Beacon Industries, Inc. (SPE7L0-24-T-003J)

B-423103 Jan 15, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Beacon Industries, Inc., of Newington, Connecticut, a small business, protests the award of a contract to General Electric Company, of Lynn, Massachusetts, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE7L0-24-T-003J, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), to supply 85 commercial piston seals (identified by National Stock No. 5330-01-280-9849) for use in Apache and Blackhawk helicopter aircraft. Beacon argues that its quotation was improperly rejected because of allegedly defective performance on another contract for the same items. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Beacon Industries, Inc. File: B-423103 Date: January 15, 2025 James M. Black, II, Esq., Falcon Rappaport & Berkman LLP, for the protester. Robert E. Sebold, Esq., Department of Defense, 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 an agency unfairly considered the protester’s recent deficient performance under a contract with the same agency for the same item is denied where the agency’s evaluation was fair and reasonable notwithstanding the protester’s insistence that the past performance was a matter of an ongoing dispute that remains unresolved. DECISION Beacon Industries, Inc., of Newington, Connecticut, a small business, protests the award of a contract to General Electric Company, of Lynn, Massachusetts, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE7L0-24-T-003J, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), to supply 85 commercial piston seals (identified by National Stock No. 5330-01-280-9849) for use in Apache and Blackhawk helicopter aircraft. Beacon argues that its quotation was improperly rejected because of allegedly defective performance on another contract for the same items. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on September 16, 2024, and contemplated the award of a single contract, valued below the simplified acquisition threshold, to supply the specified quantity of piston seals. The RFQ identified the piston seals as critical application items and listed two approved sources: Beacon and General. Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, RFQ at 8. The RFQ incorporated the terms of the DLA master solicitation for automated simplified acquisitions, revision 97. Id. at 1. The master solicitation permits both automated and manual awards. The present procurement was conducted as a manual award, for which the relevant provisions of the master solicitation provide as follows: (e) MANUAL EVALUATION: When automated evaluation is not used . . . quotations will be evaluated and awarded manually. . . . (f) MANUAL EVALUATION FACTORS: If the requirement is evaluated manually, price, delivery, and past performance will be considered in accordance with the terms in the solicitation. . . . DLA Master Solicitation for Automated Simplified Acquisitions (rev. 97) at 5 (available at https://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/J7Acquisition/MasterSolicitat… (last visited Jan. 15, 2025). DLA received two quotations, from Beacon and General. The contracting officer reviewed the quotations and documented the evaluation and source selection judgment in a brief narrative. The contracting officer considered General’s quotation acceptable and noted that the firm had the required quantity of acceptable parts in stock for delivery, whereas Beacon’s recent performance under a contract for the same items reflected “quality issues with . . . material they [the requiring activity] previously received.” AR, Tab 11, Simplified Acquisition Award Documentation at 2. The contracting officer also noted that Beacon had been issued a stop-work order under that ongoing contract “for non-conforming material” and that “[a] quality notification was issued for [the] same contract.” Id. at 2-3. The contracting officer analyzed the quoted prices, price history, and determined that the contract should be awarded to General. DLA informed Beacon of the award, after which it filed this protest. DISCUSSION Beacon’s protest raises three grounds: (1) that the stop-work order issued under the firm’s existing contract is baseless and unjustified, (2) that the stop-work order lacks a sufficiently clear basis, and (3) that DLA did not fairly consider Beacon’s quotation due to the unjustified stop-work order. Protest at 1. As relief, Beacon asks our Office to recommend that DLA “provide Beacon with the reason(s) for its issuance of the Stop Work Order and the basis to rectify same and thereafter reevaluate [under the RFQ].” Id. at 2. DLA argues that the protest raises contract administration issues that are outside the scope of this Office’s protest jurisdiction, and that the contract award to General was proper under simplified acquisition procedures.