BNUMBER:  B-270536
DATE:  March 18, 1996
TITLE:  Polar Power, Inc.

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

Matter of:Polar Power, Inc.

File:     B-270536

Date:March 18, 1996

Arthur D. Sams for the protester.
Vera Meza, Esq., and Brian Toland, Esq., Department of the Army, for 
the agency.
Robert C. Arsenoff, Esq., and Paul E. Jordan, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Sole source award is unobjectionable where the contracting agency has 
an urgent requirement for generators and has reasonably determined 
that there is insufficient time to approve additional sources, and the 
urgency did not arise as the result of a lack of advance planning.

DECISION

Polar Power, Inc. protests the proposed sole source award of a 
contract for           2 kilowatt (kW) generator sets to Mechron 
Energy Systems, Ltd. by the Department of the Army.  Polar principally 
alleges that the agency lacks sufficient justification for a sole 
source procurement.  

We deny the protest.

On November 3, 1995, the agency published an announcement, 
DAAK01-96-R-0031, in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD), stating that 
it was awarding a sole source contract to Mechron for 600 2kW 
alternating current (AC) generator sets and 50 2kW direct current (DC) 
generator sets for delivery beginning in February 1996 and ending in 
April of that year.  The announcement further provided that the 
acquisition was "under urgent and compelling circumstances" and that 
the "time required for approval of new suppliers is such that award 
and delivery cannot be delayed pending approval of new sources."  The 
announcement also indicated that the government intended to issue a 
fully competitive solicitation for additional sets in January 1996.  
The acquisition was supported by a justification and approval (J&A) 
prepared pursuant to 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(c)(2) (1994).

In 1988 and 1989, the Army began to experience problems with the 
operational readiness of its field-deployed standard 3kW and less than 
3kW (.05kW and 1.5kW) generator sets because they were becoming 
obsolete and unreliable.  In 1989, a contract was let for new 3kW 
Tactical Quiet Generators (TQG) to replace the standard 3kW units.  As 
reported by the agency, considerable technical difficulties arose 
during contract performance.  In 1990, the agency began a market 
survey regarding less than 3kW generators to determine if commercially 
available generators could meet military requirements.  Polar Power 
participated in the survey.  The results of the survey were published 
in November 1991 with the conclusion that commercially available 
generators could not meet the government's requirements.  In March 
1992, a draft solicitation was issued for a two-step research and 
development (R&D) program aimed at designing a 3kW generator capable 
of meeting the agency's needs; that solicitation was canceled when 
funding became unavailable.

Following the cancellation of funding, the Army sought alternative 
solutions for obtaining a 2kW generator set which met military 
standards and could be used for essentially the same applications as 
the 3kW sets.  Based on a survey of domestic engine technology 
conducted in 1993, which did not include Polar Power, the agency 
concluded that commercial generator sets that met user requirements 
were still unavailable.  In January 1994, the Army submitted a request 
to test Mechron generator sets under the Foreign Comparative Testing 
(FCT) program since the Canadian National Defense (CND) had previously 
tested and approved those sets.[1]  Approval for testing was granted 
in October of 1994.  The Army procured 12 sets and conducted FCT 
testing for a 7-month period ending in September 1995.

On March 23, 1995, the 1989 3kW TQG contract was terminated for the 
convenience of the government due to reported technical difficulties.  
The Army developed another 3kW acquisition strategy using a multi-step 
R&D approach, which will result in deliveries of 3kW generators 
beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2000.  In February 1995 the Army, 
through a contractor, surveyed members of the Electrical Generating 
Systems Association (EGSA), the official trade association for 
electrical generating systems manufacturers, to determine the 
commercial availability of generators meeting the military's 
requirements.  As a result of that survey, the Army concluded that 
suitable generators were not readily available.

The agency published its November 3, 1995, sole source announcement in 
the CBD for 2kW generator sets, after it was informed that Mechron's 
sets had passed the CND FCT testing.  The Army determined that the 
combat readiness of such units as the Rapid Deployment Force urgently 
required the delivery of 650 generator sets on a 3-month schedule 
commencing in February 1996.  These urgent requirements were broken 
out for sole source acquisition from Mechron, with the remainder of 
the 8,400 sets eventually needed by the Army to be acquired under 
competitive procedures using specifications developed by the CND and 
modified by the Army as the result of the FCT testing.[2]  The 
specifications in this competitive procurement include a requirement 
for first article testing (FAT), which the Army estimates will take 
between 6 and 10 months.  Based on the CBD notice of the agency's 
plans to make the award to Mechron, Polar Power protested.[3] 

Other than competitive acquisitions are permitted where the agency's 
requirements are of such an unusual and compelling urgency that the 
government would be seriously injured if competition were not 
restricted.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(c)(2).  The competition may be limited 
to one firm if the agency reasonably determines that only that firm 
can perform the work in the available time.  Forster Enters., Inc.,     
B-237910, Apr. 5, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  363.  Award of a contract under 
these circumstances may not, however, be made where the urgent need 
for the requirement has been brought about by a lack of advance 
planning by contracting officials.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(f)(5)(A).  

As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute with the Army's finding 
that the operational readiness posture of military units is being 
adversely impacted by the exceptionally low reliability and increasing 
unsupportability of currently fielded generators.  There is also no 
dispute that 650 generator sets are required between February and 
April of 1996.  Further, the protester does not directly address the 
agency's finding that only Mechron has the production capacity to 
supply tested generators within that time frame in light of the 
agency's conclusion that other manufacturer's offered generator sets 
will have to undergo extensive FAT testing before the Army can 
ascertain their acceptability.  Rather, Polar Power has cast its 
protest in terms of the adequacy of the market surveys referenced by 
the Army in support of its determination and the adequacy of advanced 
planning undertaken by the agency to avoid the present urgency.

Three surveys are referenced in the J&A:  the 1990-91 survey in which 
Polar Power participated and under which the protester's generator 
sets were tested over a considerable period of time without favorable 
results; the 1993 survey which was limited to engine manufacturers; 
and the March 1995 survey of EGSA members which was conducted at the 
same time the 3kW TQG contract was terminated.  It was at this point 
that the agency determined to use the 2kW generator sets to fill the 
gap until the new 3kW program reached the delivery stage in fiscal 
year 2000.  Although Polar Power is critical of all three surveys, the 
first two surveys are largely irrelevant to the disposition of this 
protest, inasmuch as neither of the initial two surveys had as its 
purpose the justification of the September 1995 decision to purchase 
2kW generators on a sole source basis.  Thus, our analysis focuses on 
the adequacy of the 1995 market survey conducted when the need for 2kW 
generator sets became urgent. 

Polar Power principally objects to being eliminated from the survey 
because it had expressed interest in receiving revised specifications 
for the 3kW TQG program and is otherwise critical of the type of data 
solicited in the survey.  While Polar Power had expressed interest in 
other generator requirements, including both AC and DC generators, the 
protester, so far as the Army was aware, does not regularly 
manufacture AC generator sets.  The Army's understanding is confirmed 
by Polar Power's statement that DC generators are its "specialty," but 
that it had the "capability" of purchasing AC alternator components 
for inclusion in an AC generator set.  Where, as here, an agency has a 
requirement for commercially available AC generator sets, it is 
reasonable for it to survey manufacturers who regularly produce such 
sets rather than manufacturers of DC generators.  Thus, the Army's 
consulting EGSA--a major trade association--for a list of 
manufacturers, and then contacting 27 manufacturers, 18 of which 
participated in a follow-up questionnaire program, is eminently 
reasonable.  The fact that the protester was not on the association's 
list does not render the survey unreasonable.  

Polar Power also argues that the urgency was the result of a lack of 
advance planning since 1989.  In this regard, the protester states 
that the agency should not have relied on the 3kW TQG contract for 
satisfying its field generator requirements for as long as it did.  In 
Polar Power's view, the Army should have terminated the contract as 
soon as delivery problems arose and other offerors should then have 
been given an opportunity to have their sets tested and thus would 
have avoided the present urgency.

Polar Power's speculation that the contract was not properly 
administered does not provide a basis for sustaining this protest.  
While Polar Power may assert that the agency acted unreasonably, there 
is nothing in the record beyond this assertion to demonstrate that the 
agency unreasonably relied on the 3kW TQG program to meet its needs 
for generators to replace those that were becoming obsolete.  The 
program, although it eventually failed in March 1995, in fact reflects 
advance planning, not the lack thereof.

The record establishes that the critical nature of the urgency 
necessitating the protested sole source acquisition arose in March 
1995 upon the termination of the 3kW TQG contract.  Thereafter, a 
long-term TQG program was developed to serve long-term needs, an 
adequate market survey was conducted, and FCT continued with one of 
its aims being the development of competitive specifications for 2kW 
generators.  

The record further establishes that as of the time the J&A was issued, 
only Mechron had a tested 2kW generator set.  With respect to the 600 
AC generators (out of    650 total) to be purchased sole source, even 
Polar Power does not represent that its AC generator has been 
tested[4].  As we observed above, the protester in fact states only 
that "it can design its own alternator specifically to meet military 
requirements."  There is no dispute that 650 generators are needed 
between February and April of 1996 and, from the length of time it 
took to qualify Mechron (7 months), it is reasonable to conclude that 
only that firm can satisfy the urgent need for tested generator sets.  
Under the circumstances, we have no basis to question the agency's 
plan to acquire this limited quantity from Mechron and to compete the 
balance of its generator requirements using competitive procedures.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States
 
1. Polar Power had attempted to have its products tested by the CND 
but was refused for a lack of Canadian content. 

2. Polar Power now states that the total number of generators to be 
competitively procured by the Army has been reduced so that the number 
to be sole sourced to Mechron will represent 36 percent of the total 
agency requirements.  Particularly given the recent nature of this 
change, it does not change our analysis.  

3. Citing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  6.302-1, Polar Power 
alleged that this is an initial acquisition which may not be made 
without full and open competition.  This allegation is misplaced as 
the cited authority simply does not restrict the use of other than 
competitive procedures in the manner suggested by the protester.

4. Polar Power submitted a report from the Redstone Technical Test 
Center, dated February 22, 1996, which reflects that the protester's 
DC 2.2kW generator had been tested.  This evidence in no way shows the 
agency's sole source decision made in November 1995 was not reasonably 
based.