Hydraulics International, Inc. ()

B-423114 Jan 27, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Hydraulics International, Inc., (HII) of Chatsworth, California, protests the agency's notice of intent to issue a sole-source contract to Sun Test Systems, Inc., (STS) of Huntsville, Alabama, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, to acquire an Aviation Ground Power Unit (AGPU) 1.1 to support aviation ground maintenance. HII asserts that the Army's intent to issue a sole-source award is unreasonable and unjustified because it could supply the agency with a product that meets its needs without substantial duplication of costs. 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: Hydraulics International, Inc. File: B-423114 Date: January 27, 2025 Howard W. Roth, Esq., Allison G. Geewax, Esq., and Mark E. Abrajano, Esq., Smith Currie Oles LLP, for the protester. David S. Cohen, Esq., Pablo Nichols, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., Rhina Cardenal, Esq., and Jason W. Moy, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for Sun Test Systems, Inc., the intervenor. Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., and Stacy Wilhite, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of an agency’s intent to issue a sole-source award to another firm is denied where the record shows that no other responsible source can meet the agency’s needs without substantial duplication of cost. DECISION Hydraulics International, Inc., (HII) of Chatsworth, California, protests the agency’s notice of intent to issue a sole-source contract to Sun Test Systems, Inc., (STS) of Huntsville, Alabama, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, to acquire an Aviation Ground Power Unit (AGPU) 1.1 to support aviation ground maintenance. HII asserts that the Army’s intent to issue a sole-source award is unreasonable and unjustified because it could supply the agency with a product that meets its needs without substantial duplication of costs. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army currently utilizes a device referred to as the AGPU 1.0, which provides a power source for an aircraft while the aircraft is undergoing maintenance activities. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1-2. Since 2012, the Army has recognized a need for an improved AGPU capable of supporting different types of aircraft, such as the AH-64 Apache, the CH-47 Chinook, and the UH‑60 Black Hawk. Id. at 1. In January 2021, the Army issued a request for whitepapers, and subsequently a request for enhanced whitepapers, to the Aviation & Missile Technology Consortium for commercially available potential prototypes for an AGPU 1.1, with specific requirements provided in a product item description (PID). Id. at 2-3. The Army received enhanced whitepapers (EWPs) from five vendors, including HII, and ultimately determined that two vendors best met the Army’s requirements--STS and Vendor A. Id. at 3. Both vendors submitted prototypes that were tested and evaluated, and the Army decided to move forward with STS’s prototype of the AGPU 1.1. Id. at 4. The AGPU 1.1, the first improvement on the AGPU 1.0, is a military adapted commercial item, meaning that it is a military variant of a commercially available item, adapted to meet specific military requirements. Id. at 2. The AGPU 1.1 provides many improvements to the functionality of the AGPU 1.0 and, in particular, provides alternating current and direct current electrical, pneumatic, and hydraulic pressure capabilities simultaneously and continuously that maintenance personnel use to service, maintain, and preflight rotary wing aircraft. Id. at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, PID at ¶¶ 3.7.1-3.7.3. On March 31, 2022, HII filed a bid protest of the Army’s prototype award decision at the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC), contending that the Army misevaluated HII’s whitepaper submission and challenging the Army’s best-value determination. Id.; Hydraulics Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 161 Fed. Cl. 167 (Fed. Cl. 2022). In its decision denying HII’s protest, the court noted the Army’s determination that HII’s existing commercial product did not meet the PID requirement that minimum electrical, pneumatic, and hydraulic outputs be provided simultaneously, unlike the products of STS and Vendor A. Hydraulics Int’l, 161 Fed. Cl. at 4. HII’s EWP proposed two alternatives to address this shortcoming: (1) that the Army relax the simultaneous operation requirement; or (2) that HII redesign its unit, though HII warned that there would be an increase in technical risk and cost. Id.