B-210732.2, NOV 10, 1983
Highlights
WILL NOT REVIEW A POTENTIAL SUBCONTRACTOR'S PROTEST OF THE AWARD OF A SUBCONTRACT SINCE THE MATTER INVOLVES CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. 2. CONTENTION THAT PRIME CONTRACTOR IS SUPPLYING VEHICLES WITH NONCONFORMING LIGHTING SYSTEMS IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION NOT FOR REVIEW UNDER GAO'S BID PROTEST PROCEDURES. WHELEN SEEMS TO BE PROTESTING BOTH THAT IT WAS IMPROPERLY DENIED A SUBCONTRACT AWARD TO SUPPLY THE LIGHTING SYSTEMS AND THAT THE ARMY IS ACCEPTING NONCONFORMING EQUIPMENT. WHICH IS A FUNCTION OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION WHICH WE DO NOT REVIEW UNDER OUR PROTEST PROCEDURES. WHELEN'S PROTEST DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT ANY OF THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD WARRANT OUR REVIEW IS PRESENT HERE.
B-210732.2, NOV 10, 1983
DIGEST: 1. GAO, EXCEPT IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, WILL NOT REVIEW A POTENTIAL SUBCONTRACTOR'S PROTEST OF THE AWARD OF A SUBCONTRACT SINCE THE MATTER INVOLVES CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. 2. CONTENTION THAT PRIME CONTRACTOR IS SUPPLYING VEHICLES WITH NONCONFORMING LIGHTING SYSTEMS IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION NOT FOR REVIEW UNDER GAO'S BID PROTEST PROCEDURES.
WHELEN ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.:
WHELEN ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. COMPLAINS THAT THE LIGHTING SYSTEMS SUPPLIED BY FEDERAL SIGNAL COMPANY TO SOUTHERN AMBULANCE BUILDERS, INC., THE PRIME CONTRACTOR, FOR AMBULANCES UNDER A CONTRACT AWARDED BY THE U. S. ARMY TANK-AUTOMOTIVE COMMAND, DO NOT MEET THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. WHELEN, A POTENTIAL SUBCONTRACTOR, REQUESTS THAT THESE ALLEGEDLY DEFICIENT LIGHTING COMPONENTS BE REMOVED FROM THE VEHICLES AND THAT THE PRIME CONTRACTOR BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL PROPER LIGHTING SYSTEMS FROM EITHER THE EXISTING SUPPLIER OR THE PROTESTER.
WHELEN SEEMS TO BE PROTESTING BOTH THAT IT WAS IMPROPERLY DENIED A SUBCONTRACT AWARD TO SUPPLY THE LIGHTING SYSTEMS AND THAT THE ARMY IS ACCEPTING NONCONFORMING EQUIPMENT. WE WOULD CONSIDER A PROTEST AGAINST A SUBCONTRACT AWARD ONLY IN CERTAIN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES. THE GOVERNMENT'S PARTICIPATION IN SUBCONTRACT AWARDS GENERALLY INVOLVES ONLY APPROVAL OF THE PRIME CONTRACTOR'S SELECTION OF A SUBCONTRACTOR, WHICH IS A FUNCTION OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION WHICH WE DO NOT REVIEW UNDER OUR PROTEST PROCEDURES. SUPREME EQUIPMENT & SYSTEMS CORPORATION, B-211428, MAY 6, 1983, 83-1 CPD 478. WHELEN'S PROTEST DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT ANY OF THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD WARRANT OUR REVIEW IS PRESENT HERE.
MOREOVER, WHAT IS DELIVERED UNDER A CONTRACT IS ALSO A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. CONSEQUENTLY, WE ALSO DO NOT CONSIDER, UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, 4 C.F.R. 21.3 (1983) AS AMENDED BY 48 FED.REG. 1932, JANUARY 17, 1983, WHETHER DELIVERED GOODS OR EQUIPMENT CONFORM TO CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS.
WE DISMISS THE PROTEST.