstration repair under Part II. At the time of our December 2006 decision, Barnes was in the process of becoming a qualified source of repair for the engine rings. By memorandum dated August 8, 2006, the agency notified Barnes that it had satisfactorily met Part I of the qualification requirements but must meet the requirements of Part II, the source demonstration repair. The memorandum further informed Barnes that it would need to: insure possession of drawings 4084052 and ST2252 and the associated [Quality Assurance Documents] and specifications prior to commencing with the Source Demonstration repair. In addition, the latest changes to the required repair Technical Orders will need to be obtained. On January 29, 2007, approximately 1 month after our Office sustained Barnes's earlier protest, the Air Force again notified the protester that certain documentation concerning the drawings was missing and informed Barnes that it would not proceed to the repair demonstration phase until the missing documentation was provided. In response, on February 2, Barnes questioned the need for the requested data. On February 8, the agency responded that the missing data was needed because it covered details of the honeycomb ring segments which are not controlled by the technical data and to assure that the parts are manufactured to the blueprint specifications. Email from Air Force to Small Business Office dated Feb.