Pre-award protest challenging an RFP requirement as unduly restrictive is denied. The RFP required the contractor to provide helicopter parts. GAO found the restriction reasonable because if the agency furnished the parts, it would shift substantial contractual responsibilities to the government. GAO also found that the protester lacked standing to challenge the procurement as a de facto sole source award. The protester had conceded that it could not perform the RFP as written and thus was not an interested party that could challenge the alleged sole source award.
Israel Aerospace Industries protested the terms of an Army RFP for helicopter maintenance. The RFP required the contractor to provide all the necessary parts to overhaul rotor blades. The blades were manufactured by Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. Because the blades were hard to come by, the Army limited the competition under FAR 6.302-1 to a few responsible sources. Sikorsky and IAI were both listed as responsible sources.
But Sikorsky refused to sell IAI the blade parts. IAI asked the Army to provide the parts as government-furnished material. The Army refused, so IAI filed a protest, alleging that the requirement to provide blade parts was unduly restrictive.
GAO found that the agency had reasonably explained its decision to include the restrictive parts requirement. Requiring the contractor to provide parts reduced risk, shifted the burden of performance to the contractor, and was administratively convenient. There is no standardized process for overhauling the blades; the contractor must disassemble and inspect each blade to determine the specific parts needed for repair. If the Army provided the parts, it would have make every conceivable part available, which would shift substantial contractual responsibilities to the agency.
IAI also argued that by including the parts requirement, the Army was making a de facto sole source award to Sikorsky. But GAO found that IAI was not an interested party that could make that argument. IAI’s protest effectively conceded that it could not provide the blades and could not perform the services of the RFP as written. Thus, IAI was ineligible for award because it could not submit a responsive proposal. Accordingly, IAI was not an interested party to challenge a de facto sole source competition.
The protester is represented Howard J. Stanislawski, Patrick O’Keefe, and Robin Wright Cleary of Sidley Austin LLP. Sirkosky is represented by Marcia G, Madsen and David F. Dowd of Mayer Brown LLP. The government is represented by Jonathan A. Hardage and Matthew A. McNease of the U.S. Army. GAO attorneys Todd C. Culliton and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.
