TITLE: B-298993, Gear Wizzard, Inc., January 11, 2007
BNUMBER: B-298993
DATE: January 11, 2007
**********************************************
B-298993, Gear Wizzard, Inc., January 11, 2007

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
   The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
   Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

   Decision

   Matter of: Gear Wizzard, Inc.

   File: B-298993

   Date: January 11, 2007

   Kirk J. McCormick, Esq., Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP, for the
   protester.

   Gail L. Booth, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.

   Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that agency improperly rejected protester's proposal for failure
   to meet approved source requirement is denied where, although protester
   proposed the part of an approved source, additional information developed
   by agency showed that part was to be manufactured by [DELETED] that was
   not contemplated by agency's source approval.

   DECISION

   Gear Wizzard, Inc. (GWI) protests the award of a contract to Ruta
   Supplies, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0750-06-R-4369,
   issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center
   Columbus, for propeller shafts. GWI asserts that the agency improperly
   rejected its proposal for failure to meet an approved source requirement.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued on July 26, 2006, sought proposals for propeller shafts
   with a universal joint, which were identified by national stock number
   2520-01-459-0050 and were further identified in a drawing attached to the
   RFP. Vendors were informed that the propeller shafts were a "critical
   application item," and that the cited drawing was a source controlled
   drawing. There were two approved sources--AM General, Inc. and Dana
   Corporation--and the solicitation identified the commercial and government
   entity (CAGE) code associated with each firm's item, as well as each
   firm's part number.

   GWI timely submitted a proposal, offering to provide the Dana part. The
   contracting officer subsequently determined that GWI intended to have the
   offered Dana part manufactured by [DELTED], which was not a Dana facility
   associated with the CAGE code. The agency, therefore, rejected GWI's
   proposal as unacceptable and made award to Ruta.

   GWI asserts that rejection of its proposal was improper, since it proposed
   the proper Dana part, manufactured by [DELETED]. GWI concludes that it was
   entitled to award as the lowest-priced offeror.

   Clearly stated RFP requirements are considered material to the needs of
   the government, and a proposal that fails to conform to such material
   terms is unacceptable and may not form the basis for award. National
   Shower Express, Inc.; Rickaby Fire Support, B-293970, B-293970.2, July 15,
   2004, 2004 CPD para. 140 at 4-5.

   The agency's rejection of GWI's proposal was unobjectionable. DLA
   explains, citing Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement sect.
   204.7201, that a CAGE code is a "contractor identification code" assigned
   to a contractor's name and address, so as to avoid any confusion regarding
   the entity identified. Letter from DLA to GAO, Dec. 15, 2006, at 1. CAGE
   codes are assigned to discrete business entities for a variety of purposes
   (e.g., facility clearances and pre-award surveys) to dispositively
   establish the identity of a legal entity for contractual purposes. See
   Perini/Jones, Joint Venture, B-285906, Nov. 1, 2000, 2002 CPD para. 68 at
   5.

   Here, the RFP included a CAGE code for Dana's part that identified the
   manufacturing entity as "Dana Corp. Spicer Universal Joint Div.," at an
   address in Holland, Ohio.[1] The agency states, and GWI does not dispute,
   that GWI's proposed parts were to be manufactured by [DELTED], not by
   Dana's Spicer Universal Joint Division in Holland, Ohio, and Dana has
   advised the agency that it is not aware of any approved sites to
   manufacture this part outside the United States. Agency Motion to Dismiss,
   exh. 2, at 2. The agency advises that [DELETED] is not included under the
   specified CAGE code; as a foreign entity, it would be assigned a different
   code, specifically, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization commercial and
   government entity code. Thus, while GWI appears to be proposing the
   specified Dana part, the information subsequently developed by the agency
   indicates that the part would be manufactured by [DELETED] that was not
   contemplated by the agency's source approval. We think this was a
   legitimate and reasonable basis for the agency's action here, that is,
   rejecting GWI's proposal as unacceptable.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] This information was obtained from the "Search Now!" link on the
   Defense Logistics Information Service, Commercial and Government Entity
   (CAGE), website found at http://www.dlis.dla.mil/cage_welcome.asp. The
   "Search Now!" link leads to another website,
   https://www.bpn.gov/bincs/begin_search.asp, that allows one to search for
   company information by CAGE code.