Chase Supply, Inc- dba Chase Defense Partners (SPE7MX-24-R-X017)

B-423244 Mar 11, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Chase Supply, Inc.-d/b/a Chase Defense Partners, a small business of Hampton, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Crushproof Tubing Co., a small business of McComb, Ohio, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE7MX-25-24-R-X017, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for air duct hose assemblies. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably waived first article testing (FAT) approval for the awardee. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Chase Supply, Inc- d/b/a Chase Defense Partners File: B-423244 Date: March 11, 2025 Haley M. Sirokman, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., John M. Mattox II, Esq., and Timothy J. Laughlin, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester. Katherine D. Sweat, Esq., Adam J. Heer, Esq., and John J. Pritchard, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Suresh S. Boodram, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest arguing that the agency improperly waived first article test requirements for the awardee is denied where the decision to waive first article testing was reasonable and in accordance with applicable procurement law and regulation. DECISION Chase Supply, Inc.-d/b/a Chase Defense Partners, a small business of Hampton, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Crushproof Tubing Co., a small business of McComb, Ohio, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE7MX-25-24-R-X017, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for air duct hose assemblies. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably waived first article testing (FAT) approval for the awardee. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 30, 2024, DLA issued the RFQ for the supply of an indefinite quantity of air duct hose assemblies identified by National Stock Numbers (NSN) 4720-00-930-5974 (5974) and 4720-01-207-8357 (8357). Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ at 1, 5-7, 14. The RFQ was issued as a small business set-aside utilizing the commercial item and simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 and subpart 13.5. Id. at 1, 3-4. Relevant here, the RFQ required NSN 5974 to be manufactured in accordance with military specification MIL-PRF-32616(1). Id. at 5-6. The RFQ also required for vendors under both NSNs to have FAT approval, in accordance with FAR clause 52.209-3, which was incorporated into the RFQ. Id. at 15-16. Pursuant to FAR clause 52.209‑3(h), the RFQ authorized the agency to waive the FAT requirement as follows: The Government may waive the requirement for first article approval test where supplies identical or similar to those called for in the schedule have been previously furnished by the offeror/contractor and have been accepted by the Government. FAR clause 52.209-3(h). Both the protester and awardee submitted quotations. AR, Tab 6, Abstract of Offers at 1. Relevant here, the awardee offered to supply material manufactured by Nationwide Tarps, Inc. (NTI) for NSN 5974. AR, Tab 2, Awardee’s Quotation at 12. The contracting officer subsequently made a split award; the protester was awarded a contract for the supply of NSN 8357, and the awardee received a contract for the supply of NSN 5974. AR, Tab 5, Simplified Acquisition Award Documentation at 1. Pursuant to FAR clause 52.209-3, the contracting officer elected to waive the requirement for the awardee to submit FAT approval based on the awardee’s successful prior delivery of substantially similar items under a previous contract. AR, Tab 4, Quality Assurance Email at 1. Under the previous contract, the awardee supplied air duct hose assemblies identified by the same NSN through the same manufacturer, NTI. AR, Tab 9, Awardee FAT Report at 2; Tab 11, FAT Approval Letter at 1. The awardee previously received FAT approval from the agency on and successfully performed the prior contract. AR, Tab 11, FAT Approval Letter at 1; Tab 12, Previous Contract Goods Receipt at 1. On December 23, 2024, Chase filed the instant protest. DISCUSSION Chase contends that the agency erred in waiving FAT approval for the awardee pursuant to FAR clause 52.209-3(h). The protester argues that the FAR clause only allows for waiver on a subsequent contract where the contractor had previously successfully secured FAT approval on a prior contract. In this regard, notwithstanding that the awardee’s supplier had previously obtained FAT approval for the same item on a prior contract, the protester contests the reasonableness of the prior approval.