B-183567, APR 18, 1975

B-183567: Apr 18, 1975

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WHERE RECORD SHOWS QUALIFICATION OF UNAPPROVED SOURCE'S ITEM WOULD HAVE TAKEN MINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS. PROTESTER WAS NOT PREJUDICED EVEN ASSUMING THAT DELAY IN MAKING AWARD SHOWS THAT REJECTION OF OFFER ON GROUNDS OF URGENCY WAS NOT WELL FOUNDED. IT IS UNTIMELY BECAUSE NOT FILED WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER PROTESTER LEARNED OF SUCH REASONS. 4 C.F.R. THE PROTEST WAS PROMPTED BY A NOTICE OF AWARD MADE TO HAROWE ON MARCH 3. WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY ON MARCH 14. THIS WAS APPROXIMATELY 5 MONTHS AFTER TRANSICOIL'S UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL HAD BEEN REJECTED BY THE AIR FORCE. THE REJECTION WAS APPARENTLY DUE IN PART TO THE FACT THAT THE AIR FORCE HAD AN URGENT NEED FOR THE SUPPLIES AND BELIEVED THAT FURTHER DELAY IN MAKING AWARD TO A QUALIFIED SOURCE WOULD PROVE DETRIMENTAL.

B-183567, APR 18, 1975

THOUGH IT CITED URGENT NEED TO MAKE AWARD IN NOTICE REJECTING OFFER FROM UNAPPROVED SOURCE, AIR FORCE DID NOT ACTUALLY MAKE AWARD FOR 5 MONTHS. BUT WHERE RECORD SHOWS QUALIFICATION OF UNAPPROVED SOURCE'S ITEM WOULD HAVE TAKEN MINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS, PROTESTER WAS NOT PREJUDICED EVEN ASSUMING THAT DELAY IN MAKING AWARD SHOWS THAT REJECTION OF OFFER ON GROUNDS OF URGENCY WAS NOT WELL FOUNDED. ALSO, TO EXTENT PROTEST MAY RAISE OBJECTIONS TO OTHER REASONS FOR REJECTION OF OFFER, IT IS UNTIMELY BECAUSE NOT FILED WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER PROTESTER LEARNED OF SUCH REASONS. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 20.2(A) (1974).

TRANSICOIL, INC.:

TRANSICOIL, INC. (TRANSICOIL), HAS PROTESTED TO OUR OFFICE AGAINST AN AWARD TO HAROWE SERVO CONTROLS, INC. (HAROWE), UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. F04606-74-R-0706, ISSUED BY SACRAMENTO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER, MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA.

THE PROTEST WAS PROMPTED BY A NOTICE OF AWARD MADE TO HAROWE ON MARCH 3, 1975, WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY ON MARCH 14, 1975. THIS WAS APPROXIMATELY 5 MONTHS AFTER TRANSICOIL'S UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL HAD BEEN REJECTED BY THE AIR FORCE. THE REJECTION WAS APPARENTLY DUE IN PART TO THE FACT THAT THE AIR FORCE HAD AN URGENT NEED FOR THE SUPPLIES AND BELIEVED THAT FURTHER DELAY IN MAKING AWARD TO A QUALIFIED SOURCE WOULD PROVE DETRIMENTAL. BEFORE THE REJECTION OF TRANSICOIL'S OFFER, THE AIR FORCE HAD SUSPENDED THE PROCUREMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 9, 1974, TO PROVIDE TRANSICOIL WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUALIFY AS AN APPROVED SOURCE THROUGH COORDINATION WITH LEAR SIEGLER, INC., WHICH POSSESSED THE NECESSARY ENGINEERING DATA AND SPECIFICATIONS. TRANSICOIL APPARENTLY CONTACTED LEAR SIEGLER BUT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL IN ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN QUALIFICATION WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED.

THE PROTEST IS APPARENTLY BOTTOMED UPON THE ASSERTION THAT THE 5 MONTHS' DELAY IN MAKING AN AWARD CASTS DOUBT ON THE AIR FORCE'S JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTING THE PROTESTER'S OFFER - I.E., THAT AN URGENT NEED FOR THE SUPPLIES PRECLUDED ANY FURTHER DELAY TO ALLOW TRANSICOIL TIME TO DEMONSTRATE ITS QUALIFICATIONS. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT AMONG THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PROTESTER IS AN INTRA-COMPANY MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 1974, WHICH INDICATES THAT QUALIFICATION WITH LEAR SIEGLER WOULD TAKE A MINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS, ASSUMING THAT LEAR SIEGLER WOULD BEGIN TESTING PROMPTLY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE DELAY IN MAKING AN AWARD TO HAROWE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE REJECTION OF TRANSICOIL'S OFFER ON THE GROUNDS OF URGENCY WAS NOT WELL FOUNDED, WE CANNOT SEE HOW THE PROTESTER WAS PRJUDICED IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THIS ASPECT OF THE PROTEST.

IN ADDITION, IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE REJECTION OF TRANSICOIL'S OFFER MAY HAVE BEEN PREMISED ON OTHER GROUNDS AS WELL, SINCE THE OFFER DEPARTED FROM THE TERMS OF THE RFP IN SEVERAL RESPECTS. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROTEST MAY BE READ AS OBJECTING ON THESE GROUNDS, IT IS UNTIMELY. EXCEPT FOR PROTESTS INVOLVING SOLICITATION IMPROPRIETIES, PROTESTS MUST BE FILED WITH OUR OFFICE WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS FOR PROTEST IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. SEE 4 C.F.R. SEC. 20.2(A) (1974). THEREFORE, ANY PROTEST ON GROUNDS OTHER THAN THE ONE CONSIDERED, SUPRA, SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED WITH OUR OFFICE WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER TRANSICOIL RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF ITS OFFER.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE PROTEST IS DENIED.