[Comments on Protest Against Navy Contract Award]

B-225167.2, NOV 13, 1986, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

C. RICHARD BOEHLERT, ESQ.:

THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 6, 1986, REGARDING A CONTRACT AWARDED BY THE NAVY TO H.V. ALLEN CO., INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND REPAIR OF A FIRE ESCAPE AT THE NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. H.V. ALLEN CO. HAS OBJECTED TO THE NAVY'S DENIAL OF ITS REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF A REQUIREMENT IN THE CONTRACT THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAVE A CALIFORNIA FIRE SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE.

UNDER THE COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING ACT OF 1984, 31 U.S.C. SECS. 3551 ET SEQ. (SUPP. III 1985), OUR OFFICE IS AUTHORIZED TO CONSIDER PROTESTS CONCERNING THE AWARD OR PROPOSED AWARD OF CONTRACTS BY FEDERAL AGENCIES. IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE RAISED BY H.V. ALLEN CO.-- WHETHER A WAIVER SHOULD BE GRANTED UNDER ITS CONTRACT-- CONCERNS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION WHICH WE DO NOT CONSIDER. BID PROTEST REGULATIONS, 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.3(F)(1) (1986). INSTEAD, THE ISSUE SHOULD BE RESOLVED BETWEEN THE NAVY AND H.V. ALLEN CO. PURSUANT TO THE DISPUTES CLAUSE OF THE CONTRACT AND THE CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT, 41 U.S.C. SECS. 601 ET SEQ. (1982). FURTHER, TO THE EXTENT H.V. ALLEN CO. OBJECTS TO THE NAVY'S ORIGINAL DECISION TO INCLUDE THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT IN THE INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB)-- A MATTER WITHIN OUR BID PROTEST JURISDICTION-- ITS OBJECTION CONCERNS AN ALLEGED IMPROPRIETY APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE IFB WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE RAISED BEFORE BID OPENING. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(A)(1). FINALLY, SINCE THE ISSUES YOU RAISE EITHER ARE NOT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION OR ARE UNTIMELY, HOLDING A CONFERENCE, AS YOU REQUESTED, IS NOT APPROPRIATE.