Potomac Electric Corporation (SPRDL1-19-R-0327)

B-418908,B-418908.2 Oct 16, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Potomac Electric Corporation, a small business of Boston, Massachusetts, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPRDL1-19-R-0327, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Land Warren unit, for DC traverse electric motors. Potomac argues that the RFP is unduly restrictive in that it limits the competition to only two previously approved sources of supply. The protester also challenges the process to become an approved source, arguing it is unfair because it fails to provide a reasonable opportunity for alternative sources to become approved. Finally, the protester contends that the restrictive nature of the procurement is due to the agency's lack of advanced planning. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Potomac Electric Corporation File:  B-418908; B-418908.2 Date:  October 16, 2020 Leny Chertov, Potomac Electric Corporation, for the protester. Eric C. Selke, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging a solicitation limited to only two previously approved sources as unduly restrictive of competition is denied where the protester did not submit a source approval request for the items being procured. DECISION   Potomac Electric Corporation, a small business of Boston, Massachusetts, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPRDL1-19-R-0327, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Land Warren unit, for DC traverse electric motors.  Potomac argues that the RFP is unduly restrictive in that it limits the competition to only two previously approved sources of supply.  The protester also challenges the process to become an approved source, arguing it is unfair because it fails to provide a reasonable opportunity for alternative sources to become approved.  Finally, the protester contends that the restrictive nature of the procurement is due to the agency’s lack of advanced planning.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 20, 2019, DLA[1] issued a sources sought notice on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website (www.fbo.gov), seeking companies interested in being approved as a source of supply for electric motors, identified by national stock number (NSN) 6105-01-462-7177.[2]  AR, Tab 3, SourcesSoughtNotice at 1.  The notice indicated that the technical data for the motors was not available, and that in order to become an approved source, a company would have to undergo “qualification testing and evaluation.”  Id.  The notice included ahyperlinktothesource approvalrequest(SAR) package, which included a complete set of drawings; quality system documentation; and a qualification test plan (defined as “a detailed explanation of how the offeror is going to demonstrate that his version of the part will perform as well or better than the current part.”).  Id.; AR, Tab 4, SAR Package Requirements.  The notice closed on September 10, 2019, without any company expressing interest in becoming a qualified source to produce the item.  COS/MOL at 1. Later that year, on November 26, the agency published a synopsis notifying prospective offerors of its intent to issue the RFP here, seeking 285 motors, with an option for another 285 items.  COS/MOL at 1; AR, Tab 5, Synopsis at 1.  The synopsis indicated that the acquisition would be limited to the two previously approved sources, Skurka Aerospace, Inc., and Kollmorgen Corporation, doing business as DBA Danaher Motion Division.  AR, Tab 5, Synopsis at 2.  The synopsis further instructed that any vendor interested in “becom[ing] an approved source for future buys [should] contact the Competition Management Office . . . .”  Id. at 2-3. On May 27, 2020, the DLA Land and Maritime Competition Advocate Office executed a J&A document, limiting the anticipated competition to the two approved sources, under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(1) and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302‑1, based on only one responsible source, or a limited number of sources, being available to satisfy the agency’s requirements.  AR, Tab 6, J&A at 1.  The J&A stated that “[t]he current technical data package (TDP) . . . for the Bradley A3 Brushless Traverse Drive Motor . . . is inadequate for competitive acquisition.”  Id. at 2.  The J&A also provided some historical perspective, noting that between 1995 and 1997, during the development of the Bradley A3 Turret, the predecessor companies of Skurka Aerospace and Kollmorgen became qualified to “manufacture and test” M2/M3A3 Bradley Brushless Traverse Drive Motors.  Id.  Additionally, the J&A explained that these two companies then “designed their own motor during development of the A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle System,” are the “[o]nly . . .