Protest Alleging That RFP Should Not Have Been Restricted to Specified Parts

A small business protested the rejection of its offer under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of the Army for the procurement of fuel injector nozzles and its subsequent unsuccessful effort to have its nozzle part qualified for future procurements. The RFP provided that the procurement was restricted to the part numbers of three manufacturers and that sources not currently qualified could offer their nozzles for evaluation and approval for future procurement. The protester's offer was properly rejected because it was not for one of the parts to which the RFP was restricted. To the extent that the protester contended that the RFP should not have been restricted to the specified parts, the protest involved an alleged impropriety that was apparent in the RFP prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals. Since this ground of protest was not filed prior to the closing date, it was untimely and not for consideration. The protester objected to the contracting agency requiring it to have its product tested before becoming qualified, because the costs involved were prohibitive to a small business; nevertheless, the qualified products system is a legitimate restriction and proper method of procurement. Therefore, the protest was denied. However, where there was nothing to show that the Government attempted to obtain data from the approved manufacturers upon which a more competitive solicitation could be based, recommendations were made for considering obtaining the data from these manufacturers.