TITLE:  Moog Inc., B-294600, November 12, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294600
DATE:  November 12, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Moog Inc.

   File:            B-294600

   Date:              November 12, 2004

   Martin G. Bobak for the protester.

   Victor G. Vogel, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, and John W. Klein,
Esq., and Laura Mann Eyester, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the
agencies.

   Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that solicitation for maintenance and overhaul services of a
flight safety part should not be set aside for exclusive small businesses
participation is denied, where although the protester contends that the
services can only be acquired from approved sources, the procuring agency
states that these services need not be acquired from approved sources and
where the agency has twice previously acquired these services from a small
business concern under acquisitions that were set aside exclusively for
small business participation.

   DECISION

   Moog Inc. protests the decision of the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile
Command (AMCOM) to issue request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAH23-03-R-0668,
for the overhaul and upgrade of UH-60 pitch trim actuators, as a small
business set-aside.  Moog, the original equipment manufacturer of the
actuator, contends that only an approved source may perform the necessary
work, and that the agency lacked a reasonable basis for setting aside the
procurement because no small businesses have been approved to perform the
requirement.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued on June 30, 2004, contemplates the award of a 5-year
indefinitea**delivery/indefinite-quantity fixed-price contract for the
overhaul, recapitulation, and upgrade of UH-60 pitch trim actuators.[1] 
The specifications require the contractor to furnish all services,
facilities, labor, parts, materials, equipment, tools and data to
accomplish the work in accordance with "Depot Maintenance Work
Requirement" (DMWR) 1-1650-385.[2]  See RFP SS C-1 a. and b.

   In addition, the RFP includes "FLIGHT SAFETY PARTS CRITICAL MAINTENANCE
AND OVERHAUL [Quality Engineering Standard] QE-STD-2", which obligates the
contractor to meet certain minimum requirements in performing the overhaul
and maintenance of the actuators because the actuator is a flight safety
part (FSP).[3]  RFP S C-2.  This standard states that "to maintain the
integrity and quality of FSP, components, subassemblies, and assemblies
undergoing [maintenance and overhaul], contractors providing such services
are required to adhere to the requirements of this document in its
entirety."  See QE-STD-2 P 5.0.  The standard lists several specific
requirements and states that "all requirements of this document
(para[graphs] 6.1 --6.7) shall be complied with by a contractor receiving
a contract for [maintenance and overhaul] of FSP."  Those requirements
pertain to planning, audits, critical characteristics, records, personnel,
measurement and test equipment, and government furnished material.

   Moog protests that AMCOM could not properly set aside this procurement for
small businesses, because there are no small business approved sources for
the UH-60 pitch trim actuator.  In this regard, Moog argues that
QEa**STD-2 is a "qualification requirement" that obligates AMCOM to use
only approved sources for maintenance and overhaul of FSPs, such as the
UH-60 pitch trim actuator.  Comments at 2.  Moog bases this argument upon
the fact that this standard includes a definition of "approved source"[4]
and requires that maintenance and overhaul contractors adhere to all the
requirements of QE-STD-2. 

   We disagree that QE-STD-2, as included in the RFP here, is a qualification
requirement that restricts competition under this solicitation to approved
sources.  This standard specifically identifies the requirements that the
maintenance and overhaul contractor must satisfy in performing the
contract work, such as planning and procedures to perform the work,
inspection of critical characteristics, traceability and retention of
records, certification of personnel skills, calibration of test and
measurement equipment, and procedures for handling government furnished
material (if provided).  See QE-STD-2 PP 6.1-6.7.  Source approval is not
among the standard's listed requirements, with which the contractor must
comply, nor does the standard state that maintenance and overhaul
contractors must be source approved to perform this work.[5]

   In addition, AMCOM reports that the agency's current policy is to require
that only manufacturers of the actuator be source approved and that all
sources be permitted to compete for overhaul and maintenance services for
the actuator, where, as here, there is available government-owned
technical data in the form of an approved DMWR to permit competition.  See
Agency Report (AR) at 2, Tab 3, CAPSAR at II (level of competition will
depend upon the availability of government-owned technical data in the
form of an approved DMWR).

   Agencies are permitted to determine how best to accommodate their needs
and are entitled to use relaxed specifications when they reasonably
conclude that they can increase competition and meet their needs at the
same time.  See Lab Prods., Inc., Ba**252452, Mar. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD P
250 at 3.  Our Office generally does not consider contentions that a
solicitation should be more restrictive than what an agency believes is
necessary to meet its needs.  Id. 

   AMCOM indicates that the decision here to set aside the procurement for
exclusive small business participation was made because AMCOM had
successfully procured maintenance and upgrade of the UH-60 actuators as a
small business set-aside on two previous occasions.  On each occasion,
AMCOM received two or more proposals from small businesses, and award was
made to a small business concern.  Thus, AMCOM advises that it made the
decision based on the prior procurement history, which reflected that the
agency could anticipate that offers would be obtained from at least two
responsible small business concerns and that award would be made at a fair
market price.

   Under Federal Acquisition Regulation S 19.502-2(b), a procurement with an
anticipated dollar value of more than $100,000 must be set aside for
exclusive small business participation where there is a reasonable
expectation of receiving offers from at least two responsible small
business concerns and that award will be made at a fair market price.  We
generally will not question a small business set-aside determination,
which is a matter within the contracting officer's business judgment,
where the record shows that that the evidence before the contracting
officer was adequate to support the reasonableness of the conclusion that
small business competition could reasonably be expected.  See National
Linen Serv., B-285458, Aug.A 22, 2000, 2000 CPD P 138 at 2. 

   Moog does not dispute that AMCOM has previously procured this requirement
as a small business set-aside.  Rather, Moog argues that AMCOM erroneously
failed to acquire these services from approved sources.  As noted above,
we find that the RFP does not require source approval to perform these
services.  Moog also argues that the previous performance of these
services by the small business contractor has been deficient.  AMCOM
disputes Moog's allegations and states that the small business has
satisfactorily performed "without having any safety of flight
relateda**problems or other significant quality issues."  See Contracting
Officer's Statement at 2; AR, Tab 16, Letter from AMCOM to Moog (Aug. 19,
2003) at 4.  Although Moog disagrees with the agency's assessment that the
small business satisfactorily performed the overhaul services, its
disagreement provides us with no basis to conclude that no responsible
small business could perform these services.  We find that AMCOM
reasonably determined that it could expect to receive offers from at least
two responsible small business concerns at a fair market price, and
therefore the solicitation was appropriately set aside for exclusive small
business participation.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] The UH-60 pitch trim actuator is a flight control component of the
UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter and is designed to maneuver and stabilize the
helicopter when in flight.  See .

   [2]  A DMWR is an existing maintenance serviceability standard for organic
depot level reparables that prescribes the scope of work to be performed,
types and kinds of materiel to be used, and quality of workmanship,
including repair methods; procedures and techniques; modification
requirements; performance parameters; and quality assurance discipline. 
See Logistics Dictionary, U.S. Army Quartermaster Center and School,
.

   [3] This standard defines an FSP (involving aircraft, components, and
engine) as any part, assembly, or installation containing a critical
characteristic whose failure, malfunction, or absence could cause loss of
or serious damage to the aircraft, and/or serious injury or death to the
occupants.  See RFP S C-2 (QE-STD-2 PA 4.0 a. and b).

   [4] QE-STD-2 defines an approved source as "a manufacturer or vendor who
has satisfied, prior to contract award, all AMCOM source approval
requirements as set forth in the [competition advocate's shopping list
(CASL)] to include, if applicable, engineering testing requirements
(fatigue, endurance, and/or interchangeability)."  QE-STD-2 P 4.0 d.

   [5] Although it is true that QE-STD-2 includes a definition for "approved
source," AMCOM explains that the reason the definition of an approved
source is included in QE-STD-2 is to ensure that "if in the course of
performing the upgrade and overhaul, the contractor performing the
overhaul requires replacement of [an FSP] component, then the component
must be acquired from a manufacture/vendor that is an approved source." 
See AR at 2.