Rex Systems, Inc.

B-417294 Mar 22, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Rex Systems, Inc., of Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, protests the issuance of a purchase order to White Aero, Inc., of Santa Clarita, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE7M5-18-T-08X2, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the provision of three radio frequency coils. The protester contends that the agency erred in issuing the purchase order, because White's quotation was based on providing surplus equipment, and the solicitation did not permit vendors to quote such equipment. We dismiss the protest. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Rex Systems, Inc. File: B-417294 Date: March 22, 2019 Julie M. Nichols, Esq., Roeder, Cochran, Phillips, PLLC, for the protester. Christine T. Roark, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the issuance of a purchase order to a vendor based on its quotation of unused former government surplus property is dismissed where the solicitation permitted the quotation of such property. DECISION Rex Systems, Inc., of Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, protests the issuance of a purchase order to White Aero, Inc., of Santa Clarita, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE7M5-18-T-08X2, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the provision of three radio frequency coils. The protester contends that the agency erred in issuing the purchase order, because White's quotation was based on providing surplus equipment, and the solicitation did not permit vendors to quote such equipment. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND On September 21, 2018, DLA issued the RFQ as an automated solicitation on DLA's Internet Bid Board System (DIBBS). The solicitation sought quotations to provide three radio frequency coils, a part identified with a national stock number of 5950008633043. The RFQ listed Rex as an approved source, noting its commercial and government entity (CAGE) code and its part number for the radio frequency coil being sought. RFQ at 4. The solicitation incorporated by reference the DLA Master Solicitation for Automated Simplified Acquisitions (Master Solicitation). Id. at 1. Section 3(a)(1)(iv) of part I of the Master Solicitation provides that quoting unused former government surplus property is "not considered [an] exception[] to solicitation requirements and will not make a quotation ineligible for an award." Master Solicitation at 3. The Master Solicitation also included DLA Directive (DLAD) Procurement Note C04, which required a vendor to make certain representations, upon request of the contracting officer, when it submits a quotation based on providing unused former government surplus property. The Master Solicitation noted that this provision is automatically included in automated solicitations and applies unless there is a documented restriction on quoting unused former government surplus property. Master Solicitation at DLAD Procurement Note C04. Further, the Master Solicitation contained DLAD Procurement Note L04, a provision that is incorporated in solicitations when items are "identified in the item description only by the name of an approved source (CAGE code), a part number, and a brief description." Id. at DLAD Procurement Note L04. Procurement Note L04 contained guidance for providing exact or alternate products that meet the RFQ requirements. Rex timely submitted a quotation in response to the solicitation. On January 29, 2019, DLA issued the purchase order to White. This protest followed. DISCUSSION The protester argues that the agency erred in issuing a purchase order to White, because the latter vendor is not an approved source of the radio frequency coil and instead based its quotation on providing surplus equipment. The protester asserts that, under the solicitation, vendors were limited to quoting either exact products sourced from the listed approved source (i.e., Rex) or alternate products that were accompanied by a technical data package for the agency to review. Rex asserts that the solicitation did not provide for, or permit, a vendor to quote former government surplus property in lieu of quoting the product of the listed approved source or an alternative product accompanied by a technical data package. DLA requests dismissal of the protest as factually and legally insufficient. The agency argues that the solicitation permitted vendors to quote unused former government surplus property meeting the solicitation's technical requirements and therefore the protester's allegations, even if true, would not establish improper agency action. The jurisdiction of our Office is established by the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3557.