Protest of Air Force Procurement

Three firms protested the decision of the Air Force to purchase 25 enclosures for jet engine testing plus "reprocurement and provisioning data" under a noncompetitive, sole-source procurement. The protesters raised three major issues: (1) the validity of the negotiating authority employed for the procurement; (2) the validity of the technical evaluation of the product which led to the decision to conduct the procurement on a sole-source basis; and (3) the responsibility of the contractor. Under regulations in existence at the time of the decision to conduct the procurement on a sole-source basis, the Air Force assigned a priority designation to the project which automatically conferred authority to negotiate the purchase. Based on an examination of the Air Force justification of its decision to conduct the procurement on a sole-source basis, it was determined that the decision was made in good faith. GAO has held that procuring agencies' technical conclusions concerning their actual needs are entitled to great weight and will be accepted unless there is a clear showing that the conclusions are arbitrary. A review of the record indicated that, from a technical standpoint, the Air Force did not act arbitrarily in its decision to conduct the procurement on a sole-source basis. The allegation that the contractor should not be considered responsible for performance was based on alleged deficiencies in engineering personnel and staff in general and net worth; as a related issue, the protesters asserted that the contractor's "Swedish parent" company would improperly be the real party of interest in the contract. GAO will not question a decision finding a concern to be responsible unless either fraud is shown on the part of the procuring officials or the solicitation contains definitive responsibility criteria which have allegedly not been met. The mere fact that a bidding entity obtains needed resources under agreement from a third-party concern is not a reason to reject the offer unless the terms of the agreement cause the offering entity to dissolve or cause the effective transfer of the offer to the third party. The protesters did not show any of these conditions to exist, and there was no showing that "buy American" and "dollar outflow" considerations had been violated. Accordingly, the protest was denied.