Skip to main content

B-148521, DEC. 4, 1962

B-148521 Dec 04, 1962
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

HARSHA AND HARCHA: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 27. THE PROTEST WAS DENIED BY OUR DECISION DATED JULY 16. YOU STATE THAT WE DISMISSED THIS ALLEGATION BY STATING THAT SINCE BOTH THE MODIFIED HELMET AND THE OLD APH-5 HELMET WERE TO BE WORN ON A PILOT'S HEAD. THERE WERE NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES. WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND THIS IN OUR LETTER OF JULY 16. STRESS THE FACT THAT THE PROTECTIVE FEATURES OF THE HELMET WERE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS INCLUSION IN THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST (QPL) AND THAT THESE FEATURES WERE NOT CHANGED IN ANY WAY. STATING THAT MODIFIED APH-5 HELMETS WERE PURCHASED WITHOUT QPL REQUIREMENTS. YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO PAGE 3 OF OUR LETTER OF JULY 16.

View Decision

B-148521, DEC. 4, 1962

TO KIMBLE, SCHAPIRO, STEVENS, HARSHA AND HARCHA:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 27, 1962, CONCERNING THE PROTEST OF CONSOLIDATED COMPONENTS CORPORATION IN CONNECTION WITH INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DSA-1-62-180, ISSUED BY THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY. THE PROTEST WAS DENIED BY OUR DECISION DATED JULY 16, 1962, B 148521.

WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROTESTANT'S SUGGESTION THAT THE MODIFIED HELMET DIFFERED FROM THE APH-5 AND HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED AS A QUALIFIED PRODUCT AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE PURCHASED AS SUCH, YOU STATE THAT WE DISMISSED THIS ALLEGATION BY STATING THAT SINCE BOTH THE MODIFIED HELMET AND THE OLD APH-5 HELMET WERE TO BE WORN ON A PILOT'S HEAD, THERE WERE NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES. WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND THIS IN OUR LETTER OF JULY 16, 1962, EITHER SPECIFICALLY OR BY INFERENCE. WE DID, HOWEVER, STRESS THE FACT THAT THE PROTECTIVE FEATURES OF THE HELMET WERE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS INCLUSION IN THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST (QPL) AND THAT THESE FEATURES WERE NOT CHANGED IN ANY WAY.

AS TO THE LETTER FROM CAPTAIN KAHAO, STATING THAT MODIFIED APH-5 HELMETS WERE PURCHASED WITHOUT QPL REQUIREMENTS, YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO PAGE 3 OF OUR LETTER OF JULY 16, 1962, STATING THAT "WITH RESPECT TO THE PURCHASE OF 500 HELMETS REFERRED TO IN LETTER OF AUGUST 15, 1961, FROM THE DIRECTOR, NAVY SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAS CAREFULLY INVESTIGATED THE MATTER, BOTH AT NAMC, PHILADELPHIA, AND THE OFFICE OF NAVAL MATERIAL IN WASHINGTON, AND HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT THE PROCUREMENT IN QUESTION, ALTHOUGH CONTAINING THE 10 EXCEPTIONS REFERRED TO, WAS ACTUALLY PROCURED BY THE NAVY AS A QPL ITEM.' THIS IS THE LETTER TO WHICH YOU REFER, ALTHOUGH CAPTAIN KAHAO WAS NOT IDENTIFIED BY NAME.

YOUR LETTER ALSO ASKS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

"/1) WAS THIS PURCHASE A QPL PURCHASE?

"/2) WAS THIS HELMET, AS MODIFIED, EVER PURCHASED ON A QPL BASIS?

"/3) WAS THIS HELMET, AS MODIFIED, EVER SUBMITTED FOR TESTING AND APPROVAL?

THIS WAS A QPL PURCHASE, WHICH WAS THE PRINCIPAL BASIS FOR THE OBJECTION BY CONSOLIDATED COMPONENTS CORPORATION.

TWO PRIOR PURCHASES OF THIS HELMET, AS MODIFIED, WERE MADE BY THE NAVY FOR THE ARMY. AN AWARD WAS ALSO MADE ON NOVEMBER 1, 1962, FOR 4,100 HELMETS, AS MODIFIED, TO SIERRA ENGINEERING COMPANY. ALL THREE PROCUREMENTS WERE ON A QPL BASIS.

HOWEVER, THE MODIFIED HELMET WAS NOT SUBMITTED FOR TESTING AND APPROVAL, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED NECESSARY, DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE MODIFICATIONS. CHANGES IN A QUALIFIED PRODUCT DO NOT REQUIRE REEVALUATION OR REQUALIFICATION OF THE PRODUCT UNLESS THE CHARACTERISTICS FOR WHICH QUALIFICATION TESTING IS REQUIRED HAVE BEEN CHANGED. SINCE THE BASIC DESIGN AND MATERIALS OF THE HELMET'S PROTECTIVE SHELL WERE NOT CHANGED, THERE WAS NO NEED OR JUSTIFICATION FOR RETESTING AND REAPPROVAL OF THE HELMET AS A QUALIFIED PRODUCT. PROCUREMENT ON A QPL BASIS APPEARS, THEREFORE, TO HAVE BEEN FULLY JUSTIFIED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs