B-173063, SEP 22, 1971

B-173063: Sep 22, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

SINCE THE DRAWINGS FURNISHED BY PROTESTANT WERE UNACCEPTABLE. THERE IS NO BASIS TO DISTURB THE AWARD. WHILE THE PROTESTS HAVE BEEN DENIED. THE RECORD HERE PRESENTED DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS AS TO THE FEASIBILITY OF FORMAL ADVERTISING WHICH ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. 2310(B). IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT STEPS BE TAKEN TO OBTAIN COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS. INCORPORATED: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO THE BOEING COMPANY UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS NO. WHAT IS SAID HEREIN WITH RESPECT TO THE REFERENCED RFQ IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THOSE PROCUREMENTS. THE SUBJECT RFQ WAS ISSUED ON JANUARY 4. PROCUREMENT METHOD CODE "H" WAS ASSIGNED TO THE PROCUREMENT BECAUSE THE AIR FORCE DID NOT HAVE A DATA PACKAGE ADEQUATE FOR COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT.

B-173063, SEP 22, 1971

BID PROTEST - SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT DENIAL OF PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD BY TINKER AFB, OKLA., OF A SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT TO THE BOEING COMPANY FOR REPLENISHMENT SPARE PARTS FOR THE KC-135 AIRCRAFT. SINCE THE AIR FORCE DOES NOT POSSESS ADEQUATE DRAWINGS, AND SINCE THE DRAWINGS FURNISHED BY PROTESTANT WERE UNACCEPTABLE, THERE IS NO BASIS TO DISTURB THE AWARD. BID PROTEST - SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT LETTER REGARDING THE DENIAL OF PROTESTS BY CALIFORNIA AERO DYNAMICS CORPORATION AND FARWEST SPECIAL PRODUCTS DIVISION, INC. WHILE THE PROTESTS HAVE BEEN DENIED, THE RECORD HERE PRESENTED DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS AS TO THE FEASIBILITY OF FORMAL ADVERTISING WHICH ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. 2310(B). IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT STEPS BE TAKEN TO OBTAIN COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS.

TO FARWEST SPECIAL PRODUCTS DIVISION, INCORPORATED:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO THE BOEING COMPANY UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS NO. F34601 71-R-1625, ISSUED BY TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA. SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR PROTEST UNDER THE SUBJECT RFQ, YOU PROTESTED OTHER AWARDS TO BOEING. HOWEVER, SINCE THE PROTESTS UNDER THE SUBSEQUENT PROCUREMENTS INVOLVE THE SAME ISSUES AS UNDER THE CITED RFQ, WHAT IS SAID HEREIN WITH RESPECT TO THE REFERENCED RFQ IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THOSE PROCUREMENTS.

THE SUBJECT RFQ WAS ISSUED ON JANUARY 4, 1971, FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF REPLENISHMENT SPARE PARTS (ONE LONGER ON AND FOUR PANELS) FOR THE KC-135 AIRCRAFT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH AIR FORCE REGULATION (AFR) 57-6, PROCUREMENT METHOD CODE "H" WAS ASSIGNED TO THE PROCUREMENT BECAUSE THE AIR FORCE DID NOT HAVE A DATA PACKAGE ADEQUATE FOR COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT. THEREFORE, SOLICITATION WAS RESTRICTED TO BOEING, THE PRIME DESIGN MANUFACTURER OF THE KC-135, AS THE ONLY SOURCE KNOWN TO POSSESS THE REQUIRED DATA. THE PROCUREMENT WAS SYNOPSIZED IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY WITH NOTICE THAT THE SYNOPSIS WAS FOR SUBCONTRACTING PURPOSES ONLY AS DATA WAS NOT AVAILABLE.

YOUR FIRM AND CALIFORNIA AERO DYNAMICS CORPORATION (CAD) SUBMITTED UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS. CAD WAS THE LOW OFFEROR ON ALL FIVE ITEMS AND YOU WERE SECOND LOW ON ALL BUT ITEM NO. 2. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED THAT NEITHER YOU NOR CAD POSSESSED THE DATA NECESSARY TO ASSURE MANUFACTURE OF A SATISFACTORY PRODUCT. THEREFORE, AWARD WAS MADE TO BOEING.

YOU CONTEND THAT YOU HAVE ADEQUATE DATA TO MANUFACTURE KC-135 PARTS TO SPECIFICATION. IN THIS CONNECTION, YOU STATE THAT YOU AND OTHER VENDORS HAVE SUPPLIED THE GOVERNMENT SUCH PARTS UNDER DOZENS OF CONTRACTS AND, UNTIL RECENTLY, THEY HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. IN THIS REGARD, YOU STATE THAT IT APPEARS THE ONLY REASON PROCUREMENT OF THE PARTS IS BEING RESTRICTED TO BOEING IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS TO ENABLE IT TO CHECK DIMENSIONS OF OTHER VENDOR'S PARTS. THEREFORE, YOU URGE THE GOVERNMENT TO ACQUIRE DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS AND EXPAND COMPETITION.

THE AIR FORCE REPORTS THAT WHEN UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED FROM YOUR FIRM AND CAD, BOTH WERE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT DRAWINGS FOR EVALUATION. THE DRAWINGS WERE EVALUATED BY THE SERVICE ENGINEERING DIVISION WHICH FOUND THEM INADEQUATE TO FABRICATE THE PARTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS REPORTED THAT YOUR PROPOSED MANUFACTURING PROCEDURE UTILIZING SAMPLE PARTS OR TEMPLATES DEVELOPED FROM MICROFILM DATA IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE AIR FORCE ACKNOWLEDGES PREVIOUS PURCHASES OF PANELS FROM YOUR FIRM, BUT SAYS THAT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PANEL INVOLVED IN THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENTS.

SINCE THE AIR FORCE DOES NOT POSSESS ADEQUATE DRAWINGS AND SINCE THE DRAWINGS YOU FURNISHED WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE, WE FIND NO BASIS TO DISTURB THE AWARDS MADE. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED CONTINUED SOLE-SOURCE PROCUREMENT OF THESE ITEMS WOULD BE JUSTIFIED. FURTHERMORE, THERE WERE CERTAIN IRREGULARITIES IN THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED WHICH ARE BEING POINTED OUT IN A SEPARATE LETTER, COPY ENCLOSED, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE. THEREFORE, WE ARE SUGGESTING TO THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO INITIATING EFFORTS TO BROADEN COMPETITION FOR THESE PARTS, AND THAT OUR OFFICE BE ADVISED OF ANY ACTION TAKEN.