BNUMBER:  B-270111.2; B-270111.3
DATE:  February 12, 1996
TITLE:  BlueStar Battery Systems Corporation

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

Matter of:BlueStar Battery Systems Corporation

File:     B-270111.2; B-270111.3

Date:     February 12, 1996

Alan Grayson, Esq., and Victor Kubli, Esq., for the protester.
Richard J. Bednar, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for Saft America Inc.; 
Norman A. Steiger, Esq., for Power Conversion, Inc., intervenors. 
Richard A. Couch, Esq., Vera Meza, Esq., and John J. Reynolds, Esq., 
Department of the Army, for the agency.
Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

The Army properly restricted urgent procurement for large quantities 
of batteries to power various types of portable 
communications-electronics equipment essential to accomplishing the 
Army's battlefield mission to the only two manufacturers that had 
supplied the batteries to the Army under previous contracts, where:  
(1) the Army reasonably believed those offerors were the only 
manufacturers that would have a high probability of delivering quality 
batteries in a timely manner; and 
(2) the protester, which was excluded from the competition, had never 
manufactured the batteries for the Army and had only supplied 
relatively small quantities of the batteries to the Government of 
Canada.

DECISION

BlueStar Battery Systems Corporation protests the Department of the 
Army's decision to exclude it from the competition under invitation 
for bids (IFB) No. DAAB07-95-B-G346, for supplying batteries used in 
military applications.[1]  

We deny the protest.

The Army's Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) issued the IFB 
on September 20, 1995, orally soliciting bids for supplying 408,000 
BA-5590/U nonrechargeable lithium sulfur dioxide batteries from Saft 
America Inc. and Power Conversion Inc. (PCI), the only two firms that 
had produced the battery for the Army previously.   The BA-5590/U 
battery is a small, lightweight battery that can provide high power 
output over a wide temperature range.  It is the primary power source 
for approximately 50 different types of portable 
communications-electronics equipment[2] used by soldiers, many of 
which are essential to the Army's ability to accomplish its 
battlefield mission.  

Both Saft and PCI submitted bids by September 25.  Saft's total bid 
price was $16,870,800 and PCI's was $21,750,480.  After pre-award 
surveys were conducted on both offerors, the contracting officer 
determined that PCI was responsible but Saft was not and, on September 
30, the contract was awarded to PCI.  

BlueStar filed its protest in our Office on October 10, alleging that 
the agency improperly failed to solicit a bid from it even though 
BlueStar had previously expressed to the Army its desire to compete in 
procurements for BA-5590/U batteries,[3] and that CECOM knows BlueStar 
is an experienced, responsible battery producer.  The protester points 
out that as recently as July 1995 it had expressed to CECOM its 
interest competing in a procurement for BA-5590/U batteries and in 
fact had received a copy of the solicitation from the agency.  
BlueStar also contends that the agency was aware that it presently 
makes the BA-5590/U battery for the Government of Canada.  

The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) provides for the use 
of noncompetitive procedures where the agency's need for the property 
or services is of such an unusual and compelling urgency that the 
United States would be seriously injured unless the agency is 
permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits 
proposals.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(c)(2).  This authority is limited by the 
CICA provisions at 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(e), which require agencies to 
request offers from as many sources as practicable.  An agency using 
the urgency exception may restrict competition to the firms it 
reasonably believes can perform the work properly within the available 
time, and we will object to the agency's determination only where the 
decision lacks a reasonable basis.  Equa Indus., Inc., B-257197,
Sept. 6, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  96; see also Hercules Aerospace Co., 
B-254677, Jan. 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  7.  In this regard, a military 
agency's assertion that there is a critical need related to human 
safety and national defense carries considerable weight.  See Equa 
Indus., Inc., supra; Dash Eng'g, Inc; Engineered Fabrics Corp., 
B-246304.8; B-246304.9, May 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  363.

We believe the Army reasonably restricted the competition to the only 
two firms (Saft and PCI) that had previously supplied the batteries to 
the Army.  

The record shows that, during the summer of 1995, CECOM was planning 
to initiate a procurement (dubbed the NextGen or Next Generation 
procurement) at the end of 1995 to purchase more than a dozen 
different types of high performance batteries, including the 
BA-5590/U, under several multi-year contracts.  Recognizing that the 
NextGen acquisition approach was fairly complicated and would take 
considerable time to complete, CECOM issued a competitive IFB[4] to 
fulfill the Army's needs for BA-5590/U batteries in the interim.  

After the interim IFB was issued, several unanticipated changes 
greatly increased the Army's need and the urgency for BA-5590/U 
batteries.  Among other things, the Simulated Area Weapons 
Effects/Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement Systems Vest (SAWE/MILES) 
II program was initiated; large numbers of the vests, which are used 
for training soldiers and which are powered by BA-5590/U batteries, 
were put into the field.  The agency also experienced unforeseen 
problems in developing the NextGen acquisition approach and in 
obtaining the high-level approvals required to implement the program.  
Finally, and most importantly as far as this protest is concerned, the 
Army observed a dramatic increase in the number of incidents involving 
"venting" of BA-5590/U batteries manufactured by Saft and PCI during 
the past few years.

A venting is the operating of the cell's vent mechanism; it occurs 
when the cell's internal pressure increases above normal operating 
parameters.  Each battery cell has a venting mechanism (i.e., a weak 
spot in the cell container) that allows the controlled release of 
toxic materials when the cell's internal pressure gets too high.  
Because of the gravity of the venting problem--the release of toxic 
materials endangers soldiers[5] using the equipment--CECOM froze its 
entire inventory of 
BA-5590/U batteries during the summer of 1995 while it endeavored with 
the manufacturers to ascertain the cause and devise a remedy. [6] 

After a preliminary investigation, CECOM was unable to determine the 
reason for the Saft battery venting, although it believed it had found 
the cause of PCI battery venting and could remedy that problem.  The 
agency decided not to release Saft's batteries to the field, and to 
release PCI batteries only after they were inspected for defects.  As 
a result, CECOM was faced with a greatly increased need for the 
batteries in the field, delay in initiating the NextGen acquisition, 
and an inventory that could not immediately be used because of 
possible venting.

CECOM determined that quality BA-5590/U batteries therefore were 
urgently needed.  After initially considering awarding a contract to 
PCI on a sole-source basis, the agency decided to issue the present 
IFB to the only two prior suppliers, Saft and PCI, using an 
accelerated procedure.  By that time, CECOM reports, it believed it 
would be able to solve the Saft venting problem and would be able to 
control how the Saft batteries were used to ensure the safety of 
troops in the field.   
Thus, when it issued the solicitation in issue CECOM was faced with 
critical shortages of batteries that are essential to the Army's 
battlefield mission, and the agency believed it had corrected the 
problems it had been experiencing with PCI's batteries, and could 
correct the problems with Saft's batteries.  In such circumstances, we 
think it was reasonable for the agency to limit the competition to the 
only firms that had made the batteries for the Army in the past while 
working with both firms to solve the venting problems.[7] See Hercules 
Aerospace Co., supra.  

In this regard, while BlueStar had produced other batteries for the 
agency in the past and had expressed interest in competing for 
BA-5590/U contracts, BlueStar had not produced even one battery of 
this type for the Army.  CECOM points out that, in view of the concern 
with safety of soldiers using the batteries, BlueStar therefore would 
have been required to pass first article testing, which would normally 
delay first deliveries by about 3 months, assuming no technical 
problems arose.  Furthermore, the contracting agency states that its 
experience with first time producers of lithium batteries has been 
that they inevitably encounter technical and production difficulties 
at the outset.  

We note that BlueStar claims to have produced BA-5590/U batteries for 
another buyer, and the contracting officer confirms that the firm has 
a contract with the Government of Canada.  However, the contracting 
officer also points out that CECOM does not know whether the batteries 
supplied to Canada will be made to the same specifications as will be 
required of PCI here; the contracting officer also points out that the 
present procurement calls for delivery of up to 37,000 units per month 
while the Canadian contract requires a total delivery of only 8,000 
units per year.  Additionally, the record shows that, after reviewing 
BlueStar's own product literature and meeting with BlueStar 
representatives, agency procurement personnel had grave doubts 
concerning whether BlueStar had the capability to produce sufficient 
quantities of batteries to meet the agency's urgent delivery schedule.  
In light of the critical inventory shortages, the recent venting 
problems, CECOM's legitimate concern about soldiers' safety, and 
BlueStar's lack of experience with producing this particular battery, 
we have no reason to question CECOM's decision not to invite BlueStar 
to compete. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. BlueStar is a Canadian firm which, if allowed, would have submitted 
a bid through the Canadian Commercial Corporation pursuant to Defense 
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement  sec.  225.870-3 (DAC 91-3).

2. For example, the battery is the power source for the SINGARS 
(Single Channel Ground-Air Radio System) tactical radio.    

3. On October 24, BlueStar filed a supplemental protest alleging that 
CECOM improperly determined that its need for the batteries was of 
such an unusual and compelling urgency that it was justified 
soliciting bids from only two sources under the authority of 10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2304(c)(2) (1994).  BlueStar argued that the large quantity of 
batteries being purchased and the extended delivery schedule show that 
the procurement is not urgent; alternatively, BlueStar argues that any 
urgency resulted from CECOM's lack of advance planning.  The record 
shows that BlueStar knew all of the facts needed to form the basis for 
protest, including the fact that the agency had limited the 
competition to the two prior producers based on the urgency of the 
requirement, on September 29, when it discussed them with the 
contracting officer.  Under section 21.2(a)(2) of our Bid Protest 
Regulations, 60 Fed. Reg. 40737, 40740 (Aug. 10, 1995)(to be codified 
at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)), BlueStar was required to protest the 
urgency determination within 14 days after that date.  As BlueStar did 
not file its supplemental protest until 25 days later, the protest is 
untimely as to that issue.  

4. IFB No. DAAB07-95-B-G328 for 190,000 BA-5590/U batteries was 
advertised in the Commerce Business Daily on July 27, 1995.

5. Many of the incidents were reported as violent venting in which the 
battery cell explodes, releasing toxic materials, including sulfur 
dioxide gas and liquid acetonitrile.  Inhalation of sulfur dioxide gas 
causes severe respiratory irritation, and exposure to acetonitrile 
electrolyte can cause severe irritation to the eyes and skin.  Most of 
the reported venting occurred in 1995.

6. Since 1992, 46 ventings involving Saft batteries were reported, of 
which 36 were "violent."  A violent venting occurs under extreme 
conditions in which the cell's internal pressure increases so fast 
that the vent mechanism is overwhelmed and the cell itself explodes.  
Twenty-five Saft venting occurred in 1995.  Only five incidents 
involving PCI's batteries have been reported, involving dead or 
leaking cells. 

7. After several additional Saft venting were reported and a negative 
pre-award survey on Saft, the contracting officer determined Saft to 
be nonresponsible and awarded the contract to PCI.