[Protest of DLA Procurement Procedures]

B-206111.2,B-207243.2,B-207702.2,B-207779.2,B-208006: Mar 16, 1983

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

Two firms filed various protests against Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) procurement procedures which authorize the procurement of foreign-manufactured, specialty metal end products for use by the Department of Defense (DOD). GAO dismissed one of the protests as academic because the rejection by DLA of that protester's bid samples rendered the protester ineligible for award. The other protester argued that the DOD Appropriation Act, 1982, and a GAO decision prohibited DOD activities from purchasing special metal end products which have not been entirely manufactured within the United States or its possessions. DLA contended that it can properly purchase such end products if the specialty metals have been melted domestically, notwithstanding the fact that the end products are manufactured overseas. GAO stated that, in questions of this sort, deference is to be accorded to the interpretation given a statute by the agency charged with its administration, and GAO did not object to the DLA interpretation. In addition, the protester contended that the cancellation of a solicitation because of defective specifications and resolicitation was improper. In this case, GAO found the cancellation and resolicitation to be proper, since the solicitation as issued could have misled bidders to offer unacceptable items. Finally, the protester contended that a solicitation should have warned bidders that the DOD Appropriation Act prohibition against DOD purchase of special metals did not apply to procurements not in excess of $10,000. GAO found no basis for the protester's position in any statutory or regulatory requirement. However, GAO was advised that DLA solicitations now contain this warning. Accordingly, one firm's protests were denied, and the other's protest was dismissed.

Mar 20, 2018

Mar 19, 2018

  • Ampcus, Inc.
    We deny the protest.
  • AMAR Health IT, LLC
    We dismiss the protest because our Office does not have jurisdiction to entertain protests of task orders issued under civilian agency multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts that are valued at less than $10 million.
  • Centurum, Inc.--Costs
    We grant the request.

Mar 15, 2018

  • ORBIS Sibro, Inc.
    We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part.

Mar 14, 2018

Mar 13, 2018

  • Interoperability Clearinghouse
    We dismiss the protest because the protester, a not-for-profit entity, is not an interested party to challenge this sole-source award to an Alaska Native Corporation under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program.
  • Yang Enterprises, Inc.
    We dismiss the protest.

Looking for more? Browse all our products here