Skip to Highlights
Highlights

WHILE GAO WILL NOT OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY. THE REPORT STATES THAT THE RESULTS OF THE REVIEW SHOW THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPETITIVE TECHNICAL PACKAGE FOR THE ITEMS IS NOT WARRANTED CONSIDERING THE LOW COST AND PROJECTED REQUIREMENTS OF THE ITEMS. OUR CONCURRENCE IS REQUESTED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION OF YOUR DEPARTMENT TO IDENTIFY THE DRAWING FOR THIS ITEM AS SOURCE CONTROLLED AND PROCURE FUTURE REQUIREMENTS ON A SOLE SOURCE BASIS FROM AEROQUIP CORPORATION. SINCE TESTING COSTS ARE TO BE BORNE BY PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS UNDER THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS PROCEDURE. WE BELIEVE THE DESIRABILITY OF PLACING THE SUBJECT PRODUCT ON A QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LISTING SHOULD BE EXAMINED BEFORE ANY SOLE SOURCE AWARDS TO AEROQUIP ARE MADE FOR FUTURE NEEDS.

View Decision

B-174482, AUG 3, 1972

PROCUREMENT PRACTICES - SOLE SOURCE V. QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST DECISION REGARDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY NOT TO DEVELOP COMPETITIVE SPECIFICATIONS FOR BELLOWS ASSEMBLIES, BUT TO IDENTIFY THE ITEM AS SOURCE CONTROLLED AND TO PROCURE FUTURE REQUIREMENTS ON A SOLE SOURCE BASIS FROM AEROQUIP CORPORATION. WHILE GAO WILL NOT OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY, THE COMP. GEN. DOES BELIEVE THE DESIRABILITY OF PLACING THE SUBJECT PRODUCT ON A QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BEFORE MAKING ANY FUTURE SOLE SOURCE AWARDS TO AEROQUIP.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

WE REFER TO A REPORT, DATED JUNE 15, 1972, FROM THE DEPUTY FOR MATERIEL ACQUISITION IN RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN OUR LETTER (B- 174482, MARCH 24, 1972) TO YOUR DEPARTMENT THAT THE ARMY MISSILE COMMAND, REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA, REEXAMINE THE QUESTION OF THE PROPOSED DESIRABILITY OF DEVELOPING COMPETITIVE SPECIFICATIONS FOR BELLOWS ASSEMBLIES.

THE REPORT STATES THAT THE RESULTS OF THE REVIEW SHOW THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPETITIVE TECHNICAL PACKAGE FOR THE ITEMS IS NOT WARRANTED CONSIDERING THE LOW COST AND PROJECTED REQUIREMENTS OF THE ITEMS. ACCORDINGLY, OUR CONCURRENCE IS REQUESTED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION OF YOUR DEPARTMENT TO IDENTIFY THE DRAWING FOR THIS ITEM AS SOURCE CONTROLLED AND PROCURE FUTURE REQUIREMENTS ON A SOLE SOURCE BASIS FROM AEROQUIP CORPORATION.

ALTHOUGH WE CANNOT OBJECT TO YOUR DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY FOR THE SUBJECT ITEM WE NOTE THAT THE COST OF TESTING REPRESENTS THE MAJOR FACTOR IN YOUR DECISION NOT TO DEVELOP A TECHNICAL PACKAGE FOR COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT. IN VIEW THEREOF, AND SINCE TESTING COSTS ARE TO BE BORNE BY PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS UNDER THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS PROCEDURE, WE BELIEVE THE DESIRABILITY OF PLACING THE SUBJECT PRODUCT ON A QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LISTING SHOULD BE EXAMINED BEFORE ANY SOLE SOURCE AWARDS TO AEROQUIP ARE MADE FOR FUTURE NEEDS.

WE WILL, OF COURSE, BE GLAD TO CONSIDER THE MATTER FURTHER UPON YOUR COMPLETION OF SUCH EXAMINATION.

GAO Contacts