BNUMBER:  B-261673.2
DATE:  December 7, 1995
TITLE:  Astrosystems, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Astrosystems, Inc.

File:     B-261673.2

Date:     December 7, 1995

Brett A. Alcala, Esq., Birnbaum & Umeda, for the protester.
Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., and Mark E. Frazier, Esq., Department of the 
Air Force, for the agency.
Robert Arsenoff, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging agency's determination to qualify awardee as an 
approved source is denied where record shows that the agency's 
determination was reasonably based.

DECISION

Astrosystems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Support Systems 
Associates, Inc. (SSAI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F41608-95-R-0194, issued by the San Antonio Air Logistics Center, 
Department of the Air Force, for services including the repair, 
testing, and calibration of automatic test equipment used on   B-1B 
aircraft.  The protester principally maintains that SSAI was 
improperly approved as a qualified source.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the 
lowest-priced offeror determined to be an approved source for the 
technical services to be performed under the contract, and listed 
Astrosystems as one of two previously approved sources.  Offerors 
which had not been previously approved were invited to submit a source 
approval request (SAR) information package to enable the government to 
determine whether they could meet the government's needs.  The SAR 
package was to contain the following:

     (1) Evidence of capability (e.g.:  brochures, technical 
     information, FAA certification, purchase orders or contract for 
     similar items showing equal or greater degree of difficulty than 
     equipment being considered).

     (2) Company experience and experience of the work force.

     (3) Facilities description.

     (4) Support and test equipment availability.

     (5) Kits and piece parts availability.

     (6) List of current applicable technical orders or commercial 
     literature/manuals and supplements which are available for 
     repair/overhaul.

     (7) Description of Quality Program.

     (8) Safety program for protection of government assets.

     (9) Copy of any warranty which will be provided.[1] 

Four offers were received.  SSAI submitted the lowest offer of 
$1,003,978.13 and Astrosystems submitted the second lowest offer of 
$1,257,617.28.  SSAI submitted a SAR information package which was 
reviewed by agency engineers and approved.  SSAI was awarded a 
contract based on its low price and this protest followed.

As indicated above, Astrosystems principally maintains that the agency 
improperly qualified the awardee as an approved source.  Prior to 
discussing this allegation, however, we address certain of the 
protester's other complaints which are not for review by our Office.

First, Astrosystems challenges the contracting officer's determination 
that the awardee was responsible both in a general context and with 
respect to what the protester asserts are definitive responsibility 
criteria.  Because a determination that an offeror is capable of 
performing a contract is based largely on subjective judgments which 
generally are not susceptible of reasoned review, an affirmative 
determination of responsibility will not be reviewed by our Office 
absent a showing that such determination was made fraudulently or in 
bad faith or that definitive responsibility criteria in the 
solicitation were not met.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  
21.3(m)(5) (1995); Bomem, Inc., B-234652, May 17, 1989, 89-1 CPD  
475.  Astrosystems has not alleged, nor does the record contain any 
suggestion of, fraud or bad faith on the part of the contracting 
activity.  With respect to the protester's presumption that the nine 
quoted information categories of the SAR package constitute definitive 
responsibility criteria, which SSAI allegedly did not meet, 
Astrosystems's argument lacks legal merit.  Information requested in 
an RFP to determine source approval status simply does not constitute 
definitive responsibility criteria--i.e., standards applied by the 
agency for measuring a particular offeror's ability to perform a 
contract.  Advance Gear & Mach. Corp., B-228002, Nov. 25, 1987, 87-2 
CPD  519.  Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is dismissed.

Noting that SSAI mentions a "team member," Southwest Electronics 
Laboratory, Inc., in its SAR package, Astrosystems asserts that the 
Air Force failed to assure that the awardee would perform in 
accordance with RFP amendment No. 0002, which the protester 
characterizes as placing a fixed 10-percent cap on the amount of 
subcontracting permitted.  However, amendment No. 0002 actually 
provides as follows:

     "Intent of this procurement is for on-site repair to the maximum 
     extent possible.  Procurement is envisioned as having one 
     contractor responsible for entire repair effort with very few 
     items being subvendored out.  There [is] less than 10% exceptions 
     to the on-site requirement."

This language does not establish a 10-percent cap on subcontracting; 
rather, it limits the amount of repair work which may be performed 
outside the contractor's premises.  Whether SSAI performs in 
accordance with the limitation is a matter of contract administration, 
which is the responsibility of the contracting agency and not within 
the purview of our Office.  Janke and Co., Inc., B-210776, May 19, 
1983, 83-1 CPD  534.  In any event, in its proposal SSAI specifically 
acknowledged amendment No. 0002 and stated that it took no exceptions 
to the RFP.  Further, in the SAR package, SSAI states that it plans to 
perform all repair work at its own Oklahoma City facility, using its 
"team member" only to perform equipment calibration efforts.  As the 
agency reports, these efforts represent less than 10 percent of the 
contract effort.  Accordingly, the record does not support the 
protester's supposition that the awardee will not perform in 
accordance with the RFP.[2]

We now turn to Astrosystems's principal allegation that SSAI's SAR 
package was inadequate to permit the Air Force to properly conclude 
that the firm was a qualified source and the related allegation that 
the agency waived or relaxed source approval requirements for SSAI.

The contracting agency has the primary responsibility for determining 
its minimum needs and for determining whether a previously unapproved 
source will satisfy those needs, since it must bear the burden of 
difficulties incurred by reason of a defective evaluation.  Chromalloy 
Gas Turbine Corp., supra; Sony Corp. of Am.,    66 Comp. Gen. 286 
(1987), 87-1 CPD  212.  Whether an offeror seeking source approval 
has submitted sufficient information to convince the agency that it 
will meet the agency's minimum needs is essentially a technical 
judgment committed to the agency's discretion, id., which we will not 
disturb unless it is unreasonable.  Service & Sales Inc., B-247673, 
June 29, 1992, 92-1 CPD  545.  A protester's mere disagreement with 
an agency's technical judgment does not render the judgment 
unreasonable and does not provide a legal basis for sustaining a 
protest.  See DBA Sys., Inc., B-241048, Jan. 15, 1991, 91-1 CPD  36.  

Astrosystems's criticisms of the Air Force's conclusions concerning 
the adequacy of SSAI's SAR package fall short of establishing that the 
agency's determination was unreasonable.  At best, the protest 
arguments constitute technical disagreements which do not provide a 
basis for the protester to prevail in this matter. 

For example, Astrosystems questions whether the awardee has 
established its "capability" under the first listed source approval 
standard.  In this regard, the protester asserts that the awardee has 
not performed contracts involving similar items of comparable 
complexity.  The agency notes that SSAI listed six contracts and 
states that an Air Force technical representative familiar with B-1B 
equipment to be repaired contacted the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) concerning the details of SSAI's performance on all six 
contracts.  The technical representative, who was also familiar with 
FAA equipment, concluded that the six identified contract efforts were 
comparable to that required under the RFP.  On the basis of this 
conclusion, SSAI was found to have provided sufficient information to 
establish its capability under this standard.  While Astrosystems 
takes exception to this conclusion and insists that the evaluation 
should have been more extensive, we find nothing in the RFP's 
standards to suggest that the successful performance of six contracts 
of similar complexity is insufficient to establish SSAI's capability.

Likewise, regarding the first listed overall "capability" standard, 
the agency reviewed technical descriptive information on repair 
procedures provided by SSAI in its SAR package and found it to be 
adequately detailed.  Astrosystems argues that the information was 
generic in nature and asserts that the agency essentially waived the 
standard.  The RFP standard merely sets forth technical information as 
one illustrative category of data impacting on capability without 
providing any specific requirements, and Astrosystems's assertion that 
the agency's conclusion is wrong does not provide us with a basis for 
questioning the evaluators' judgment here.

With reference to the second and third listed source approval factors, 
Astrosystems questions whether SSAI has a sufficient number of 
employees and insists that the agency should not have accepted at face 
value, without further investigation, the awardee's statement that its 
7,675 square foot Oklahoma City facility was adequate to perform the 
contract.  The RFP did not set forth specific personnel requirements 
or square footage facility requirements, nor did it require the Air 
Force to conduct a plant facilities survey in conjunction with source 
approval; thus, Astrosystems's objection merely reflects its 
disagreement with the Air Force regarding the significance of the 
information provided by SSAI.  

Finally, Astrosystems complains that SSAI did not submit a complete 
list of current applicable technical orders which are available for 
repair or overhaul as required by the sixth listed source approval 
factor.  The agency points out that SSAI did indicate what technical 
orders it possessed and included a statement that it would order 
supplementary orders as required in the performance of the contract.  
Since SSAI's SAR package also indicated that the firm subscribes to 
the military service which provides such orders, we see no basis for 
questioning the agency's judgment that the awardee satisfied this 
requirement.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States     

1. This is the same information that was considered when the 
protester's SAR was evaluated a year prior to this procurement.  Item 
(5) on the list, concerning kits and piece parts availablitiy, was 
inadvertently included in the instructions and is not relevant to the 
procurement of repair services because electronic parts are readily 
available in the commercial market.  Since the Air Force did not 
measure any offeror's ability to perform against this standard, its 
inadvertent inclusion was not prejudicial.  Moreover, an agency is not 
obligated to use previous qualification standards in future 
procurements if it determines that they are no longer needed to 
measure whether an offeror can meet the agency's needs.  See 
Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., B-234272, May 17, 1989, 89-1 CPD  474.

2. Astrosystems has raised various other nonmeritorious allegations 
which we will not address in detail.  For example, the protester 
claims that the agency's failure to 
execute a justification for a source approval requirement, as required 
by Federal Acquisition Regulation  9.202(a), prior to including the 
requirement in the RFP prejudiced its pricing strategy, arguing, in 
essence, that it could have and would have offered a substantially 
lower price in an unrestricted procurement with a different 
competitive mix of offerors.  The fact of the matter is, however, 
that, notwithstanding the agency's error in not executing the 
justification, the source approval requirement was included in the RFP 
and all offerors competed under the same set of standards.  We 
therefore fail to see how the protester was prejudiced.  Astrosystems 
also asserts that SSAI's failure to complete the inspection and 
acceptance and f.o.b. origin clauses rendered its offer technically 
unacceptable.  In both cases, however, the omissions were waivable as 
minor informalities since SSAI identified its place of performance 
elsewhere in the offer.  Moreover, under Astrosystems's position, its 
own offer would be unacceptable for failure to complete the f.o.b. 
origin clause.