Directions: Read the following letter of protest and answer the questions below. Note that the date for receipt of quotations is November 26 and the letter was received by the contracting officer on November 10.

Questions

1. Is Bartholomew's protest timely? Why?
2. Is Bartholomew an interested party? Why?
3. Regarding the status of the procurement, can the contracting officer award the contract before resolving the protest? If so, should he?
4. If the contracting officer denies the protest, what other options does Bartholomew have? How long does Bartholomew have to exercise such options?
5. Besides yourself, what other individuals on the government's team should the contracting officer consult?
6. How would you recommend the contracting officer resolve the protest?

Letter of Protest

Bartholomew Manufacturing, Inc.

716 Industrial Drive

Fayetteville, Virginia 00000

November 9

Mr. J. Q. Public Contracting Officer Defense Parts Center-East

Hopewell, North Carolina 00001

Dear Mr. Public:

Bartholomew Manufacturing (Bartholomew) hereby files this agency protest against one of your solicitations. Specifically, we protest Request for Quotations (RFQ) Number SRP561-98-P-DG44, requiring quotes be submitted by November 26. This RFQ is seeking a contract for the production and purchase of 200 door hinges for C-141 aircraft. As you know, both our company and Old Guard Industries (Old Guard) make these hinges. In fact, Bartholomew and Old Guard are the only companies in the industry to make these items. Unfortunately, in its present format, your RFQ unfairly prevents Bartholomew from effectively competing for this contract.

The RFQ requires that a contractor provide the results of a "first article" test of its hinge. As you know, this test is designed to determine if the product will meet the standards required for use on the C-141. The RFQ even requires the test if the contractor has sold these parts to your agency for use on the C-141 in the past. Bartholomew has sold over 1,000 hinges to your agency in the last five years without ever being required to obtain a "first article" test. If our products were good enough for you in the past, why aren't they good enough now?

Unfortunately, your RFQ states that failure to provide a first article test will add $2,000 to the quotation price during evaluation. The solicitation says that this is "because the government will bear the cost of performing the test." This is absolutely unjust. Old Guard began to manufacture and sell C-141 hinges just this year. I believe that in the course of preparing its hinge, Old Guard did conduct a "first article" test but it has no track record in making this hinge.

Obviously, your actions are clearly designed to favor Old Guard over Bartholomew.

Historically, Bartholomew has had the lowest prices in the industry for its products. It has often beat the prices of Old Guard in numerous other product lines. However, by adding $2,000 to our price, you will unfairly prejudice our quote, even though our product has been proven over and over again.

Consequently, Bartholomew demands that you amend the RFQ to not require a "first article" test or provide a waiver of that test for our company. I trust that you will respond quickly to our protest so that we need not take this action to another forum.

Sincerely yours,

John Jenkins, Vice President, Government Sales