B-165179, B-165800, OCTOBER 10, 1969, 49 COMP. GEN. 224

B-165179, B-165800, OCTOBER 10, 1969, 49 COMP. GEN. 224

CONTRACTS -- SPECIFICATIONS -- QUALIFIED PRODUCTS -- CHANGES IN MACHINERY, PRODUCT, ETC. THE PLACEMENT OF A MANUFACTURER'S NAME ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST INDICATES ABILITY TO MANUFACTURER A PARTICULAR PRODUCT ACCORDING TO CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS, EVEN THOUGH THE QUALIFICATION OF THE PRODUCT IS NOT RELIED ON OR USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF A PARTICULAR CONTRACT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE SAME AS THOSE USED IN THE QUALIFICATION TESTS, AND ENTITLES THE MANUFACTURER TO SUBMIT BIDS OR PROPOSALS UNTIL ITS NAME IS REMOVED FROM THE LIST OR REQUALIFICATION OF THE PRODUCT IS REQUIRED. THEREFORE, THE FACT THE QUALIFICATION OF TOW TARGET HONEYCOMBS, A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE AERIAL GUNNERY TOW TARGETS BEING PROCURED, AND THE PRODUCTION ITEM WERE DISSIMILAR DID NOT DISQUALIFY THE LOW OFFEROR FROM SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL AND RECEIVING AN AWARD. HOWEVER, SHOULD A QUALIFICATION PRODUCT BE MISREPRESENTED, CORRECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION COULD RESULT IN THE MANUFACTURER BEING REMOVED FROM THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST OR PLACED ON THE DEBARRED BIDDERS LIST.

TO CHAPMAN, DISALLE AND FRIEDMAN, OCTOBER 10, 1969:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTERS DATED AUGUST 28, 1968, AND AUGUST 29, 1968, EACH WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM PANCOA, PANEL CORPORATION OF AMERICA, YOUR LETTERS OF OCTOBER 8, NOVEMBER 13, AND DECEMBER 5 AND 12, 1968, OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ENCLOSURES, CONFERENCES HELD, EXHIBITS AND AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED, PROTESTING AWARDS OF CONTRACTS TO THE ELLINOR CORPORATION OF DALLAS, TEXAS, UNDER SOLICITATION NO. F42600-69-B-0005, AND SOLICITATION NO. F42600-68-R-2238. BOTH SOLICITATIONS WERE ISSUED AT THE HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH, AND SOUGHT THE NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT OF TOW TARGETS, AERIAL DART, GUNNERY ROCKET, TYPE TDU-10/B.

SOLICITATION F42600-68-R-2238, ISSUED OCTOBER 16, 1967, UNDER NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES, INVITED PROPOSALS FOR THE FURNISHING OF 3926 TOW TARGETS AS APPLICABLE TO THE A/A 37U-15 TOW SYSTEMS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION MIL-T-9918A. THIS IS A QUALIFIED PRODUCT AND ONLY PANEL CORPORATION OF AMERICA'S (PANCOA) NAME WAS ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST. THE ELLINOR CORPORATION WAS IN THE PROCESS OF QUALIFYING ITS PRODUCT. BOTH PANCOA AND ELLINOR WERE INVITED TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS UNDER THIS SOLICITATION. IN THE MEANTIME, ELLINOR SUBMITTED WING PANELS FOR THE TOW TARGET TO THE SERVICE ENGINEERING DIVISION, OGDEN AIR MATERIAL AREA FOR QUALIFICATION UNDER SPECIFICATION MIL-T 9918A. CONCURRENTLY, WITH THE QUALIFICATION PANELS, ELLINOR SUBMITTED A PROCESS SPECIFICATION DESCRIBING THE USE OF ITS OWN HONEYCOMB CORE IN THE PANELS. THE PANELS PERFORMED SATISFACTORILY IN THE FLIGHT TESTS AND THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE CORE WERE SUFFICIENT TO CONSIDER THE CORES AS "EQUAL" TO THE CORES DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATION. THE WING PANELS MET THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFICATION MIL-T-9918A AND ELLINOR WAS NOTIFIED ON NOVEMBER 28, 1967, THAT ITS EQUIPMENT WAS QUALIFIED AND THAT ITS NAME WAS BEING ADDED TO THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST FOR THIS EQUIPMENT. BOTH CONTRACTORS SUBMITTED PROPOSALS AND AN AWARD WAS MADE TO ELLINOR AS THE LOW BIDDER ON JANUARY 16, 1968.

BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 29, 1968, DIRECTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT AND PRODUCTION, OGDEN MATERIAL AREA, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FORWARDED HERE, PANCOA PROTESTED THE AWARD TO ELLINOR. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CONTRACT PRODUCT (TOW TARGETS) "AS MANUFACTURED AND TO BE MANUFACTURED BY ELLINOR WAS WRONGFULLY PLACED ON THE APPLICABLE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST LATE IN THE CALENDAR YEAR 1967, UNDER SUCH REPRESENTATIONS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS AS TO MAKE THE QUALIFICATION TESTING THEREOF AND THE PLACEMENT AND LISTING OF SAID PRODUCT ON THE APPLICABLE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST VOID AND OF NO EFFECT." IT IS ALLEGED THAT ELLINOR, ALTHOUGH STATING THAT IT MANUFACTURED ALL COMPONENTS OF THE TOW TARGETS USED IN THE QUALIFICATION TESTS, DID NOT IN FACT MANUFACTURE THE HONEYCOMB CORE, A CRITICAL COMPONENT, IN THE WING SECTIONS OF THE TARGETS.

SUBSEQUENT LETTERS, EXHIBITS AND AFFIDAVITS AND ADDITIONAL PROTESTS ON SOLICITATIONS NOS. F42600-69-B-1241, F42600-69-B-1431, F42600-69-B 3765 ALL RELATE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PRODUCTION TARGET MAY BE MANUFACTURED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY ELLINOR, BUT THAT ITS HONEYCOMB CORE DIFFERS FROM THAT FOR WHICH ELLINOR RECEIVED QUALIFICATION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRODUCTION PRODUCT IS ALLEGEDLY NOT THE SAME AS THAT WHICH HAD RECEIVED TESTING AND HAS NOT RECEIVED THE TESTING REQUIRED FOR QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LISTING. SUM, IT IS PANCOA'S POSITION THAT (1) ELLINOR HAS NEVER TRULY "QUALIFIED" ITS TOW TARGETS UNDER THE SPECIFICATIONS AND IS ACCORDINGLY NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE AN AWARD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH TOW TARGETS, AND (2) ELLINOR IS PRODUCING AND FURNISHING THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE AWARD IN PROTEST A TYPE OF TOW TARGET FOR WHICH ELLINOR NEVER RECEIVED QUALIFICATION APPROVAL.

WE ARE ADVISED THAT A FURTHER SOLICITATION, SCHEDULED FOR OPENING ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1969, WAS, IN FACT, OPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1969, BUT THAT AWARD IS BEING DELAYED PENDING OUR DECISION OR UNTIL OCTOBER 10, 1969, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER.

THE AIR FORCE IN ITS REPORT HERE HAS STATED, AND HAS SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS STATEMENT, THAT IT HAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PANCOA'S ALLEGATION THAT THE HONEYCOMB CORE OF ELLINOR'S QUALIFICATION WING PANELS WERE MANUFACTURED BY ANOTHER FIRM. THE REPORT STATES THE PROCESS SPECIFICATION ELLINOR SUBMITTED WITH ITS QUALIFICATION PANELS SPECIFIED THE USE OF ITS OWN HONEYCOMB CORES, AND ALSO, THAT THE PRESIDENT OF ELLINOR, WHEN QUESTIONED ON THIS MATTER STATED THAT ALL HONEYCOMBS USED IN ALL PANELS WERE OF HIS MANUFACTURE. IN REGARD TO THE PRODUCTION QUANTITIES DELIVERED UNDER THE CONTRACT BOTH THE DEFENSE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICE REGION AT DALLAS, AND THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS SECTION, AT OGDEN AIR MATERIAL AREA, CONFIRM THAT THE HONEYCOMB CORES ARE MANUFACTURED BY ELLINOR. THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS SECTION ALSO EVALUATED CERTAIN OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HONEYCOMB SAMPLES FROM THE QUALIFICATION WING PANELS AND THE PRODUCTION MODELS AND CONCLUDED THAT THE PRODUCTION MODELS ARE EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN THE QUALIFICATION MODELS. WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE PRODUCTION MODELS ARE SO INFERIOR IN WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS AS TO CONSTITUTE A NONCONFORMING PRODUCT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CONCEDES THAT SOME PRODUCTION ARTICLES DELIVERED WERE DEFICIENT BUT AFTER MANUFACTURING PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTED, PRODUCTION ARTICLES NOW EQUAL OR EXCEED SPECIFICATIONS, AND THE CONTRACTOR HAS AGREED TO REPLACE, AT NO COST TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE DEFICIENT TARGETS.

IN REBUTTAL TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS, PANCOA SUBMITS THAT ELLINOR DID NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY MACHINERY TO FABRICATE THE HONEYCOMB CORE AT THE TIME OF QUALIFICATION; THAT A VISUAL EXAMINATION OF THE SAMPLES SUBMITTED HERE SHOWS THE DISSIMILARITY BETWEEN THE QUALIFICATION AND PRODUCTION CORES AND QUALITY OF MANUFACTURE; AND THAT THE AFFIDAVITS EVIDENCE ELLINOR'S PURCHASE OF ANOTHER MANUFACTURER'S HONEYCOMB FOR USE IN THE QUALIFICATION WING PANELS.

SOLICITATION F42600-69-B-0005 ALSO WAS FOR TOW TARGETS UNDER THE SAME SPECIFICATIONS. PANCOA PROTESTED THIS SOLICITATION AFTER BID OPENING WHEN IT APPEARED THAT ELLINOR WAS AGAIN THE LOW BIDDER. THE REASONS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IN THE EARLIER SOLICITATION. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SOLICITATIONS IS THAT PROTEST WAS AFTER AWARD IN THE EARLIER CASE AND PRIOR TO AWARD IN THE LATTER CASE. IN ANY EVENT THE - 0005 SOLICITATION WAS CANCELED ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1968, DUE TO RESTRICTIVE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. WE ARE ADVISED THAT CHANGES IN SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WILL NOT REQUIRE REQUALIFICATION TESTING OF EITHER PANCOA OR ELLINOR. HOWEVER, OUR DECISION HEREIN WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE -0005 SOLICITATION, HAD THE SOLICITATION NOT BEEN CANCELED AND THE QUESTION RENDERED MOOT.

ALTHOUGH WE HAVE VIEWED THE WING PANEL SAMPLES AND NOTED THE DISSIMILARITIES POINTED OUT IN YOUR LETTERS AND IN CONFERENCES, WE MUST ADVISE THAT THE CONCLUSION REQUESTED THAT THE QUALIFICATION CORE AND PRODUCTION CORE ARE OF DIFFERENT MANUFACTURE, REQUIRES A TECHNICAL OR ENGINEERING OPINION.

IN THIS CONNECTION A SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE AIR FORCE STATES THAT THE ELLINOR CORPORATION HAD BEEN MANUFACTURING PAPER HONEYCOMB CORE SINCE AUGUST 1966; THAT MR. ELLINOR DESIGNED HIS OWN PAPER HONEYCOMB MANUFACTURING MACHINE; THAT THE ELLINOR CORPORATION POSSESSED EQUIPMENT TO DIP PROCESS THE CORE AFTER MANUFACTURE, OR TO IMPREGNATE THE PAPER BEFORE BEING MANUFACTURED INTO CORE MATERIAL; AND THAT MR. ELLINOR READILY ADMITTED OBTAINING HONEYCOMB CORE FROM ANOTHER MANUFACTURER BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DUPLICATING IT IN HIS OWN PLANT AND NOT FOR USE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF TOW TARGETS. THE REPORT ALSO CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION FROM A REPORT OF HEADQUARTERS, AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WITH WHICH WE AGREE:

WHILE THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE DOES NOT CLEARLY REFUTE THE PROTESTER'S ALLEGATION THAT THE PANEL WHICH WAS QUALIFIED AS A QPL ITEM CONTAINED ANOTHER COMPANY'S HONEYCOMB SECTION, IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT THE ALLEGATION CANNOT BE CONFIRMED. THE OOAMA COMMENTS INDICATE THAT IT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT THE TWO HONEYCOMB CORE MATERIALS WERE MANUFACTURED BY THE SAME MANUFACTURER. THE NET RESULT IS THAT THE AIR FORCE, AFTER DILIGENT INVESTIGATION, HAS BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE PROTESTER'S ALLEGATION THAT THE HONEYCOMB CORES FOR ELLINOR'S QUALIFICATION SAMPLES WERE MANUFACTURED BY ANOTHER FIRM. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE OF MISREPRESENTATION OR OTHER WRONGDOING BY ELLINOR CONCERNING THE MATERIALS IN QUESTION.

NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE, WE FORWARDED TO OUR LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE TWO SAMPLES OF HONEYCOMB CORE--ONE OF KNOWN WICKES' INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, MANUFACTURE AND ONE TAKEN FROM A TOW TARGET SUBMITTED BY ELLINOR FOR QUALIFICATION TESTS--TO BE IDENTIFIED AS TO WHETHER EITHER SAMPLE OR BOTH WERE OF THEIR MANUFACTURE. OFFICIALS OF WICKES WERE NOT ABLE TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THE HONEYCOMB IN EITHER SAMPLE AS BEING OF THEIR MANUFACTURE. SUBSEQUENTLY, TWO LARGER SEGMENTS OF QUALIFICATION TEST WING PANELS WERE OBTAINED BY OUR REGIONAL OFFICE FROM WENDOVER AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH. THE LAMINATION MATERIALS, I.E., ALUMINUM SKIN AND ADHESIVE, WERE REMOVED FROM THESE SAMPLES TO EXPOSE THE CORE SO THAT AIRCOMB DIVISION, AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION (SUCCESSORS TO AIRCOMB DIVISION, WICKES INDUSTRIES) OFFICIALS COULD EXAMINE THE CORE CHARACTERISTS.

OUR REPRESENTATIVES REPORT THEY WERE ADVISED THAT THE CORE FROM THESE TWO SAMPLES OF WING PANEL RESEMBLED THE CORE PRODUCED ON THE AIRCOMB DIVISION'S HONEYCOMB MACHINE. THE BASES OF SIMILARITY WERE (1) THE UNIFORMITY OF CELL STRUCTURE, (2) TYPE AND APPEARANCE OF THE PAPER AND GLUE, AND (3) WIDTH OF THE CORE PANEL WHICH WAS NOT IN EXCESS OF 15 INCHES. OUR REPRESENTATIVES ALSO REPORTED THEY WERE ADVISED THAT THERE ARE TWO OTHER MACHINES CAPABLE OF PRODUCING SIMILAR CORE, ONE IN JAPAN AND ONE IN MEXICO, AND THAT ABSOLUTE IDENTIFICATION WOULD REQUIRE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GRADE OF PAPER, IMPREGNATION MATERIALS AND TYPE OF GLUE USED.

IN YOUR LETTER DATED MAY 22, 1969, YOU STATE THAT THE REPORT "SUBSTANTIATES WITHOUT QUESTION PANCOA'S POSITION IN THE SUBJECT PROTESTS." WE CANNOT AGREE. NEITHER WICKES NOR AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY WOULD POSITIVELY IDENTIFY ANY OF THE SAMPLES AS OF ITS MANUFACTURE. BEST, THEIR CONCLUSION WAS THAT THERE WERE "SIMILARITIES" AND A "RESEMBLANCE," WHICH IS FAR SHORT OF SUBSTANTIATION OF THE ALLEGATION MADE.

PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE QUALIFICATION OF PRODUCTS ARE CONTAINED IN APPENDIX IV-A OF DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION MANUAL 4120.3M, AND IN PERTINENT PART PROVIDE:

100 PURPOSE OF QUALIFICATION. SINCE MOST SPECIFICATIONS ARE BASED ON PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS THE POSSIBLE VARIATION IN DESIGN AND QUALITY AND THE NATURE OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND TESTS FOR CERTAIN CLASSES OF PRODUCTS ARE SUCH THAT IT IS IMPRACTICAL TO PROCURE PRODUCTS SOLELY ON ACCEPTANCE TESTS WITHOUT UNDULY DELAYING DELIVERY. TO OBTAIN PRODUCTS OF REQUISITE QUALITY IN SUCH CASES, QUALIFICATION OF SPECIFIC PRODUCTS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF BIDS OR THE AWARD OF NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS. TESTING OF A PRODUCT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF A SPECIFICATION IN ADVANCE OF, AND INDEPENDENT OF ANY SPECIFIC PROCUREMENT ACTION, IS KNOWN AS QUALIFICATION TESTING. THE ENTIRE PROCESS BY WHICH PRODUCTS ARE OBTAINED FROM MANUFACTURERS, EXAMINED AND TESTED, AND THEN IDENTIFIED ON A LIST OF QUALIFIED PRODUCTS IS KNOWN AS QUALIFICATION. ESTABLISH A QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST, A SPECIFICATION MUST EXIST WHICH REQUIRES QUALIFICATION AND SETS FORTH THE QUALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS AND TESTS.

101 SIGNIFICANCE OF LISTING ON QPL. THE FACT THAT A PRODUCT HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND TESTED AND PLACED UPON A QPL SIGNIFIES ONLY THAT AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION AND TEST THE MANUFACTURER COULD MAKE A PRODUCT WHICH MET SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. INCLUSION ON A QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST DOES NOT IN ANY WAY RELIEVE THE MANUFACTURER OR DISTRIBUTOR OF HIS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO DELIVER ITEMS MEETING ALL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. NOR DOES THE INCLUSION OF A PRODUCT ON A QPL GUARANTEE ACCEPTABILITY UNDER A CONTRACT SINCE THE PRODUCTS MUST CONFORM TO SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. QUALIFICATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR EITHER IN- PROCESS OR OTHER INSPECTION OR FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES SATISFACTORY TO THE GOVERNMENT.

111 REMOVAL OF A PRODUCT FROM A QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST.

111.1 REASONS FOR REMOVAL. A PRODUCT MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST FOR REASONS CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT, AMONG WHICH ARE THE FOLLOWING:

(A) THE PRODUCT OFFERED UNDER CONTRACT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION.

(B) THE MANUFACTURER HAS DISCONTINUED MANUFACTURE OF THE PRODUCT.

(C) THE MANUFACTURER OR DISTRIBUTOR REQUESTS THAT THE PRODUCT BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST.

(D) THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH QUALIFICATION WAS GRANTED HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.

(E) THE REQUIREMENTS OF A REVISED OR AMENDED SPECIFICATION DIFFER SUFFICIENTLY FROM THE PREVIOUS ISSUE THAT EXISTING TEST DATA ARE NO LONGER APPLICABLE FOR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE OF THE PRODUCT WITH THE SPECIFICATION. (F) THE PRODUCT IS THAT OF A CONTRACTOR, FIRM OR INDIVIDUAL WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE "CONSOLIDATED LIST OF DEBARRED, INELIGIBLE, AND SUSPENDED CONTRACTORS."

(G) FAILURE OF MANUFACTURER TO NOTIFY QUALIFYING ACTIVITY OF DESIGN CHANGE.

A CAREFUL READING OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE QUALIFICATION OF MANUFACTURERS FOR THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST INDICATES THAT QUALIFICATION RELATES TO THE ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT CONCERN TO MANUFACTURE A PARTICULAR PRODUCT ACCORDING TO CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS. THE PLACING OF THE NAME OF A MANUFACTURER ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST CANNOT BE RELIED ON OR USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF A PARTICULAR CONTRACT, EVEN THOUGH THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE SAME AS THOSE USED IN QUALIFICATION TESTS.

ALTHOUGH WE ARE PERSUADED THAT THE QUALIFICATION TOW TARGET HONEYCOMB AND THE PRODUCTION TOW TARGET HONEYCOMB ARE DISSIMILAR AND SERIOUS QUESTIONS ARISE AS A RESULT, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ELLINOR CORPORATION WAS PLACED ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST OF TOW TARGET MANUFACTURERS, AND UNTIL REMOVED THEREFROM, OR UNTIL REQUALIFICATION IS REQUIRED, IS ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT BIDS OR PROPOSALS ON TOW TARGET PROCUREMENTS.

SHOULD IT BE DETERMINED AT ANY TIME THAT THE QUALIFICATION PRODUCT WAS MISREPRESENTED IN ANY WAY, CORRECTIVE ACTION IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER, AND IN A PROPER CASE MAY FORM A BASIS FOR REMOVAL FROM THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST OR FOR PLACEMENT OF THE OFFENDER ON THE DEBARRED BIDDERS LIST. WE DO NOT HAVE TO DECIDE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHETHER THIS WOULD RENDER A CONTRACT AWARD ILLEGAL.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ACTED IN AN IMPROPER MANNER OR THAT HE FAILED TO DISPLAY GOOD JUDGMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE WILL NOT DISTURB THE AWARDS, AND YOUR PROTESTS ARE DENIED.