About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-282295 1 (1999-06-24)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptajjn0001 and id is 1 raw text is: -e GeAtOa E Comptroller General of the United States United States General Accounting Office DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Washington, DC 20548 The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. Matter of: Lavi Systems, hie. File: B-282295 Date: June 24, 1999 Devon Hewitt, Esq., and Darryl G. McCallum, Esq., Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge, for the protester. Scott Arnold, Esq., Harvey G. Sherzer, Esq., and W. Hartmann Young, Esq., Howrey & Simon, an intervenor. Maj. Cynthia M. Mabry, Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and Capt. Jeff M. Neurauter, Department of the Army, for the agency. Adam Vodraska, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Contracting agency reasonably considered the awardee an approved source for a solicited helicopter part, notwithstanding that the awardee was not listed in the solicitation as an approved source, where the helicopter's prime manufacturer had approved the awardee's predecessor as a source for the part 20 years ago; the awardee or its predecessors had since continually manufactured the solicited item for the prime manufacturer and other approved sources of the part; and the approved source that currently owns the drawings to the part authorized the awardee to submit an offer directly in response to the solicitation and addressed the agency's concerns about the qualification of the awardee. 2. Contracting agency was not required to reevaluate the qualification of the awardee, or retest its part, where, in substituting the awardee for another approved source, there was no change of location or ownership of the plant where the part which met the qualification requirement was manufactured, or change in location or ownership of a previously qualified manufacturer or source. Even if the agency had conducted a reevaluation of the qualification of the awardee's predecessors following earlier ownership changes and relocation of the awardee's manufacturing facility, the protester has not shown why removal of the awardee or its predecessors from the approved source list was warranted or that retesting of the awardee's part was required.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most