W&G Machine Corporation, Inc. (SPE7L3-20-Q-0507)

B-418698.2,B-418698.3 Aug 04, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights W&G Machine Company, Inc. (W&G), a small business of Hamden, Connecticut, protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) SPE7L3-20-Q-0507, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for commercial items, namely, 625 rigid connecting links. W&G argues that the agency's decision to cancel the RFQ lacks a reasonable basis and was a pretext to avoid having to evaluate W&G's quotation. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  W&G Machine Corporation, Inc. File:  B-418698.2; B-418698.3 Date:  August 4, 2020 James White, Esq., Marshall and White, PC, for the protester. Colleen Loughran, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.  Michael Price, Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency had a reasonable basis to cancel solicitation for critical safety item because the agency failed to first prepare required justification and approval documentation in support of the solicitation’s identification of a particular manufacturer as the only approved source for the required item. DECISION W&G Machine Company, Inc. (W&G), a small business of Hamden, Connecticut, protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) SPE7L3-20-Q-0507, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for commercial items, namely, 625 rigid connecting links.  W&G argues that the agency’s decision to cancel the RFQ lacks a reasonable basis and was a pretext to avoid having to evaluate W&G’s quotation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 20, 2020, the agency issued the RFQ seeking a total of 625 rigid connecting links for use in helicopters, a commercial item with National Stock Number (NSN) 3040-01-159-4611.  Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, RFQ at 4.  The RFQ included three fixed-price contract line item numbers (CLINs) for the links, with each CLIN representing a different quantity to be sent to a different DLA stock location in the United States, and two additional CLINs for item testing requirements.  Id.  The RFQ required vendors to include pricing and delivery dates with their quotations.  Id.  Since the items are commercial items, and the dollar value of the procurement is between $150,000 and $7,000,000, the agency issued the RFQ using the simplified acquisition procedures established under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 13.5.  Id. at 2. As relevant, the connecting links have been designated as a critical safety item that can only be procured from pre-qualified manufacturers.  RFQ at 7.  Accordingly, the solicitation included the following provisions in the “Item Description” section: Note:  this is a restricted source item.  Manufactured to the [original equipment manufacturer] drawings cited.  Herein and as of the date of this solicitation only the source(s) cited below has/have been prequalified to manufacture the item.  Offers based on supplying other manufacturer’s parts shall be accompanied by technical and other data sufficient to evaluate the item for the intended application. . . said evaluation may take an extended period of time and may therefore be applicable to future procurements.  Final approval authority rest [sic] with the government design control activity. Id.  The RFQ went on to identify Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation as the only prequalified manufacturer source for the item, noting as follows:  “The NSN is identified as an Army Critical Safety Item. . . . Critical Application Item: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, [doing business as] 78286, [part number] 70400-02258-048.”  Id.  The RFQ also included provisions under section L04, Offers for Part Numbered Items, which explained additional requirements for quotations when, as is the case here, the item(s) being solicited were identified in the item description only by the name of an approved source, a part number, and brief description.  Id. at 40.  Subsections (c) – (h) of section L04 described requirements and additional provisions regarding the submission of “alternate offers,” including requirements that alternate offers must be supported by extensive technical data concerning any alternate product proposed.  Id. at 40-41 The record reflects that the agency received two quotations by the RFQ’s May 1, closing date, one from W&G and [DELETED].  Req.