BNUMBER:  B-275961; B-275980 
DATE:  April 22, 1997
TITLE: Matter of:Texstar, Inc. 

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Texstar, Inc.

File:     B-275961; B-275980

Date:April 22, 1997

Gretchen A. Benolken, Esq., Fogle & Benolken, for the protester.
Michael A. Nemeroff, Esq., Sidley & Austin, for Sierracin/Sylmar, an 
intervenor.
Marian Sullivan, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Multiple awardee on two solicitations for aircraft windshields is not 
entitled to award for entire requirement under each contract by virtue 
of its status as a Blue Ribbon Contractor (BRC), where each 
solicitation provided for two awards and solicitations' BRC provisions 
were not intended to entitle any one offeror to more than one of the 
two windshield awards under each solicitation.

DECISION

Texstar, Inc., an awardee under both Department of the Air Force 
request for proposals (RFP) Nos. F41608-96-R-56510 and 
F41608-96-R-56511, for right- and     left-sided A-37/T-37 aircraft 
windshields, protests the award of contracts to Sierracin/Sylmar 
(Sierracin) under the same solicitations. 

We deny the protests.

Both RFPs solicited prices for initial definite and incremental 
indefinite quantities,  and for government-furnished tooling and 
contractor-manufactured tooling.  Further, both RFPs provided for 
"multiple awards for sustaining multiple sources"; two contracts would 
be awarded, consisting of "award of 50 percent of the initial order 
quantity . . . to each one of the two lowest evaluated offerors" and 
award of subsequent delivery orders based on a best value 
determination.[1]  The evaluation for the windshields was to be based 
on a total price developed by multiplying the best estimated quantity 
(BEQ) for each line item by a weighted average unit price offered for 
all increments. 

Additionally, the RFPs provided that "[i]dentification of the lowest 
and next lowest evaluated offerors" would be "subject to" the 
provisions of the Air Force Materiel Command's (AFMC) Blue Ribbon 
Contractor (BRC) program.  See AFMC Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (AFMCFARS) Part 5315.605-90.  This program, which applies 
to spare parts acquisitions, recognizes that among responsible 
contractors "varying degrees of quality and delivery performance exist 
and that award to the lowest evaluated price offeror is not always in 
the best interest of the government."  Id.  When the BRC preference is 
used, an agency may select the BRC offeror over a lower-priced, 
non-BRC offeror after considering the price differential.  Id.   

The agency received two offers--from Texstar and Sierracin--under each 
RFP.  Once the agency determined both proposals were acceptable, it 
awarded each firm contracts under both solicitations; Texstar's 
evaluated contract price for the windshields was [deleted] and 
Sierracin's $1,085,088.  In addition, under line item No. 0004 in both 
RFPs, for contractor-furnished tooling, the agency made award to 
Sierracin based on its low price of $45,660; Texstar offered 
[deleted].[2]     

Texstar argues that the evaluation of Sierracin's proposals was 
defective, and that the windshield awards to Sierracin at prices 
higher than the protester's were not in the government's best 
interest.  In particular, the protester contends that it should have 
been awarded the Sierracin contracts based on its status as a BRC. 

Texstar's status as a BRC did not entitle it to award for the entire 
requirement under each contract.  While the BRC provisions in the RFPs 
refer to one award and award to the lowest-priced BRC offeror if low 
overall, they do not purport to override the RFPs' multiple award 
provisions; indeed, the agency's intention to make two awards under 
each RFP was reiterated in amendment No. 0002.  Reading the RFPs as a 
whole, then, we think it is clear that, while the BRC provisions could 
be applied in determining which offeror was entitled to each of the 
two awards under each RFP,[3] those provisions were not intended to 
entitle any one offeror to more than one of the two windshield awards 
under each RFP.

Texstar further contends that the agency improperly made a single 
award of the contractor-furnished tooling item to Sierracin, since it 
believed the agency would purchase two sets of tooling (one under each 
contract).  While it was not clear from the RFPs that a single set of 
tooling would be purchased based on low price, a June 10, 1996 letter 
from the agency to Texstar stated that a "[not separately priced] 
proposal from Texstar on CLIN [No.] 0004 would not permit competitive 
evaluation and would most likely be determined to be non-responsive," 
and that it therefore "would be appropriate for Texstar to offer a 
price to produce a complete set of duplicate tooling."  It should have 
been clear to Texstar from this correspondence that the agency would 
not automatically purchase contractor tooling as part of the 
windshield requirement (the RFPs nowhere indicated that this was the 
agency's intent) but, rather, would conduct a "competitive evaluation" 
of the prices offered.  This is what the agency did.  In any case, we 
fail to see how Texstar was competitively prejudiced; since prices 
were submitted under the threat of competition, there is no reason to 
believe--indeed, Texstar does not even argue--  that Texstar would 
have structured or priced its proposal differently, to its competitive 
advantage, had it been aware that only a single set of tooling would 
be purchased.  Lithos Restoration, Ltd., 71 Comp. Gen. 367, 371 
(1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  379, at 5 (prejudice is an essential element of a 
viable protest).

The protests are denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. In this regard, the RFPs specifically provided that "[t]he purpose 
of this contractual vehicle is to allow for the independent 
manufacture of the subject items in order to help maintain presently 
qualified sources and to possibly assist in expanding the industrial 
base with new manufactured tooling as required."  Amendment No. 0002 
reiterated that "only 50 percent of the initial order quantity will be 
awarded to each successful offeror."   

2. The agency made no award for government-furnished tooling, line 
items No. 0003.  Apparently, the government-furnished tooling listed 
in the solicitation was not actually necessary for production of the 
windshields. 

3. Neither the RFP language nor the underlying regulations require an 
award under the BRC program; they merely permit it.  See Hi-Shear 
Tech. Corp.--Recon., B-261206.2, Feb. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  63, at 2.