TITLE: B-297516, Space-Lok, Inc., January 25, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297516
DATE: January 25, 2006
*******************************************
B-297516, Space-Lok, Inc., January 25, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Space-Lok, Inc.

   File: B-297516

   Date: January 25, 2006

   Jeffrey W. Wade for the protester.

   Marc L. Peterson, Esq., and Philip F. Eckert, Jr., Esq., Defense Logistics
   Agency, for the agency.

   Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protest that 210-day delivery requirement was not a proper basis for
   issuing purchase order to another vendor--because it was not specified in
   solicitation and because agency's delays in evaluating quotations and
   issuing purchase order demonstrate that there was no need for delivery
   within that time--is denied; 210-day delivery requirement specified in
   synopsis effectively amended solicitation, and agency's delays did not
   negate clearly stated delivery requirement.

   2. Protest that awardee will not be able to meet delivery
   requirement--evidenced by fact that manufacturer of its quoted items
   submitted quotation that did not meet the delivery requirement--is denied
   where agency reasonably investigated matter and concluded that awardee
   could meet requirement.

   DECISION

   Space-Lok, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order to UFC Aerospace
   under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP0540-05-Q-9679, issued by the
   Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center, Philadelphia
   (DSCP), for self-locking barrel nuts, national stock number (NSN)
   5310-01-524-8065, used in the maintenance, overhaul, and repair of U.S.
   Army AH-64 Apache helicopters. Space-Lok argues that DSCP improperly made
   award based on a 210-day delivery schedule, and that UFS cannot meet this
   schedule.

   We deny the protest.

   The solicitation, issued using simplified acquisition procedures on
   February 28, 2005, requested quotations for 11,408 barrel nuts, which are
   one component of a 3-component nut, bolt, retainer system used to attach
   pylons to the wings of Apache helicopters. The barrel nuts were to be
   delivered within 90 days. The RFQ provided for award to the vendor whose
   quotation represented the "best value" to the agency based on price and
   past performance, which were equally weighted. The past performance
   evaluation was to be based on vendors' scores under DLA's Automated Best
   Value System (ABVS), which scores reflect firms' performance history.

   All initial quotations received were in excess of the $100,000 simplified
   acquisition threshold and exceeded the specified 90-day delivery.[1] The
   agency therefore abandoned the simplified acquisition approach at this
   juncture with the intent "to enter into a two-party, negotiated contract
   under [Federal Acquisition Regulation] FAR Part 15." AR at 4. The agency
   did not reissue the RFQ but "used the original RFQ as a tool for purposes
   of an oral solicitation" and issued a synopsis on August 10, which set
   forth a 210-day delivery and requested revised quotations by August 12.[2]
   Id.

   Four revised quotations were received, one from each of the two approved
   manufacturing sources--Space-Lok and SPS Technologies--and two from
   distributors, including UFC. All four quotations were determined to be in
   the competitive range and negotiations were conducted with all four
   vendors. Space-Lok quoted the lowest price but did not propose to supply
   any of the 11,408 barrel nuts within the 210-day delivery. Indeed, after
   discussions, Space-Lok actually increased the length of delivery, quoting
   3,000 barrel nuts in 406 days, an additional 3,000 in 434 days, another
   3,000 in 462 days, and the remaining 2,408 in 490 days, the longest
   delivery of the four vendors. Id. UFC, a distributor, quoted the
   second-lowest price and indicated that it would supply all 11,408 barrel
   nuts (purchased from SPS) within 190 days. SPS quoted the third-lowest
   price, and indicated that it could supply a portion of the requirement
   within 210 days and the remainder a short time later. The fourth vendor's
   price was considered too high and its delivery did not meet the 210-day
   requirement. The agency determined that UFC's quotation represented the
   best value, because UFC was "the only contractor that meets our required
   delivery."[3] AR at 6.

   Space-Lok principally questions the agency's use of the 210-day delivery
   requirement as a basis for issuing the purchase order to UFC, asserting
   that the 210-day requirement was not stated in the solicitation and, in
   any case, did not represent the agency's needs, as evidenced by the
   agency's delays in evaluating the quotations and issuing the purchase
   order. In this latter regard, the protester stated a 150-day delivery in
   its initial quotation and contends that, had the agency timely evaluated
   the initial quotations, it would have been issued the purchase order.

   Although the protester is correct that the 210-day delivery requirement
   was not stated in the solicitation, it was set forth in the August 10
   synopsis issued following the change from the original simplified
   acquisition. Information disseminated during the course of a procurement
   that is in writing, signed by the contracting officer and provided to all
   vendors, meets all the essential elements of an amendment and--even where
   not designated as an amendment--is sufficient to operate as such.
   Linguistic Sys., Inc., B-296221, June 1, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 104 at 2.
   The August 10 synopsis met this standard, since it was issued in writing
   and posted and available to all vendors on the Federal Business
   Opportunities website. The synopsis thus became part of the solicitation,
   and it follows that the information in the synopsis was sufficient to
   establish, and to put Space-Lok on notice of, the 210-day delivery
   requirement.[4] Id.

   The protester's argument that the agency unduly delayed the procurement
   and that Space-Lok would have been issued the purchase order if the agency
   had timely evaluated quotations is without merit. An agency's delay in
   meeting procurement milestones is a procedural deficiency that does not
   provide a valid basis of protest, since it has no effect on the validity
   of the procurement. Dismas Charities, B-291868, Apr. 23, 2003, 2003 CPD
   para. 98 at 4 n.2; Trim-Flite, Inc., B-229926.4, July 28, 1988, 88-2 CPD
   para. 124 at 2. In any event, Space-Lok's protest regarding the delays is
   untimely. Our Bid Protest Regulations provide that protests based on
   alleged apparent improprieties in a solicitation must be filed before the
   closing date for receipt of quotations or, if the solicitation is amended,
   as here, before the amended closing date. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1)
   (2005). Thus, to be timely, Space-Lok had to protest the allegedly
   unwarranted delays no later than the last extended quotation closing date,
   or August 12. Because Space-Lok proceeded through the procurement process
   and never questioned the delays until November 28 (in its response to the
   agency's motion to dismiss its protest), this aspect of the protest is
   untimely.[5]

   Space-Lok asserts that UFC cannot meet the 210-day delivery, reasoning
   that, if SPS, UFC's manufacturer cannot meet the requirement, there is no
   reason to believe that UFC can.

   The agency's determination that UFC is able to perform by the required
   delivery date is an affirmative determination of UFC's responsibility,
   which, because the determination that a particular vendor is capable of
   performing under a purchase order is largely committed to the contracting
   officer's discretion, we will review only under limited exceptions. 4
   C.F.R. sect. 21.5(c). Relevant here, one exception is where a protest
   identifies evidence raising serious concerns that, in reaching a
   particular responsibility determination, the contracting officer
   unreasonably failed to consider available relevant information or
   otherwise violated statute or regulation. Id.

   Even assuming that Space-Lok's argument falls within the above exception,
   the agency's affirmative determination of responsibility was
   unobjectionable; the record shows that the contracting officer and the
   buyer made reasonable inquiries to determine how UFC could perform at
   better price and delivery terms than were quoted by SPS, its manufacturer.
   In this regard, the agency determined that "high volume distributors such
   as UFC often receive price discounts from manufacturers, which they are
   able to pass on to their customer (the Government)." Agency Report at 8.
   The agency further determined that "[i]t is quite common for distributors
   such as UFC to do their own packaging . . . which enables them to both
   deliver more quickly and less expensively than if it had been performed by
   the manufacturer. . . ." Id. DLA went on to note that, under the contract
   here, UFC would package the barrel nuts at its Bay Shore, New York
   location. Finally, the agency noted that SPS's and UFC's different quoted
   terms could reflect the fact that different SPS sales representatives were
   involved in handling SPS's own quote and UFC's quote. The contracting
   officer was satisfied that this information explained UFC's ability, as a
   distributor, to quote slightly better price and delivery terms than its
   manufacturer. Id. Space-Lok does not rebut the agency's position, and we
   find no basis to question it.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The agency explains that its initial price estimate was based upon
   erroneous Defense Logistics Information Service (DLIS) data that provided
   an estimated acquisition unit cost of $4.30 for each barrel nut, resulting
   in an estimated price of $49,054.40 for the 11,408 required barrel nuts.
   Agency Report (AR) at 4; AR, DLIS Data, Enclosure 8, at 1.

   [2] Other than the matters discussed in this decision, the agency's
   procurement approach was not protested, and we therefore do not address
   it.

   [3] Although it has no impact on our decision, we note that, while the
   quoted language indicates that the agency viewed the 210-day delivery as a
   requirement, the agency did not reject any proposal for failure to meet
   that timeframe.

   [4] In any case, we note that the protester does not assert that it was
   unaware of the amended delivery requirement (its submission of a revised
   quotation by the revised date set forth in the synopsis indicates that it
   was aware of the amended requirement) or that, had the solicitation been
   amended in some different manner, it would have quoted based on a 210-day
   delivery. It thus is not clear how Space-Lok was competitively prejudiced
   by the way in which the delivery requirement was announced. See United
   Valve Co., B-295879, Apr. 25, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 85 at 3-4. Likewise,
   since the 210-day requirement represented a relaxation of the original
   90-day delivery requirement, which Space-Lok did not meet in its initial
   quotation, invalidating the 210-day requirement would not put Space-Lok in
   a better competitive position.

   [5] The protester also contends its ABVS score should only have been used
   for comparison to other manufacturers, not to distributors. However, the
   RFQ clearly stated that the agency intended to use ABVS scores to evaluate
   all vendors' past performance. Thus, in order to be timely, this
   allegation had to be raised prior to the closing time. 4 C.F.R. sect.
   21.2(a)(1). Because Space-Lok did not protest until after award, this
   protest basis is untimely and will not be considered.