BNUMBER:  B-261680
DATE:  September 8, 1995
TITLE:  Precision Metal Products, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:     Precision Metal Products, Inc.

File:          B-261680

Date:          September 8, 1995
                                                            
Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq., for the protester.
Marvin G. Spallina, for Pratt & Whitney, an interested party.
Milton D. Watkins, Esq., and Richard P. Castiglia, Jr., Esq., 
Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
M. Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
                                                            
DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly denied protester's source approval 
request for flight critical part, thereby precluding protester from 
competing, is denied where solicitation was restricted to qualified 
sources, which were actual manufacturers of the part, and agency 
reasonably concluded that protester's limited experience in the 
manufacture of similar parts, and the technical data submitted in that 
regard, was insufficient to demonstrate that the firm could 
manufacture the part in accordance with the strict quality control 
required.
                                                            
DECISION

Precision Metal Products, Inc. protests the Department of the Air 
Force's refusal to approve it as an alternate source, and the award of 
a contract to Pratt & Whitney (the original equipment manufacturer 
(OEM)), under request for proposals (RFP) No. F34601-95-R-53025, for 
3,018 two-blade sets applicable to the TF-33/TF-5/TF-9/TF-102 engines 
for the C-18/C-135 aircraft.[1]  

We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part.

The blades are critical rotating engine components, whose reliability 
depends on strict quality control, and failure of which can lead to 
loss of aircraft.  The Air Force determined that the government lacked 
the manufacturing knowledge or technical process data essential to 
maintaining the quality control of the part and which would permit a 
full and open competitive procurement.  The RFP therefore was 
restricted to qualified sources.  Due to the complexity and 
criticality of the part, the agency determined that only actual 
manufacturers that have successfully completed all testing required by 
the OEM (Pratt & Whitney) could be considered approved sources; this 
resulted in two approved sources--Pratt & Whitney and Airfoil Textron, 
Inc., a division of Compressor Components.  The qualification 
requirements, referenced in the solicitation, advised offerors that to 
be considered for award, they must (1) be an approved source; (2) 
submit evidence of having satisfactorily supplied the required part 
directly to the government or to the OEM; or (3) submit other 
documentation such as engineering data and quality assurance 
procedures that would allow the Air Force to determine the 
acceptability of the part offered.

Precision Metal submitted a source approval request (SAR), seeking 
qualification as an alternate approved source on the basis that it had 
manufactured and/or forged blades similar to those solicited.[2]  
According to the protester, it had  (1) manufactured similar blades, 
P/N 9531M21P04, for the General Electric Company (GE) F-110 engine, 
and (2) forged similar blades, P/N 694301, for the Pratt & Whitney 
TF-33 engine for Ex-Cell-O Corporation (now known as Airfoil Textron, 
one of the two approved sources here).  The protester submitted a data 
package with its approval request.

The Air Force denied Precision Metal's source approval.  The agency 
determined that the firm's involvement in the manufacture of blades 
similar to the ones solicited was not acceptable evidence of the 
firm's capability to produce the blades under this solicitation, and 
that there was insufficient technical data to evaluate the firm as an 
alternate source based on similar manufacture.  The Air Force's 
inquiry revealed that while Precision Metal had supplied forgings for 
GE's F-110 first stage blade, it was never an approved source for the 
manufacture of the blade.  Moreover, the agency determined, even if 
Precision Metal had manufactured the GE blade, that alone would not 
qualify the firm to provide the Pratt & Whitney blade here, since GE 
and Pratt & Whitney utilize different manufacturing processes and 
process controls.

The Air Force also determined that the protester's claimed forging of 
the similar Pratt & Whitney blade did not warrant approval; forging 
alone did not qualify as manufacturing and, in any event, Precision 
Metal provided no evidence that its performance under that contract 
included the technical process data essential to maintaining the 
quality of the part.  In this regard, the Air Force engineer 
specifically determined, and notified Precision Metal by memorandum, 
that he lacked sufficient technical process data to evaluate the 
firm's "proposed forging processes, subsequent changes to processes, 
and manufacturing nonconformances during all stages of the 
manufacturing process (raw material, ingot, forging, and finished 
product)."  According to the engineer, the missing data consisted of 
(1) "the design data or the design margins for these fan blades," (2) 
"all the particulars of the Pratt and Whitney substantiation [i.e., 
the manufacturing processes and quality assurance data] for these 
types of items," and (3) "the history of waivers and deviations for 
these forgings and finished blades."  Without this information, the 
engineer stated that "the potential failure of a blade and subsequent 
liberation of fragments remains an unacceptable risk."  The engineer 
concluded that "[f]or the foreseeable future, only those manufacturers 
that have been approved by the OEM as a forging source . . . and have 
manufactured that forging on a production basis, will be considered as 
an approved forging source for a fan blade" and "only those 
manufacturers that have final machined this blade will be acceptable 
as alternate sources."

The agency rejected Precision Metal's offer as technically 
unacceptable, since the firm did not qualify as an approved source for 
the part, and made award to Pratt & Whitney, the sole offeror.  The 
protester submitted an agency-level protest against the denial of its 
SAR, which the agency denied.  This protest to our Office followed.

Precision Metal contends that the Air Force determination that it does 
not qualify as an approved source lacked a reasonable basis.  The 
protester maintains that its experience in forging and manufacturing 
similar blades was sufficient for approval as an alternate source.  It 
submits evidence that it was in fact an approved source for the 
similar GE blade, and contends that the technical process data for the 
similar Pratt & Whitney blade was not necessary for the evaluation of 
the SAR, since it (1) "anticipates no forging process modifications to 
manufacture P/N 430401 [the part number solicited here] from the Pratt 
& Whitney-approved forging process for P/N 694301," (2) "will not 
request waivers and deviations and . . . its parts would be 
manufactured through exactly the same process as the prior TF-33 
blades were produced," and (3) "certifies that there will be no 
nonconforming blades shipped in performance of any resultant order for 
this component."  

Applicable regulations permit agencies to limit competition for the 
supply of parts necessary to assure the safe, dependable, and 
effective operation of government equipment.  Department of Defense 
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)  17.7501(b)(2).  
Under these circumstances, competition may be limited to the original 
manufacturer of the equipment or other sources that have previously 
manufactured or furnished the parts so long as the action is 
justified.  Id.; see also Hill Aviation Logistics, 67 Comp. Gen. 224 
(1988), 88-1 CPD  140.  When a contracting agency restricts contract 
award to an approved product, and imposes a qualification requirement, 
as here, it must give unapproved sources a reasonable opportunity to 
qualify.  10 U.S.C.  2319 (1994); Vac-Hyd Corp., 64 Comp. Gen. 658 
(1985), 85-2 CPD  2; Advanced Seal Technology, Inc., B-249855.2, Feb. 
15, 1993, 93-1 CPD  137.  We will not disturb an agency's technical 
determination concerning the acceptability of alternate products and 
the qualifications of offerors unless it is unreasonable.  
Electro-Methods, Inc., B-255023.3; B-255023.4, Mar. 4, 1994, 94-1 CPD  
173.

The critical nature of the blade sets clearly brings the procurement 
within the scope of DFARS  217.7501; the item is a high rotational 
component, the failure of which can be catastrophic and lead to loss 
of aircraft, and the Air Force determined that the reliability of the 
item is dependent on "strict quality process control" which in turn 
depends on unique manufacturing knowledge or technical process data 
that is not economically available to the agency.[3]  

While Precision Metal has been involved in the manufacture of similar 
blades, the firm has not manufactured the actual solicited part or met 
all testing requirements established by the OEM for the solicited 
part.  The GE and Pratt & Whitney blades on which Precision Metal's 
SAR is based are part numbers different from the one here and, in any 
case, there is no evidence that either of these blades met the 
required OEM testing for the blade solicited.  Since Precision Metal 
also was unable to furnish the technical manufacturing process control 
data the agency is missing, the agency reasonably determined that the 
firm had insufficient manufacturing involvement with the current part, 
and had submitted insufficient data, to warrant qualification as an 
approved source.[4]

Precision Metal's blanket statements that it will manufacture the 
blades in compliance with the required processes, not request waivers 
and deviations, and not ship nonconforming blades are not a basis for 
compelling the agency to grant it approved source status.  See Pacific 
Sky Supply, Inc., 64 Comp. Gen. 194 (1985), 85-1 CPD  53.

The protester maintains that the Air Force's assertion of a lack of 
design data or margins for the fan blade is not a legitimate concern; 
it cites the fact that the Air Force allowed the blades to be weld 
repaired as evidence that there are no significant design concerns.  
Under our Bid Protest Regulations, arguments such as this must be 
raised within 10 working days after the basis of the protest is known 
or should have been known.  4 C.F.R.  21.2(a)(2); Palomar Grading and 
Paving, Inc., B-255382, Feb. 7, 1994, 94-1 CPD  85.  The basis for 
this argument is the agency engineer's April 19, 1995, SAR disapproval 
memorandum, which was faxed to the protester on May 15.  Since the 
argument was first raised on August 2, in the protester's comments on 
the agency report, it is untimely and will not be considered.

The protest is denied in part and dismissed in part.

 \s\ Ronald Berger
 for Robert P. Murphy
     General Counsel 

1. The two-blade sets, part number (P/N) 430241, are first stage 
compressor rotor blades and consist of two individual blades of P/N 
430401.

2. Manufacture of the blades includes forging, machining, and 
post-machine processing.  

3. To the extent Precision Metal takes issue with the agency's 
determination in this regard, the protest is untimely; arguments based 
on alleged solicitation improprieties must be raised before the 
closing time for receipt of proposals.  4 C.F.R.  21.2(a)(1) (1995).

4. For example, as previously mentioned, the protester has not 
provided evidence that its part meets all testing required by the OEM.  
Nor has the protester provided assurances that it will use only 
qualified subcontractors.