Protester Claimed Awardee Violated Buy American Act by Offering Foreign End Products. Why Didn’t GAO Think this Was a Problem?

The protester argued the agency should have found the awardee technically unacceptable because it offered a foreign end product in violation of the Buy American Act. GAO denied the protest. Neither the solicitation provision nor regulations required the agency to eliminate a quotation for offering a foreign end product.

Auburn Manufacturing, Inc., GAO B-423308; B-423308.2

• Protest – The protester challenged the award of a contract for silica glass cloth. It argued the agency should have deemed the awardee’s quotation technically unacceptable because the awardee offered a foreign end product that violated the Buy American Act. The agency responded that although the DFARS established a preference for domestic and qualifying country end products, there was no requirement to eliminate a quotation for a foreign end product.
• Decision – The record did not show any solicitation provision requiring the agency to eliminate the awardee from the competition. As such, GAO concluded the protester did not provide sufficient information to establish that the agency violated procurement laws or regulations. Protest denied.

The protester was represented by Dana B. Pashkoff and Jessica C. Abrahams of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. The agency was represented by Brenda D. Aleshire, Julie K. Phillips, and Kelly Francis of Defense Logistics Agency. Emily R. O’Hara and Peter H. Tran of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.

— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Auburn-Manufacturing-Inc.pdf” title=”Auburn Manufacturing, Inc.”]