Waiver of First Article Approval

[1Lchele]

Bidding on a solicitation where First Article Approval (FAA) may be waived (and costs removed and not considered in the evaluation) with proper paperwork provided by bidder and approval by the government. This provides the incumbent with a distinct pricing advantage. I was googling GAO decisions and can’t find anything later than 1978 where this is even being reviewed.  

Has anyone had experience with this?  Why wouldn’t this be considered an unfair advantage to the incumbent?

[joel hoffman]

deleted.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

48 minutes ago, 1Lchele said:

Why wouldn’t this be considered an unfair advantage to the incumbent?

Ahh, a new member complainant.

Because it was determined, long ago, that a prior producer with a tested product has a legitimate advantage. See the GAO's 1978 decision in the matter of Advani Engineering Company, B-192256, Nov. 14, 1978:

Quote

OUR OFFICE HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT CONTRACTING AGENCIES ARE VESTED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF TESTING WHICH IS NECESSARY TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS. THE WAIVER OF FIRST ARTICLE TESTING IS ALSO A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION, WHICH WE WILL NOT QUESTION UNLESS THERE IS A CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE WAIVER WAS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS. MOREOVER, ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) SEC. 1-1903(A) (1976 ED.) SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT WHERE SUPPLIES IDENTICAL TO OR SIMILAR TO THOSE CALLED FOR HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY FURNISHED AND HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL MAY BE WAIVED FOR THE PRIOR PRODUCER. WE HAVE ALSO HELD THAT WAIVER OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY SAMPLES AND TESTING DOES NOT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, CONSTITUTE A PROSCRIBED PREFERENCE OR UNFAIR ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT. HOMEXX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, B-192034, SEPTEMBER 22, 1978, 78-2 CPD 219.

Capitalization in the original. Emphasis added.

More recently, see Marine Instrument Company, B-241292, March 22, 1991:

Quote

Although the protester may suffer a competitive disadvantage because its product, unlike Hand's, must incur the added expense of first article testing, there is no requirement that the agency nullify Hand's competitive advantage in this respect, since it was not the result of improper preference or unfair agency action. See Valentec Kisco, Inc., B–238359, May 11, 1990, 90–1 CPD ¶ 465. 

 

[1Lchele]

I appreciate the feedback!  I am new to this for posting but love to peruse it occasionally.  I had found that original quote above and forwarded it to others in the company.  I'm happy to have a more recent example as well.