TITLE: B-400088; B-400089, Advanced Seal Technology, Inc., July 14, 2008
BNUMBER: B-400088; B-400089
DATE: July 14, 2008
*****************************************************************
B-400088; B-400089, Advanced Seal Technology, Inc., July 14, 2008

   Decision

   Matter of: Advanced Seal Technology, Inc.

   File: B-400088; B-400089

   Date: July 14, 2008

   Thomas C. Doepker for the protester.
   Richard Ferguson, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
   Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protests challenging agency's decision to proceed with procurements for an
   item requiring source approval on the basis that the protester was
   deprived of a reasonable opportunity to requalify its alternate item is
   denied where the protester was notified of its removal as an approved
   source and the reasons for the removal before the challenged solicitations
   were issued; contracting agency need not delay a proposed procurement
   while a vendor pursues qualification of its product.

   DECISION

   Advanced Seal Technology, Inc. (AST) protests the issuance of an order to
   another vendor under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPM7M3-08-T-7834,
   and the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPM7M1-08-U-C373, issued
   by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center-Columbus
   (DSCC) for mechanical seals, National Stock Number (NSN) 4320-01-279-2321
   (NSN 2321).

   We deny the protests.

   BACKGROUND

   NSN 2321 is a critical application item, thus, a designated Engineering
   Support Activity (ESA) is required to approve all sources.[1] DLA
   Instruction 3200.1. In this case, the Naval Surface Warfare Center,
   Carderock Division is the ESA responsible for approval.

   AST is a manufacturer of mechanical seals and is involved in
   government-sponsored efforts to reverse engineer certain items of supply,
   to provide competition in procurements where the original equipment
   manufacturers (OEM) have refused to share technical information. AST has
   reverse engineered an alternate item for NSN 2321, which was approved by
   the ESA in March 2005.

   In May 2007, AST filed a protest with our Office, challenging DSCC's
   failure to include AST on the list of approved sources in an RFQ for a
   smaller version of NSN 2321, NSN 4320-01-276-0822 (NSN 0822). Through that
   protest it became clear that DSCC had failed to properly complete a first
   article test of AST's alternate item for NSN 0822 during a prior
   procurement. Therefore, in settlement of that protest, DSCC agreed to
   suspend procurement of NSN 0822 until AST's alternate item was subjected
   to an installation test.

   According to the agency, in June 2007, during the effort to installation
   test AST's alternate item for NSN 0822, the ESA's pump shop did not have a
   pump requiring an NSN 0822 seal but did have a pump requiring an NSN 2321
   seal, and had AST's alternate item for NSN 2321 on hand. As the NSN 0822
   and NSN 2321 seals were nearly identical, the ESA attempted to install an
   NSN 2321 seal as a preliminary evaluation of AST's NSN 0822 design. Agency
   Report (AR), Tab 4, ESA Email, June 13, 2007; Tab 6, DSCC Email, July 12,
   2007.

   The agency states that, when the AST NSN 2321 seal was installed in the
   appropriate pump, it interfered with the pump casing and was found to have
   been machined too large. AR, Tab 4, ESA Email, June 13, 2007. When
   compared to the OEM seal, there were visible differences. Id. Also, in
   early October, DSCC received a Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR)
   for two NSN 2321 seals supplied by AST. AR, Tab 5, PDQR. The PQDR
   indicated that the AST seals were of an incorrect shape and could not be
   utilized for their intended purpose. Id. On the basis of the PDQR and the
   ESA pump shop's problems installing the NSN 2321 seal, DSCC made the
   decision to remove AST from the list of approved sources of NSN 2321 on
   December 18. AR, Contracting Officer's Report, at 2; Tab 6, DSCC Email,
   May 8, 2008. Unfortunately, DSCC failed to inform AST that its approval
   had been revoked at that time.

   According to AST, it did not become aware that there were any problems
   with its alternate item for NSN 2321 until January 17, 2008, when DSCC
   issued an RFQ for NSN 2321 and an agency employee contacted AST to explain
   that AST was not listed as an approved source. Protest at 2. DSCC believes
   that AST learned that it had been removed as an approved source at an
   earlier date, as evidenced by AST's submission of a revised Source
   Approval Request on January 8. AR, Contracting Officer's Report, at 3.

   AST filed an agency-level protest of the January 17 RFQ and of an earlier
   issued order for NSN 2321 on January 21, asserting that it had been
   improperly removed as an approved source without notice or opportunity to
   respond. DSCC sustained AST's protests on February 26, acknowledging that
   AST had not been promptly notified of the revocation of its approval as a
   source for NSN 2321. On the same date, DSCC forwarded AST a formal notice
   of AST's removal as an approved source for NSN 2321, which included a
   summary of the results of the June installation of AST's alternate item at
   the ESA's pump shop, and set forth instructions for requalification. AR,
   Tab 7, Notification, at 2.

   On March 3, DSCC issued the RFQs challenged here, neither of which listed
   AST as an approved source. As a result, AST filed agency-level protests of
   the RFQs, arguing that procurement of NSN 2321 should be suspended until
   AST had an opportunity to view the engineering documents that describe the
   problem with its alternate item and make the necessary revisions to be
   included as an approved source on the RFQs. While considering AST's
   protests, on April 1, DSCC notified AST that its January 8 revised SAR for
   NSN 2321 was insufficient and that AST would need to perform further
   testing. DSCC then denied AST's agency-level protests on April 4. AST
   subsequently filed two protests with our Office, challenging the denial of
   its protests at the agency level.[2]

   ANALYSIS

   In its protests here AST argues that its ability to attain prompt
   requalification of its product has been hampered by the agency's failure
   to promptly notify it of the revocation of its source approval and
   immediately provide technical information related to the revocation, as
   well as by the agency's proposed 180-day timetable for the review of
   revisions to AST's alternate item. AST requests that all procurements of
   NSN 2321 be suspended until AST can become requalified. DSCC responds that
   its decision to proceed with the procurement of NSN 2321 was not improper
   where AST was notified that it had been removed as an approved source
   before the challenged RFQs were issued, and DSCC is not required to--and,
   in view of its needs for the part, cannot--delay the procurement of NSN
   2321 while AST pursues the requalification of its alternate item.

   The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) requires that an agency
   obtain "full and open" competition in its procurements through the use of
   competitive procedures. 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304(a)(1)(A) (2000). Accordingly,
   when a contracting agency restricts contract award to an approved product
   and imposes a qualification requirement, it must give nonapproved sources
   a reasonable opportunity to qualify. Newguard Indus., Inc., B-257052, Aug.
   11, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 70 at 2. This opportunity to qualify includes
   providing offerors a prompt opportunity to demonstrate their qualification
   and ensuring that the offeror is promptly informed as to whether
   qualification has been attained and, if not, promptly furnishing specific
   information why qualification was not attained. 10 U.S.C. sect.
   2319(b)(6); FAR sect. 9.202(a)(2)(ii), (4).

   DSCC sustained AST's earlier agency-level protests on the basis that DSCC
   had failed to promptly inform AST of its removal as an approved source and
   of the reasons for that removal, thereby denying AST a prompt opportunity
   to qualify in connection with the earlier-issued RFQs. Those facts are not
   repeated in the current protests. Here, AST had notice that it had been
   removed as an approved source by January 17, and was formally notified and
   given specific information as to why it had been removed on February
   26.[3] Therefore, because AST had the notice and information necessary to
   undertake requalification before the RFQs were issued on March 3, we see
   no basis to conclude that DSCC denied AST a reasonable opportunity to
   qualify its alternate item in connection with the currently challenged
   RFQs.

   AST also argues that DSCC has denied AST a prompt opportunity to
   demonstrate its qualification by suggesting a 180-day review process for
   revisions to AST's alternate item. The 180-day time period is derived from
   the ESA's Source Approval Information Brochure, which states that "within
   180 days of a SAR being prioritized for review, the contractor shall be
   advised of the approval or disapproval thereof, or if additional time is
   required to process the request, the date on which approval or disapproval
   will be provided." Source Approval Information Brochure at 13. AST has not
   explained why that time period is unreasonable other than to cite its
   previous experiences in which review has occurred more rapidly, and on the
   record here we see no basis on which to find that the 180-day review
   period violates the prompt opportunity requirement in 10 U.S.C. sect.
   2319(b)(6). Further, we note that AST's seal failed to qualify previously,
   and therefore AST's alternate item must be evaluated again.

   With regard to whether DSCC must delay or suspend procurement of NSN 2321
   in order to allow AST to requalify, a potential offeror may not be denied
   the opportunity to submit and have considered an offer for a contract
   solely because the potential offeror is not an approved source, if the
   potential offeror can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the contracting
   officer or ESA that the potential offeror or its product can meet the
   standards of qualification before the date specified for award. 10 U.S.C.
   sect. 2319(c)(3). However, there is no statutory requirement that an
   agency delay a procurement in order to provide an offeror an opportunity
   to demonstrate its ability to become qualified. 10 U.S.C. sect.
   2319(c)(5); Marc Ave. Corp., B-261968.2,Jan. 11, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 79
   at 3. Accordingly, we agree with DSCC that it has no obligation to suspend
   its procurements of NSN 2321 here.[4]

   The protests are denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] A critical application item is an item the failure of which could
   injure personnel or jeopardize a vital agency mission. Federal Acquisition
   Regulation (FAR) sect. 46.203.

   [2] The agency issued an order under the first RFQ to Quality Control
   Corp. on April 17; no order has yet been issued under the second RFQ.

   [3] AST argues that DSCC's February 26 notice did not provide enough
   specific engineering information about problems with AST's alternate item
   to enable AST to begin the requalification process. While it may not have
   provided the level of engineering detail that AST would have preferred,
   DSCC's letter to AST explained how AST's alternate item had failed during
   an operational test, and designated a contact at the agency for questions,
   concerns, and requalification. We conclude that DSCC's letter provided
   sufficient notice and information to AST to allow it to promptly undertake
   requalification.

   [4] In fact, the agency maintains that its needs would not permit it to
   postpone the procurements. Specifically, DSCC states that as of May 21,
   there were 38 backorders of NSN 2321, 9 of which were high priority, and
   asserts that a delay in procuring the part will adversely affect the
   government.