Chase Supply, Inc- dba Chase Defense Partners (SPE7M1-25-Q-1335)

B-424032 Jan 20, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Chase Supply, Inc., a small business of Hampton, Virginia, doing business as Chase Defense Partners, protests the agency's actions concerning request for quotations Nos. SPE7M4-25-Q-0755 (referred to here as "the first RFQ") and SPE7M1-25-Q-1335 (referred to here as "the second RFQ"), issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for coupling halves. The protester challenges the cancellation of the first RFQ. Chase also protests various aspects of the second RFQ, including the terms of the second RFQ and the agency's issuance of an order to Integrated Procurement Technologies (IPT), of Vandalia, Ohio. The protester also complains that DLA did not provide Chase with a prompt and reasonable opportunity to qualify its product. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of: Chase Supply, Inc., d/b/a Chase Defense Partners File: B-424032 Date: January 20, 2026 David Weeda for the protester. Deirdra M. Canady, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Michelle Litteken, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's actions under two solicitations is dismissed as academic where the agency is taking corrective action to cancel the second solicitation; and denied where the agency demonstrates that it had a reasonable basis for the cancellation of the first solicitation. DECISION Chase Supply, Inc., a small business of Hampton, Virginia, doing business as Chase Defense Partners, protests the agency's actions concerning request for quotations Nos. SPE7M4‑25‑Q‑0755 (referred to here as “the first RFQ”) and SPE7M1-25-Q-1335 (referred to here as “the second RFQ”), issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for coupling halves. The protester challenges the cancellation of the first RFQ.[1] Chase also protests various aspects of the second RFQ, including the terms of the second RFQ and the agency's issuance of an order to Integrated Procurement Technologies (IPT), of Vandalia, Ohio. The protester also complains that DLA did not provide Chase with a prompt and reasonable opportunity to qualify its product. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND On May 27, 2025, the agency issued the first RFQ as a small business set-aside, seeking 423 coupling halves under National Stock No. 4730-01-418-3040, with a closing date of June 10. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, First RFQ at 1, 5; Contacting Officer's Statement (COS) ¶ 3. DLA issued the first RFQ pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13 and the special emergency procurement authority (SEPA) of 41 U.S.C. § 1903, which authorizes agencies to raise the simplified acquisition threshold above the current levels for certain acquisitions. First RFQ at 2. The first RFQ informed interested firms that the qualified product list (QPL) standards identified as MIL-DTL-15531F applied. Id. at 4. The first RFQ established that award would be made to the vendor whose quotation conformed to the solicitation requirements and represented the best value to the agency. Id. at 2. Chase filed an agency-level protest on June 9, raising various challenges to the terms of the first RFQ--specifically, Chase objected to the quantity of coupling halves being procured, DLA's decision to set aside the first RFQ for small businesses, and the requirement for the quoted product to be on the QPL. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 2, First Agency-Level Protest at 1. The protester also raised preemptive concerns regarding IPT's eligibility for award, acknowledging that IPT could quote a product that was on the QPL, but alleging that the product did not satisfy the specifications. Id. Chase asked DLA to reissue the solicitation with a provision for first article testing.[2] Id. On July 12, DLA canceled the first RFQ by removing it from the agency's automated procurement system.[3] Req. for Dismissal at 1. Subsequently, on July 23, DLA issued the second RFQ, again using SEPA procedures, and seeking 176 coupling halves. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 3, Second RFQ at 6; COS ¶¶ 4, 7. The second RFQ had a July 24 closing date. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 3, Second RFQ at 1. Like the first RFQ, the second RFQ provided that the QPL standards applied. Id. at 5. Chase submitted a timely quotation in response to the second RFQ. COS ¶ 8. On August 25, DLA issued the order to IPT. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 5, Award. On September 3, Chase filed a second agency-level protest. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 6, Second Agency-Level Protest. In the second agency-level protest, Chase reasserted its prior objections to the first RFQ, argued it was improper for DLA to proceed with a procurement for the same item while the first agency-level protest was pending, and alleged that DLA improperly used SEPA procedures to issue the second RFQ. Id. at 1.