B-241378, Oct 18, 1990, 90-2 CPD ***
Highlights
Procurement - Contractor Qualification - Responsibility - Contracting officer findings - Affirmative determination - GAO review DIGEST: Protest that awardee will be unable to perform contract to deliver certain antennas because it allegedly cannot acquire protester's proprietary drawings concerns the agency's affirmative determination of the awardee's responsibility which is generally not for our review. The solicitation was for a number of different antennas and contemplated award to a single offeror. One of the antennas was identified in the solicitation by a part number that the Navy had previously assigned to one of Chu's antennas. Chu contends that this particular antenna must be made in accordance with manufacturing drawings that are proprietary to Chu.
B-241378, Oct 18, 1990, 90-2 CPD ***
Procurement - Contractor Qualification - Responsibility - Contracting officer findings - Affirmative determination - GAO review DIGEST: Protest that awardee will be unable to perform contract to deliver certain antennas because it allegedly cannot acquire protester's proprietary drawings concerns the agency's affirmative determination of the awardee's responsibility which is generally not for our review.
Chu Associates, Inc.:
Chu Associates, Inc. protests the Navy's award of a contract to Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC), on behalf of Valcom Limited, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00039-89-R-0139(Q) for the manufacture and delivery of various high frequency antenna groups and very high frequency antennas. We dismiss the protest pursuant to our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m) (1990).
The solicitation was for a number of different antennas and contemplated award to a single offeror. Chu contends that it has in the past been the only source of the equipment required under the RFP. One of the antennas was identified in the solicitation by a part number that the Navy had previously assigned to one of Chu's antennas. Chu contends that this particular antenna must be made in accordance with manufacturing drawings that are proprietary to Chu. The protester asserts on this basis that CCC cannot deliver the antenna because only Chu has access to the drawings, requiring an award only to Chu. /1/
The issue of whether CCC will be able to perform as required under the contract is a matter concerning its responsibility. Our Office does not review a contracting agency's affirmative determination of a firm's responsibility unless the protester makes a showing of possible fraud or bad faith on the agency's part, or that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation have not been met. See Electronic Sys. USA, Inc., B-233104, Dec. 28, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 631. Neither of these exceptions is alleged to be applicable here.
Finally, we also note that our Office does not generally consider it appropriate to review a protest that an agency should procure an item from a particular firm on a sole-source basis, which is essentially Chu's contention here.
The protest is dismissed.
/1/ Chu's protest does not include any allegation that either the agency or the awardee has improperly made use of Chu's drawings.