B-161414, NOV. 8, 1967

B-161414, NOV. 8, 1967

BIDS - QUALIFIED PRODUCTS DECISION TO CONSOLIDATED AIRBORNE SYSTEMS, INC. ON ADDITIONAL OBJECTION TO AWARD BY SAN ANTONIO AIR MATERIEL AREA, KELLY AIR FORCE BASE TO ALLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES NOT CONSIDERED IN DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1967. ALLEGATION THAT SUCCESSFUL CONTRACTOR PROPOSES TO FURNISH ARTICLE BASED ON FIRST ARTICLE TESTING RATHER THAN QUALIFIED PRODUCT LIST ITEM IS NOT SUPPORTED AND RECORD SHOWS ONLY THAT SUPPLIER IS CONSTRUCTING A PRE PRODUCTION UNIT FOR THEIR OWN EVALUATION AND NO FIRST ARTICLE TESTING IS INVOLVED.

TO CONSOLIDATED AIRBORNE SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1967, CONCERNING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. F41608-67-B-1607, ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, SAN ANTONIO AIR MATERIEL AREA, KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, FOR A QUANTITY OF TEST SETS, TTU 27/E.

THE SUBJECT TEST SET IS A QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST ITEM. ALLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, BID ON THE BASIS OF FURNISHING ITS MODEL R667- 001 TEST SET. THIS MODEL HAD BEEN LISTED IN THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST AS AN ITEM MANUFACTURED BY AERONCA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION. IN APRIL 1966, ALLIED HAD PURCHASED THE PLANT WHICH PRODUCED THE R667-001, AND THE AIR FORCE PROPOSED TO MAKE AWARD TO ALLIED AS A QUALIFIED SOURCE. YOU PROTESTED AGAINST EXTENDING QPL STATUS TO ALLIED, BUT IN OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1967, B-161414, WE DENIED THE PROTEST.

IN THE LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1967, HOWEVER, YOU RAISED AN OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED AWARD NOT CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1967. IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT AERONCA DID NOT DELIVER, UNDER A PRIOR CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AWARDED IN 1964, A TEST SET WHICH MET THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ITEM IT HAD QUALIFIED WITH THE AIR FORCE; AND THAT THE NAVY HAD FINALLY ACCEPTED AN ITEM BASED ON FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL RATHER THAN THE QPL ITEM. SINCE ALLIED PROPOSED TO FURNISH THE AIR FORCE WITH THE SAME ITEM THAT AERONCA HAD SUPPLIED, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WITHHELD AWARD TO ALLIED PENDING INVESTIGATION OF THIS ADDITIONAL ALLEGATION.

WE OBTAINED A COPY OF THE PRIOR NAVY CONTRACT (CONTRACT NO. N38388552A, DATED JULY 30, 1964, BETWEEN AERONCA MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND THE U.S. NAVY AVIATION SUPPLY OFFICE). EXAMINATION REVEALS THAT THE CONTRACT REQUIRED DELIVERY OF A QUALIFIED PRODUCT, AS TESTED AND QUALIFIED BY WRIGHT AIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MILITARY SPECIFICATION MIL-T-26219. THE CONTRACT HAD THREE MODIFICATIONS, WITH THE EFFECT THAT THE DELIVERY DATES WERE EXTENDED. NONE OF THESE MODIFICATIONS CHANGED THE SPECIFICATION CHARACTERISTIC OF THE ITEM IN ANY WAY OR CHANGED THE REQUIREMENT FOR A QPL ITEM.

THE AIR FORCE REPORTS THAT IT CONTACTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN PHILADELPHIA, WHO STATED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THE CONTRACT FILE TO INDICATE THAT ANY SPECIFICATION CHANGES HAD EITHER BEEN REQUESTED OR GRANTED. THE FILE SHOWED THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAD REQUESTED AN EXTENSION OF THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE FOR THE REASON THAT "AERONCA CONSIDERS IT PRUDENT TO CONSTRUCT A PRE-PRODUCTION UNIT FOR THEIR EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS PRIOR TO COMMENCING PRODUCTION". FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL WAS INVOLVED IN THIS, HOWEVER. IN ADDITION, THE AIR FORCE REPORTS THAT IT CONTACTED YOUR FIRM FOR ANY FURTHER INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ALLEGATIONS, BUT NO SUCH INFORMATION WAS SUPPLIED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AIR FORCE ON OCTOBER 6, 1967, AWARDED THE CONTRACT TO ALLIED.

ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD, WE FIND NO SUPPORT FOR YOUR ADDITIONAL ALLEGATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SUSTAIN OUR PRIOR DECISION DENYING YOUR PROTEST.