The contracting officer shall promptly report to the agency activity which established the qualification requirement any conditions which may merit removal or omission . . . or affect whether a source should continue to be otherwise identified as meeting the requirement. These conditions exist when--
. . . .

(3) A supplier fails to request reevaluation following change of location or ownership of the plant where the product that met the qualification requirement was manufactured (see the clause at 52.209‑1, Qualification Requirements).

Signal’s request in its proposal that it be given Innowave’s source approval status appears to have served this purpose. In response to that request, DLA reported the change in ownership to the ESA responsible for source approval, and the ESA agreed that Signal could rely upon Innowave’s source status. This is all that was required by the FAR. Associated claims that Signal had to be formally re-approved in order to be eligible for award, because Innowave has not manufactured the item since 1988, and Signal itself has not manufactured the item since it purchased Innowave in 1993. This argument is untimely. Innowave was listed in the solicitation as an approved source. Thus, if Associated believed that Innowave should not be considered approved due to its years of inactivity, it was required to protest on this basis prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals. See 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) (2003).  (Associated Aircraft Manufacturing & Sales, Inc., B-293529, March 22, 2004) (pdf)