TITLE:  Hill Aerospace & Defense, LLC, B-285917, October 23, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285917
DATE:  October 23, 2000
**********************************************************************
Hill Aerospace & Defense, LLC, B-285917, October 23, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Hill Aerospace & Defense, LLC

File: B-285917

Date: October 23, 2000

John J. Fausti, Esq., for the protester.

Maj. Cynthia M. Mabry, U.S. Army Materiel Command; and Brian E. Toland,
Esq., U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, for the agencies.

Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably rejected protester's proposal to furnish unused government
surplus parts where items being acquired were critical flight safety parts
and protester failed to provide information (serial numbers) necessary to
verify the quality of the items being offered.

DECISION

Hill Aerospace & Defense, LLC protests the award of a contract to SIFCO
Custom Machine, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAH23-00-R-0502,
issued by the Department of the Army for quantities of seven flight critical
spare parts for the T-53 engines used in the UH-1 Helicopter fleet. Hill
maintains that the agency improperly made award to SIFCO for one of the
parts being solicited, since Hill's price was low. [1]

We deny the protest.

Because the parts being acquired are critical flight safety parts, the
acquisition was limited to approved sources. The RFP did provide, however,
that the agency would consider offers of former government surplus property,
provided the offeror supplied detailed information relating to the
manufacturer of the parts, and to how the offeror obtained the parts. RFP at
70-73. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to
offer the government the best overall value considering price (the most
important factor) and past performance. RFP at 78.

Hill advised in its proposal that, for several of the parts, including the
one in issue, it could provide government surplus parts in new and unused
condition. Hill offered the lowest overall price for the part in question.
Source Selection Decision Document at 4. However, Hill provided none of the
information required under the terms of the RFP to demonstrate the source
and condition of the surplus parts it was offering, stating instead that it
was willing to supply manufacturer and contract information if requested.
Hill Proposal Cover Letter 2 (May 4, 2000). Thereafter, the agency and Hill
engaged in a series of correspondence, with the agency requesting various
information and documentation, and Hill supplying some--but not all--of the
requested information.

Among the information the agency asked Hill to provide were the serial
numbers of the surplus parts it proposed to furnish. Hill provided a sample
copy of a tag from one of the parts it intended to furnish, but failed to
provide the serial numbers for all of the parts. Hill asserts in its protest
that the requirement for this information was onerous and unreasonable.
According to the protester, it already had provided more than adequate
information (including the contract number under which the parts had been
manufactured, the manufacturer's commercial and government entity (CAGE)
code and the contract number under which Hill had purchased the parts from
the government). Hill maintains that the agency could have accepted the
serial number information after award.

It clearly was proper for the agency to decline to consider Hill's offered
surplus parts based on Hill's failure to provide the required information.
The agency explains that the serial numbers (as opposed to the contract
numbers under which the parts were originally manufactured) are vital
information because they enable the agency's quality assurance activity to
determine whether the specific surplus parts being offered were subject to
any quality deficiency reports. The agency states that it maintains a
quality tracking system for critical flight safety parts that are
serialized, and that this system can be used to determine whether the
specific parts (or manufacturing lots) in question have been the subject of
a quality deficiency report; in essence, the agency uses this information to
determine whether the parts are acceptable prior to entering into a contract
with a firm offering previously owned government surplus property.
Contracting Officer's Supplemental Statement at 1. Given the critical flight
safety nature of these parts, we think the agency could reasonably require
the serial numbers to satisfy itself that the actual parts being offered
were free from quality deficiencies prior to awarding a contract to Hill,
rather than waiting until after award as Hill suggests. [2]

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

Acting General Counsel

Notes

1. Hill originally filed two protests in connection with the agency's
acquisition under this solicitation, one against the award of a contract to
SIFCO for three of the seven parts being purchased, and another protesting
the award of a contract to Dynatech International Corporation for two other
parts. After receiving the agency's report in response to the protests, Hill
withdrew its protests with respect to all of the parts except one, part No.
1-100-063-05, awarded to SIFCO.

2. In any case, Hill's objection to the requirement for serial numbers
appears untimely. The solicitation specifically required firms proposing to
furnish government surplus parts to indicate whether or not the proposed
parts included serial numbers and, if so, to provide the information. RFP at
72. Since the requirement that serial numbers be provided was included in
the RFP, Hill was required under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect.
21.2(a)(1) (2000), to raise its objection prior to the deadline set for
submitting offers. Id. Since Hill did not contest this aspect of the
solicitation prior to submitting its proposal, its protest in this regard is
untimely.