BNUMBER:  B-271587
DATE:  July 8, 1996
TITLE:  Dyna-Air Engineering Corp.

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

Matter of:Dyna-Air Engineering Corp.

File:     B-271587

Date:July 8, 1996

Peter A. Quinter, Esq., Becker & Poliakoff, for the protester.
Timothy Sullivan, Esq., and Martin R. Fischer, Esq., Adduci, Mastriani 
& Schaumberg, for Vickers, Inc., an intervenor.
Robert L. Mercadante, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., 
Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of 
the decision.

DIGEST

Protest is denied where record does not demonstrate that agency 
delayed an unreasonable period of time prior to forwarding protester's 
request for source approval to the design control activity or that the 
design control activity unduly delayed its review once the request was 
received.

DECISION

Dyna-Air Engineering Corp. protests the rejection of its offer under 
request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO500-95-R-A381, issued by the 
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Industrial Supply Center 
(DISC), for metallic particle detectors.  Dyna-Air's offer was 
rejected because the protester had not been approved as a source for 
the item at the time of award.  The protester complains that DISC 
delayed unduly before forwarding its request for source approval to 
the Navy activity with approval authority for the item, and that, as a 
result, the evaluation was not completed prior to the award date.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The Current RFP

RFP No. SPO500-95-R-A381, which was issued on September 8, 1995, 
requested offers on a primary quantity of 65, and on two alternate 
quantities of 80 and 130, respectively, metallic particle detectors, 
National Stock No. 2995-01-120-8715, General Electric Co. Part No. 
3033T30G01.  The item is a critical part of the GE T700 Turboshaft 
engine, in which it functions as a sensor to alert the crew to an 
impending failure of oil-wetted engine parts.  The solicitation 
identified Vickers, Inc. Part No. 1D463 as an acceptable alternate for 
the item and advised offerors not cited as acceptable sources that 
they would need to obtain source approval from the design control 
activity[1] and that they should submit their source approval requests 
and technical data packages to DISC with their offers.  The 
solicitation also incorporated DLA's standard "products offered" 
clause, requiring that offerors of alternate products furnish with 
their offers legible copies of all drawings, specifications or other 
data necessary to clearly describe the characteristics and functions 
of the product being offered.  The clause advised that the government 
would make every reasonable effort to determine acceptability prior to 
award, but that if it could not, proposed alternate products might be 
considered technically unacceptable for this procurement.  The clause 
further advised that if the evaluation were subsequently completed, 
the offeror would be notified of the results, and if the product were 
determined acceptable, it would be considered for future awards.

Three offerors responded to the RFP prior to the October 12, 1995, 
closing date.  Vickers offered its own Part No. 1D463 at a price of 
$924.74 for the primary and first alternate quantities and a price of 
$864.69 for the second alternate quantity.  Kampi Components, a 
nonmanufacturer, also offered the Vickers part, at a price of 
$1,018.52 for the primary quantity.[2]  Dyna-Air offered its own part 
number 4-1091-100--for which, according to a cover letter accompanying 
the proposal, it had submitted a source approval request on May 24, 
1995, in connection with an earlier solicitation.  Its price was $435 
for all three quantities.

After reviewing the offers, the contracting officer determined that 
the Dyna-Air proposal had to be considered technically unacceptable 
since evaluation of the technical data package that it had previously 
submitted had not yet been completed.  She further determined that 
Kampi's price was not competitive with Vickers'.  She therefore 
decided to conduct negotiations with Vickers only.  Upon completion of 
the negotiations with Vickers, the contracting officer requested an 
update on the Dyna-Air source approval request and was advised that as 
of March 12, 1996, the Navy still had not completed its evaluation.  
On March 20, DISC awarded Vickers a contract for 130 metallic particle 
detectors at a unit price of $737.66.

The Prior RFP

DISC issued RFP No. SPO500-95-R-0120, the solicitation in response to 
which the protester submitted the technical data package discussed 
above, in March of 1995.  As amended, the RFP requested offers on 169 
items, including the metallic particle detectors at issue in this 
protest, which were listed as Item 0021.  Dyna-Air submitted offers on 
31 of the 169 items, including Item 0021.  It submitted technical data 
packages for all 31 items, some prior to the RFP's closing date of May 
24, 1995, and some after the closing date.

Many of the technical data packages were incomplete, however, and by 
letter dated August 2, 1995, DISC asked the protester to furnish 
additional documentation, including a complete set of current 
configuration drawings for each item.  Dyna-Air responded by letter 
dated August 15, explaining that many of the items were "intrinsically 
similar" to other items that it was offering and that in some 
instances it was submitting technical data (e.g., drawings) for the 
"similar item" rather than for the item itself.  For items 
significantly different from one another, it was submitting separate 
technical data, the protester emphasized.

DISC's Value Engineering Division, which had responsibility for 
ensuring the completeness of Dyna-Air's technical data packages prior 
to forwarding them to the Navy, was not satisfied with the protester's 
response that it was requesting source approval for certain items 
based on technical data relating to similar items,[3] and contacted 
the protester several times over the course of the next 2-1/2 months 
to request additional information.  Dyna-Air submitted additional data 
for 4 of the 31 items.  On November 15, DISC notified the protester 
that its technical data packages did not contain sufficient 
information for approval and that its offers under RFP No. -0120 were 
therefore being rejected.  Specifically, the letter stated that the 
packages lacked complete engineering/manufacturing drawings.

Dyna-Air responded by letter dated November 20, contending that it had 
submitted complete technical data packages for 10 of the 31 items, 
including item 0021.[4]  With regard to these 10 items, Dyna-Air 
threatened to protest to our Office if award was made at a price 
higher than the price it had offered.  With regard to the remaining 21 
items, the protester conceded that it had not submitted complete 
technical data packages.  Upon receipt of this letter, DISC's Value 
Engineering Division prepared a Request for Engineering Support for 
each of the 10 items and forwarded the technical data packages to the 
Naval Inventory Control Point (NAVICP) Philadelphia for technical 
review and disposition.[5]
  
NAVICP Philadelphia received the request for engineering support in 
mid-January 1996.[6]  Due to a backlog of other work, the cognizant 
NAVICP engineer was not able to begin work on the item until 
mid-March.  In early April, the NAVICP engineer met with 
representatives of DISC and Dyna-Air to discuss the technical data 
packages and to ascertain what category of submittals they were.  In 
this regard, the Source Approval Information manual on which Dyna-Air 
had been relying at the time it prepared the packages provided for 
three categories of submittals:  same item (item previously provided 
to the original equipment manufacturer (OEM)); similar item (item 
similar to an item previously provided to the OEM, Air Force, or 
Navy); and new item (item not previously provided to, and not similar 
to items previously provided to, OEM, Air Force, or Navy).  Dyna-Air 
had submitted the information that it thought was required for 
approval of a "new item" (i.e., it had not submitted current 
configuration drawings for a similar item, as required for approval 
under the "similar item" category).  The Navy, however, had revised 
its Source Approval Information manual in January of 1995 to eliminate 
the "new item" category.  Accordingly, Dyna-Air was instructed at the 
April meeting that it would need to submit supplemental information 
concerning a similar item that it had previously furnished to the OEM 
or the government in order for its submittal to be considered under 
the "similar item" category.

In mid-April, Dyna-Air submitted the supplemental data requested to 
DISC, which was immediately forwarded to NAVICP.  NAVICP reviewed the 
package in early May and determined that additional information 
concerning the protester's quality assurance system was still 
required.  NAVICP projected that this additional information would be 
received and the package would be ready to forward to the Naval Air 
Depot (NADEP), Cherry Point, North Carolina--the activity ultimately 
responsible for the source approval decision--on May 10, 1996, and 
that NADEP would then require 90 to 120 days to complete its review.  
In other words, the Navy projects that evaluation of the package will 
not be completed until mid-August 1996, at the earliest.

DISCUSSION

Dyna-Air complains that DISC delayed unduly before forwarding its 
technical data package for the metallic particle detectors to the 
Navy, and that, as a result, the Navy did not have sufficient time to 
complete evaluation of its technical data prior to the award date, 
which deprived it of a reasonable opportunity to compete under the 
RFP.

The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) requires that an 
agency obtain "full and open" competition in its procurements through 
the use of competitive procedures.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(a)(1)(A) (1994).  
When a contracting agency restricts a contract to an approved product, 
and uses a qualification requirement, it must give offerors proposing 
alternative products a reasonable opportunity to qualify.  BWC 
Technologies, Inc., B-242734, May 16, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  474.  This 
opportunity to qualify includes ensuring that an offeror is promptly 
informed as to whether qualification has been attained and, if not, 
promptly furnished specific information  why qualification was not 
attained.  Rotair Indus., 69 Comp. Gen. 684 (1990), 90-2 CPD  para.  154.  
Failure to act, within a reasonable period of time, upon requests for 
approval as a source deprives an offeror of a reasonable chance to 
compete and is inconsistent with the CICA mandate that agencies obtain 
"full and open" competition through the use of competitive procedures.  
Rotair Indus., Inc., B-224332.2; B-225049, Mar. 3, 1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  
238.

We do not think that the record here demonstrates that DISC delayed an 
unreasonable period of time prior to forwarding Dyna-Air's technical 
data package for item 0021 to the Navy.  First, it is apparent that 
Dyna-Air's technical data package for Item 0021, as originally 
submitted, was incomplete.  Not only does the record contain a 
statement from the cognizant DISC employee to this effect, but 
further, the protester stated in its letter of August 15 that it was 
enclosing a data package for Item 0021, which we interpret as an 
admission that any previous package had been incomplete.  Thus, any 
delay between May and mid-August was clearly attributable to the 
protester's failure to submit a complete technical data package.

Further, we do not think that an additional delay of 3-1/2 months 
(from mid-August to late November) was unreasonable given the 
circumstances in which the technical data package for Item 0021 was 
submitted.  The package for Item 0021 was submitted at approximately 
the same time as 30 others from Dyna-Air, and as a consequence, DISC's 
Value Engineering Division had a large number of technical data 
packages to review at the same time; this inevitably would have slowed 
down their processing of each individual package.  In addition, many 
of the packages--even as supplemented--were incomplete (since they 
lacked appropriate drawings), and we think that it was not 
unreasonable for DISC to hold off on forwarding any complete packages 
while it sought to obtain the data missing from the incomplete ones.  
Where, as here, the items for which approval is sought are closely 
related, this approach allows the technical information to be 
presented to the design control activity in a unified (as opposed to 
piecemeal) fashion, which promotes efficiency in the source approval 
process.  Furthermore, it is apparent from the fact that the protester 
was requesting approval of certain items based on technical 
information pertaining to others that it anticipated (and intended) 
that its packages would be considered together.

Given that any delay in submitting the technical data package to the 
Navy design control activity was the result of reasonable attempts to 
secure missing information from Dyna-Air, we see no basis to conclude 
that DISC unreasonably delayed consideration of the package.  See 
Rotair Indus., Inc., B-219994, Dec. 18, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  683.

Turning then to the Navy's handling of the technical data package, we 
need not determine the reasonableness of NAVICP's two month delay in 
placing the item in work status since it is clear from the record that 
even if the NAVICP engineer had been able to begin work on the item 
immediately in mid-January, the evaluation would still not have been 
completed prior to the mid-March award date.  In this regard, the Navy 
projects that it will take NADEP 90 to 120 days to complete its 
testing once Dyna-Air's technical data package has been forwarded to 
it--a period of time that the protester has not challenged as unduly 
long and that we think is reasonable given the sort of testing to be 
performed.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States 

1. Although not identified as such in the RFP, the design control 
activity for the part is the Naval Air Systems Command.

2. Kampi did not submit prices for the alternate quantities.

3. This dissatisfaction is apparent, for example, in the following 
notation, made by a DISC representative during a meeting with 
Dyna-Air's president on September 13, 1995:  "So how does the ESA 
[Engineering Support Activity] make the leap from 'similar' 
(demonstrating capability) to approval of making the exact part?"

4. The protester contended that it had submitted complete technical 
data packages for six items, including item 0021, with its offer, and 
that it had submitted complete data packages for the four others in 
response to DISC's request.

5. According to DISC, it did this because it realized that it was at 
an impasse as far as obtaining any additional information from 
Dyna-Air was concerned.  A different explanation for the decision to 
forward the packages was furnished to the protester, however.  It was 
advised by the contracting officer on December 1 that DISC had further 
examined the 10 technical data packages that the protester maintained 
were complete and had determined that they did contain sufficient 
information for DISC to forward them to the Engineering Support 
Activity for its source approval evaluation.

6. Neither DISC nor NAVICP Philadelphia could account for the 
1-1/2-month delay between DISC's forwarding of the request for 
engineering support and NAVICP's receipt of it--although both 
activities theorize that the delay may have been attributable to a 
glitch in a new automated referral system that DLA and NAVICP had just 
installed and were trying out at the time.