BNUMBER:  B-270517
DATE:  March 14, 1996
TITLE:  Alpha Q, Inc.

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

Matter of:Alpha Q, Inc.

File:     B-270517

Date:March 14, 1996

Richard Degen, Esq., for the protester.
Craig E. Hodge, Esq., and Tina Marie Pixler, Esq., Department of the 
Army, for the agency.
Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency need not solicit a proposal from a company whose critical 
flight safety part had not yet been fatigue-tested, where the agency's 
needs are urgent so that the procurement could not be delayed until 
the product had been tested.

DECISION

Alpha Q, Inc. protests the proposed issuance of request for proposals 
(RFP) 
No. DAAJ09-96-R-0025 on a restricted basis by the Army Materiel 
Command/Army Aviation and Troop Command (ATCOM) for a quantity of 
helicopter parts.  Alpha argues that the RFP, which ATCOM intends to 
issue to the only two tested sources,  improperly restricts 
competition, and that the agency has improperly delayed testing 
Alpha's product, thereby preventing the firm from competing.  

We deny the protest.

The RFP will seek offers for housing assemblies for the UH-60 
(Blackhawk) helicopter.  The housing assembly is designated a flight 
safety part because failure of the assembly could result in loss of 
the aircraft with possible loss of life and injury to the air crew.  
ATCOM has declared its intention to limit competition under the RFP to 
the only two firms that are approved sources and whose assemblies have 
been fatigue-tested, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and the Purdy 
Corporation.  The agency initially executed a justification and 
approval limiting the procurement to the sole available source, 
Sikorsky, citing 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(c)(1) (1994) and Federal Acquisition 
Regulation  sec.  6.302-1, and later decided to include Purdy after Purdy's 
assembly had been tested.  The restricted procurement also is 
supported by a statement of urgency that projected a zero inventory 
balance in December 1995, based on the anticipated rate of use and the 
current inventory for the item.

Although Alpha has been approved as a source for this component, its 
housing has not yet been fatigue-tested.  Fatigue testing is required 
to provide assurance that the manufacturing process employed by a new 
source of supply does not cause reductions in the life of the part as 
established through extensive testing of the original source's part.  
In February 1995, Alpha was awarded a contract for 
29 housing assemblies under a procurement that was limited to approved 
sources regardless of fatigue-testing status.  Under that contract, 
Alpha was required to submit a first article and report by December 
30, 1995, with deliveries of the assembly scheduled to begin in 
September 1996.  After the initial product was delivered, a fatigue 
test was to be performed, and if successful, Alpha would be considered 
a tested and approved source for the assembly.  Alpha failed to 
deliver its first article unit for testing by the deadline established 
under its contract, apparently because of an equipment failure, and 
now anticipates delivering both its first article unit and an 
additional unit for fatigue testing on March 15.  The agency 
anticipates that the process of fatigue testing will require 16 
months,[1] and thus Alpha could not be determined a responsible or 
qualified source in time to compete under the procurement in question 
here.  

Alpha protests that ATCOM has unduly delayed testing Alpha's product, 
thus excluding the protester from the competition.  The protester 
construes the terms of its current contract as requiring the agency to 
perform the fatigue testing within 
20 days of tender of the first article unit, and argues that the 
agency's intention to complete the test 16 months after tender amounts 
to an anticipatory breach of Alpha's current contract.  In addition, 
Alpha equates ATCOM's delay in testing Alpha's product with a failure 
to engage in advance planning, and argues that without advance 
planning, the agency cannot justify its determination to restrict the 
competition based on any urgent need.

Alpha's assertions concerning the agency's alleged obligations under 
Alpha's current contract involve matters of contract administration, 
which are not within the bid protest jurisdiction of our Office and 
therefore will not be considered.  See 
Bid Protest Regulations, section 21.5(a), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,742 
(Aug. 10, 1995) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(a)); Martin 
Advertising Agency, Inc., B-225347, Mar. 13, 1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  285. 

Regarding the restriction of competition to approved sources, a 
procuring agency may limit competition for the supply of parts if 
doing so is necessary to ensure the safe, dependable, and effective 
operation of military equipment, Arrow Gear Co.,
69 Comp. Gen. 596 (1990), 90-2 CPD  para.  28, and if non-approved sources 
are given a reasonable opportunity to qualify.  Pacific Sky Supply, 
Inc., 64 Comp. Gen. 194 (1985), 85-1 CPD  para.  53; see Florida Ordnance 
Corp., B-247363.4, Aug. 31, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  138.  Under 10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2319(c)(3), a potential offeror may not be denied the opportunity to 
submit and have considered an offer for a contract if the offeror can 
demonstrate that its product meets or can meet the approval standards 
before the date for award. 

Here, while Alpha argues that the agency has unduly delayed fatigue 
testing Alpha's assembly, the undisputed sequence of events shows that 
Alpha is not prepared to deliver its assemblies for testing until 
March 15.  Based on the inventory for the item, the agency's stocks 
will be completely depleted well before Alpha's assembly is ready to 
be tested.  Thus, even if the agency were able to perform the fatigue 
test quickly, Alpha's assembly would not be tested in time to meet the 
agency's urgent need.  The law does not require ATCOM to delay the 
procurement long enough to allow testing of Alpha's assembly and thus 
accommodate the firm's potential availability to supply the items.  10 
U.S.C.  sec.  2319(c)(5); see Texstar, Inc., B-239905, Oct. 9, 1990, 90-2 
CPD  para.  273.
 
Alpha argues that the reason the fatigue testing process is so slow, 
and the reason the requirement for the assemblies is so urgent, is the 
agency's lack of planning.  In essence, the protester alleges that the 
agency failed to take the steps necessary to eliminate a testing 
bottleneck, and asserts that the agency should be required to expedite 
the testing of Alpha's product.  

We do not agree with the protester.  The record shows that ATCOM 
planned to conduct fatigue testing by means of a contract with the 
firm of Dayton T. Brown, Inc., and expected that fatigue testing could 
be accomplished relatively quickly.  However, the volume of parts 
requiring such testing has resulted in delays.  The agency states that 
when a backlog of untested parts accumulates, it approaches other 
contractors, or original equipment manufacturers, to perform such 
tests.  However, the record shows that the few firms that are capable 
of performing the testing generally have not been willing to perform 
in this capacity.[2]  Thus, these efforts have been unsuccessful or 
only partially successful.[3]  Although the law requires advance 
procurement planning, see 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(f)(5)(A), it does not 
require that the planning be successful.  Honeycomb Co. of Am., 
B-225685, June 8, 1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  579.  

In addition to the difficulties involved in finding firms willing and 
able to conduct the testing, the record shows that the agency 
experienced an unexpected increase in the demand for the housing 
assemblies when it was discovered during transmission overhauls that a 
significant number of housings had become corroded.  Because of the 
corrosion, a number of housings that the agency had expected to be 
able to overhaul needed to be replaced instead.  Thus, the record also 
shows that the increased and urgent demand for the housings to a large 
extent has been unforeseen. 

Alpha also challenges whether the agency has limited the quantity that 
it will procure on a restricted basis to the minimum number of 
assemblies needed to fill only its urgent requirements.  In a synopsis 
that appeared in the Commerce Business Daily on November 8, 1995, the 
Army announced its intention to procure 119 assemblies on a restricted 
basis. 

The Army, however, states that the synopsized quantity does not 
reflect a conclusive determination of the number of units to be 
procured.  The agency reports that the quantity needed on an urgent 
basis is dependent on when the new contract can be signed and lead 
times for delivery.  The agency indicates that it is attempting to 
base its requirements objective on its anticipated need, less the 
number of assemblies in stock and less the assemblies that Alpha is 
contractually bound to deliver; the agency also is not planning to 
include any option quantity in the procurement.  We therefore see no 
merit to Alpha's challenge.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency's report on the protest acknowledges that "it would be 
in the Government's and protester's interest to expedite testing," but 
states that the only current source for testing has a 16-month lead 
time for testing new items. 
 
2. The agency report includes a letter from Sikorsky stating that 
"[w]hile Sikorsky Aircraft supports the policy of the Government to 
foster competition and obtain new sources of supply, Sikorsky 
Aircraft's core business does not include being a qualification 
testing supplier."  Sikorsky declined to participate in testing other 
sources' products.

3. Alpha alleges that the agency maintains a "hidden testing program" 
with Sikorsky, and allows firms "placed in a preferred category" to 
have their products tested more quickly under this program.  However, 
the agency points out that a prior testing contract with Sikorsky 
predated Alpha's contract, and thus Alpha's assembly was not available 
for testing; the contract with Sikorsky essentially was limited to the 
use of Sikorsky's equipment, so that the testing required the 
involvement of government and/or contractor personnel, resulting in 
delays; and while Sikorsky recently has tentatively agreed to test 
flight safety parts, no contractual agreement has yet been signed.