Sun Display Systems, LLC

B-411826 Nov 02, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sun Display Systems, LLC, of Fairfield, New Jersey, a small business, protests the issuance of a purchase order to Airco Industries, Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas, by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE4A6-15-Q-1972 for six integrally-illuminated indicating panels for use in night-vision systems in the HH-60 Black Hawk helicopter. Sun Display argues that Airco was not eligible for inclusion on the qualified products list (QPL) applicable to the requirement and was thus ineligible for award, and that the QPL requirements were applied unequally to Sun Display and Airco, which Sun Display argues unfairly favored the awardee. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of:  Sun Display Systems, LLC File:  B-411826 Date:  November 2, 2015 Andrew J. Mohr, Esq., Daniel Strouse, Esq., and Gabriel E. Kennon, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, for the protester. L. Diane Nelms, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly permitted awardee to retain its qualification on qualified products list and that agency applied qualification requirements unequally is denied where record shows that agency administered qualification requirements reasonably, and that agency’s management of awardee’s and protester’s qualification status was reasonably based on their different circumstances.  DECISION Sun Display Systems, LLC, of Fairfield, New Jersey, a small business, protests the issuance of a purchase order to Airco Industries, Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas, by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE4A6‑15‑Q‑1972 for six integrally-illuminated indicating panels for use in night-vision systems in the HH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.  Sun Display argues that Airco was not eligible for inclusion on the qualified products list (QPL) applicable to the requirement and was thus ineligible for award, and that the QPL requirements were applied unequally to Sun Display and Airco, which Sun Display argues unfairly favored the awardee.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND DLA issued the RFQ on March 6, 2015, as a small business set-aside, seeking quotations from qualified suppliers to supply the panels.[1]  RFQ at 1, 17.  The RFQ informed interested firms that QPL standards identified as MIL-DTL-7788H were applicable, and that the product “must be qualified at the time of award.”  RFQ at 8, 13.[2]  The RFQ specified that quotations would be evaluated on the basis of price, past performance, and “other factors.”  RFQ at 3.  Award was to be made to the vendor whose quotation provided the best value, and the RFQ listed other factors that could be considered in making a tradeoff:  item criticality and weapons system application; current inventory status; historical delivery or quality problems; concerns over limited supply sources and industrial base; and benefits from obtaining new sources.  RFQ at 3.  The RFQ also described quoted delivery as an equally-weighted evaluation factor; a quotation that proposed to deliver the panels later than specified in the RFQ would be evaluated less favorably.  RFQ at 5.  DLA received quotations from five vendors.  Two were rejected as unacceptable.  Agency Report (AR) at 2.  The DLA evaluated the quotations from the remaining three vendors, including those of Sun Display and Airco.  Id.  After considering the evaluation results, the contracting officer selected Airco’s quotation at a total price of $5,496 over Sun Display’s quotation at $5,970.  Id. On June 30, the contracting officer issued a purchase order to Airco.  Sun Display filed a timely agency-level protest, arguing that Airco was not properly included on the QPL.  The contracting officer denied Sun Display’s agency-level protest in a written decision on July 10; this protest followed.  ANALYSIS Timeliness Sun Display states that it did not receive the decision on its agency-level protest until July 16, and therefore its July 27 protest to our Office is timely.  Protest at 2.  DLA does not appear to dispute that aspect of the timeliness of Sun Display’s protest.  However, the DLA argues that the protest is nevertheless untimely because Sun Display’s challenge to the presence of Airco on the QPL is effectively an allegation of a solicitation defect.  AR at 7.  As a result, the DLA contends that in order to be timely, the issue had to be protested before the closing date for submission of quotations.  Id. We disagree.  We have consistently reviewed such challenges after award.  Barnes Aerospac...