[Protest of Army Contract Award for Helicopter Parts]

A firm protested an Army contract award for helicopter parts, contending that the: (1) Army failed to determine whether the awardee was properly qualified or approved before award; (2) Army improperly relied on the qualifications of the awardee's predecessor in evaluating its proposal; (3) Army should have reevaluated the awardee's qualifications, since the awardee's ownership and production location had changed; and (4) awardee's part did not comply with the solicitation's specifications. GAO held that the: (1) Army properly approved the awardee as a qualified source, since the part that the awardee manufactured was the same as the part that its predecessor had manufactured; (2) Army was not required to reevaluate the qualifications of the awardee, since the part met with the solicitation's criteria; and (3) awardee's first article test results submitted with its offer demonstrated that it complied with the solicitation's specifications. Accordingly, the protest was denied.