Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Defense Logistics Agency
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Prejudice; Domestic Production Requirement; Reliance on the Proposal
1. Protest that a delivery order was issued to a vendor that would not provide a domestic end item is denied where the agency reasonably relied upon the vendor’s certification that it would provide a domestic part in the absence of any information to the contrary.
2. Protest that an agency extended the required delivery schedule in its issuance of an order is denied where the protester does not show that it was competitively prejudiced.
General Counsel P.C. Highlight:
Pacific Lock protests that the awardee will not provide a domestic end item. In this regard, the Pacific Lock contends that, based on its industry knowledge, the awardee does not manufacture locks in the United States. GAO states that when a vendor responds to a solicitation by representing that it will furnish products that comply with a solicitation’s domestic production requirements, the vendor is contractually obligated to comply with such representation. Absent a basis to question a vendor’s representation in this regard, the agency may properly rely on the representation in making its source selection decision. However, where an agency has reason to believe that the firm will not provide compliant products, the agency should go beyond the firm’s representations to verify compliance, and GAO will review a procuring agency’s actions to ensure that the agency’s assessments and conclusions were reasonable.
Pacific Lock has not shown that the agency had any reason to question the awardee’s representation, given that nothing on the face of its quotation indicated that the firm would not provide a domestic part.
The protester also complains that agency extended from 90days to 180 days the time for delivery in the order issued to the awardee. The agency responds that it extended the delivery schedule to accommodate product verification testing. GAO states that it need not resolve this dispute because Pacific Lock does not show that it was prejudiced by the agency’s actions. Competitive prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest, and where the protester fails to demonstrate prejudice, GAO will not sustain a protest. Here, Pacific Lock does not state what it would have done differently had it been aware that the agency would accept a longer delivery schedule for the locks. The protest is denied.