BNUMBER:  B-274904
DATE:  November 15, 1996
TITLE:  Ensign-Bickford Company

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

Matter of:Ensign-Bickford Company

File:     B-274904

Date:November 15, 1996

Paul J. Seidman, Esq., and Robert D. Banfield, Esq., Seidman & 
Associates, for the protester.
Steve Bartholomew for Shock Tube Systems, an intervenor.
Craig E. Hodge, Esq., and Denise C. Scott, Esq., Department of the 
Army, for the agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

In view of elimination of Walsh-Healey Act requirement for supply 
contractors to certify their status as regular dealer in or 
manufacturer of the supplies offered, challenge to offeror's 
certification of its status as a manufacturer fails to state a valid 
basis of protest.

DECISION

Ensign-Bickford Company protests the award of a contract to Shock Tube 
Systems (STS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE30-96-R-0090, 
issued by the Department of the Army for the M14 blasting cap.

We dismiss the protest.

Ensign-Bickford contends that the agency did not investigate whether 
STS was a manufacturer of the blasting caps under the Walsh-Healey 
Act, 41 U.S.C.  sec.  35-45 (1994), as STS certified in its proposal.  The 
Walsh-Healey Act, which applies to supply contracts, essentially 
imposed two requirements, the first that firms certify their status as 
regular dealers or manufacturers, and the second that firms adhere to 
minimum wage and maximum hour standards, child labor laws, and safety 
regulations.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  35.[1]  Over the years, however, the 
contractual obligations imposed by Walsh-Healey were superseded by 
other statutes, and there remained only the certification provision.  
The purpose of the Act then was described as an attempt "to restrict 
the bounty of government contracts to established manufacturers and 
dealers because they are most likely to effect Walsh-Healey goals of 
maintaining high labor standards in connection with wages and 
conditions"  Ulstein Maritime, Ltd. v. U.S., 646 F. Supp. 720, 737 
(D.R.I. 1986), aff'd, 833 F.2d 1052 (1st Cir. 1987).

Section 7201 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 
(FASA), Pub. L. No. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3243, 3378 (1994), eliminated 
the certification requirement.  As required by Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR)  sec.  22.602, the agency here included FAR  sec.  52.222-19, 
implementing the certification requirement, and FAR  sec.  52.222-20, which 
requires compliance with the Act during performance.  While the FAR 
has not yet been amended to eliminate the certification requirement, 
FAR  sec.  52.222-19 implements the certification requirement repealed by 
FASA.  The issue of whether STS is a manufacturer therefore has no 
practical relevance to contract performance.

Given the elimination of the statutory requirement for the 
certification, we conclude that the protester's challenge to the 
awardee's certification of its status fails to state a valid basis of 
protest.

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The remaining sections of the Act, 41 U.S.C.  sec.  36-45, are 
essentially administrative and remedial provisions that impose no 
separate obligations on contractors.