United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Pacific Lock Company 

File: B-405800

Date: December 27, 2011

Bob McDonough for the protester.

Elizabeth Rose, for Chinrose International, the intervenor.

Thomas Dougherty, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.

Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

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.

DECISION

Pacific Lock Company of Honesdale, Pennsylvania, protests the issuance of a 

delivery order to Chinrose International, of Cornelius, Oregon, under request for 

quotations (RFQ) No. SPM5L2-11-Q-1172, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency 

(DLA), for 6,000 padlock sets. 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On April 20, 2011, DLA issued solicitation SPM5L2-11-Q-0706, as a small business 

set-aside, for the issuance of a fixed-price delivery order for 7,500 padlock sets. 

Legal Memorandum at 1. The agency did not issue an order under that solicitation, 

but re-issued the solicitation on July 12 as an unrestricted procurement. Id. Pacific 
Page 2 B-405800 

Lock filed an agency-level protest challenging the unrestricted nature of the 

solicitation, and the agency canceled the solicitation.

On August 3, the agency issued this RFQ, as a small business set-aside, for 6,000 

padlock sets. RFQ at 1, 3. The solicitation required vendors to certify that they 

would provide “a domestic part,” and incorporated Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) clause 52.219-6, “Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside,” which states in 

relevant part that a small business “shall furnish, in performing the contract, only 

end items manufactured or produced by small business concerns in the United 

States or its outlying areas.” RFQ at 2, 10. The solicitation also indicated that the 

agency may conduct product verification testing.1 The RFQ provided that delivery 

was required within 90 days after the date of the order, id. at 1, but also provided the 

following contract line item: “Special Testing 60 DAYS.” Id. at 7.

The agency received quotations from PLC and Chinrose. The agency issued a 

delivery order to Chinrose on August 25, which provided that the padlock sets were 

to be delivered within 180 days after the date of the order.

DISCUSSION

Pacific Lock protests that Chinrose will not provide a domestic end item. In this 

regard, the protester contends that, based on its industry knowledge, Chinrose does 

not manufacture locks in the United States.2

 Protest at 4. 

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. Simba USA, LLC; New 

Western Supply, LLC, B-401971, B-401971.2, Dec. 28, 2009 2009 CPD ¶ 265 at 2. 

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 our Office will review a procuring agency’s actions to ensure that 

the agency’s assessments and conclusions were reasonable. See, e.g., 

 1 The solicitation stated that the agency reserved the right to invoke product 

verification testing at the time of award, and that the locks must pass this testing 

prior to receiving authorization to ship the locks. RFQ at 2.

Pacific Lock 

2

The protester also contends, citing a printout from DLA’s Internet Bid Board 

System, that the agency made an award under solicitation No. SPM5L2-11-Q-0706. 

DLA explains that this printout was an error, and that no award had in fact been 

made. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2.
Page 3 B-405800 

Co., B-309982, Oct. 25, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 191 at 4; General Kinetics, Inc., Cryptek 

Div., B-242052.2, May 7, 1991, 91-1 CPD ¶ 445 at 7. 

Here, Pacific Lock has not shown that the agency had any reason to question 

Chinrose’s representation, given that nothing on the face of its quotation indicated 

that the firm would not provide a domestic part. We see no basis to question the 

agency’s reliance on Chinrose’s certification that it would comply with the 

solicitation’s requirement for a domestic part.

The protester also complains that agency extended from 90 days to 180 days the time 

for delivery in the order issued to Chinrose. The agency responds that it extended 

the delivery schedule to accommodate product verification testing. We 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, our Office will not 

sustain a protest. See Armed Forces Hospitality, LLC, B-298978.2, B-298978.3, Oct. 1, 

2009, 2009 CPD ¶192 at 9-10; McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD 

¶ 54 at 3. 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.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel