BNUMBER:  B-274507
DATE:  November 12, 1996
TITLE:  Eclypse International Corporation

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

Matter of:Eclypse International Corporation

File:     B-274507

Date:November 12, 1996

Avinash Shah for the protester.
Thomas F. Brown and Mark Frazier, Esq., the Department of the Air 
Force, for the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Military agency reasonably awarded a contract on a sole source basis 
for urgently required deployable circuit analyzers for use in 
helicopter maintenance and repair to the only approved source of the 
items, where the record evidences that no other source is or will 
become an approved source of the circuit analyzers in time to meet the 
urgent requirement. 

DECISION

Eclypse International Corporation protests the award of a contract on 
a sole source basis to DIT-MCO International under request for 
proposal (RFP) No. F41608-96-R-29699, issued by the Department of the 
Air Force, for circuit analyzers used in the repair and maintenance of 
the MH-60G helicopter. 

We deny the protest.

The agency conducted a market survey in November 1995 for the circuit 
analyzers, and determined that DIT-MCO was the only approved source 
for circuit analyzers that could meet its needs.  In order to develop 
alternative sources for the circuit analyzers, the agency had a 
sources sought synopsis published in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) 
in December.  Eclypse responded to the sources sought synopsis by 
letter dated January 11, 1996.  In its response, Eclypse provided 
descriptive information regarding its circuit analyzers, and informed 
the agency that the Department of the Navy had "62 of these units 
deployed."

On February 9, the agency had a synopsis published in the CBD that 
announced a proposed sole source award to DIT-MCO for four "shop 
electronic test sets" or circuit analyzers, and 13 smaller, deployable 
circuit analyzers, with a delivery date of December 31, 1996.  The 
synopsis stated that the agency's proposed sole source procurement was 
based upon its determination that DIT-MCO was the only responsible 
source that could meet its needs.  The synopsis referenced note 22, 
which provides that firms interested in submitting a proposal or an 
expression of interest in the proposed procurement should do so within 
45 calendar days of the date of the CBD synopsis.

Six firms, including Eclypse, submitted timely expressions of interest 
to the agency.  Shortly after responding to the CBD notice, Eclypse, 
in response to an agency request, submitted additional information 
regarding its circuit analyzers.  On April 12, the solicitation was 
canceled due to lack of funds.  The agency informed Eclypse, as well 
as the other vendors seeking to become approved sources of the circuit 
analyzers, that they should continue to pursue source approval "as a 
[p]urchase [r]equest for this item may be funded in the future."

On April 22, the agency informed Eclypse that its "source approval 
request package ha[d] been evaluated," and requested that Eclypse 
"provide a sample item[] for testing."  The agency's notice to Eclypse 
provided that Eclypse would have to demonstrate its unit at the Corpus 
Christi Army Depot (CCAD), which serves as the repair facility for the 
MH-60G helicopter weapon system.  The demonstration at CCAD was 
determined necessary by the agency to ensure that the proposed circuit 
analyzers were capable of interfacing with the test program sets, 
software, and cable assemblies developed by CCAD for use in the 
maintenance and repair of the MH-60G helicopters.

On May 21, Eclypse requested that the agency assist Eclypse "in 
planning for the demonstration of [Eclypse's] equipment" by providing, 
among other things, a "[s]ample test program . . . to allow [Eclypse] 
to verify [its] capability in this particular instance."  The agency 
sent the test programs to Eclypse shortly thereafter with the test 
programs being received by Eclypse on June 11.

Meanwhile, the agency determined that the procurement of 14 deployable 
circuit analyzers from DIT-MCO on a sole source basis was justified 
because of an unusual and compelling urgency.  A justification and 
approval (J&A) authorizing the acquisition was prepared, as was a 
determination that synopsizing the requirement would unduly delay the 
procurement.  The agency subsequently awarded DIT-MCO a contract for 
the 14 deployable circuit analyzers.

Eclypse protests that the agency's award of a contract on a sole 
source basis to DIT-MCO for 14 deployable circuit analyzers was 
improper because there is no urgency justifying the sole source award.  
Eclypse argues that, in any event, it should have been solicited for 
this requirement, contending that it has supplied circuit analyzers to 
the Navy for the repair and maintenance of the Navy's H-60 helicopter, 
and that if it had been solicited it could satisfactorily demonstrate 
its circuit analyzers at CCAD and provide deployable circuit analyzers 
meeting the agency's needs.

The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) provides for the use 
of noncompetitive procedures where an 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) (1994).  Although CICA requires 
that the agency request offers from "as many potential sources as is 
practicable under the circumstances," 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(e); see Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  6.302-(c)(2), an agency may still limit 
the procurement to the only firm it reasonably believes can properly 
perform the work in the available time.  Sargent & Greenleaf, Inc.; 
The Safemasters Co., Inc., B-255604.3, Mar. 22, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  208; 
Silco Eng'g & Mfg. Co., B-250012.6, May 7, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  372.  In 
addition, an agency is not required to synopsize such urgent contract 
actions where the government would be seriously injured if the agency 
were to comply with the time periods required for publication of the 
synopsis.  FAR  sec.  5.202(a)(2); Abbott Prods., Inc., B-231131, Aug. 8, 
1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  119.  We will object to an agency's determination 
that its has a need for property or services of an unusual and 
compelling urgency and that there is only one source that can meet the 
need only where the determination lacks a reasonable basis.  Id.  In 
this regard, a military agency's assertion that there is a critical 
need which impacts military operations carries considerable weight, 
and the protester's burden to show unreasonableness is particularly 
heavy.  Sargent & Greenleaf, Inc.; The Safemasters Co., Inc., supra; 
Abbot Prods., Inc., supra. 

The J&A authorizing the acquisition of the circuit analyzers on a sole 
source basis states that the deployable circuit analyzers "will allow 
for badly needed field checks on the MH-60G helicopters used by the 
Special Operations Forces."  The J&A explains that the MH-60G 
helicopters, which are used primarily in the rescue of downed pilots 
in hostile areas, currently "operate without the assurance of having 
circuit analyzers in-place to eliminate potentially hazardous wiring 
problems."  According to the J&A, the deployable circuit analyzers 
"will be used to perform aircraft systems wiring maintenance and 
related preventative maintenance tasks . . . necessary to keep MH-60G 
Pavehawk helicopters in mission-capable status and safe," and that 
"deployment without repair capability will cause aircraft grounding, 
possible loss of life and/or aircraft."  The J&A notes that the agency 
is "currently attempting to approve other sources that can demonstrate 
the ability of their analyzers."  

In our view, the record evidences that the agency's decision was based 
upon its determination that the deployable circuit testers are 
currently and urgently needed, and that without this equipment 
helicopter safety will be adversely affected.  This determination was 
properly documented by the agency, and the protester's unsupported 
assertions to the contrary simply do not establish that the agency's 
decision that it had a critical need for the items was unreasonable.  
The fact that this urgent requirement was determined shortly after the 
cancellation of the prior solicitation does not belie the urgency.

In addition, the record evidences that the agency has taken steps to 
ensure that it procures only the number of deployable circuit 
analyzers it currently requires, leaving the balance of deployable and 
"shop-type" circuit analyzers to be procured competitively if 
additional sources are approved.  In this regard, the agency notes 
that "[d]espite a fleet of 90 [MH-60G] helicopters stationed at 25 
forward operating bases, the sole-source award was limited to 14 
deployable circuit analyzers to be shared at the 14 most critical 
locations."  The Air Force adds that "[s]ignificant future 
procurements of deployable circuit analyzers are anticipated and the 
Air Force will continue its efforts to approve as many sources as 
possible for those procurement[s]."  In our view, the Air Force's 
determination that it had a need of unusual and compelling urgency for 
14 deployable circuit analyzers was reasonably based.

We also find that the agency's decision to limit the noncompetitive 
award to DIT-MCO was reasonable in view of the fact that only DIT-MCO 
circuit analyzers have been tested and approved by the agency.  In 
this regard, the agency explains that the circuit analyzers produced 
by Eclypse and used by the Navy are for the Navy's configuration of 
the H-60 helicopter, and that "[a]lthough there are similarities in 
the circuit analyzers used by the Navy and the Air Force, there are 
differences in configuration to accommodate the specific mission of 
the military branch."  The agency adds that because of the 
configuration differences, the Navy's approval of Eclypse's analyzers 
"doesn't necessarily mean the item is compatible with Air Force 
systems," and thus, "software compatibility testing at the CCAD 
facility is required."

Eclypse does not assert that a demonstration test of its circuit 
analyzers at CCAD should be waived, but rather contends that its 
ability to perform such a test was adversely affected by "numerous 
delays [it encountered] in obtaining source approval."  The record 
does not support Eclypse's complaint that it encountered "numerous 
delays" in obtaining source approval.  First, the only "delay" 
referenced by Eclypse is the 3-week period from its request of May 21 
that it be provided with a sample test program, and its receipt of the 
such a program from the agency on June 11.  Eclypse provides no 
explanation as to why it was adversely affected by this "delay" in 
light of its failure to communicate with the agency during the 3 
months between its receipt of the information on June 11, and the 
filing of this protest on September 9 or its "request for 
clarification of requirements" submitted to the agency on September 
12.  Nor does Eclypse provide any explanation as to why, in view of 
its apparent claim that it could have satisfactorily demonstrated its 
circuit analyzers at CCAD if it had been solicited, it still has not 
requested an opportunity to do so.  In sum, the record does not 
support Eclypse's claim that it encountered numerous delays in 
obtaining source approval, nor its assertion that it could provide an 
approved circuit analyzer in sufficient time to meet the agency's 
urgent requirement.   
 
The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States