BNUMBER:  B-275813.2 
DATE: April 23, 1997 
TITLE:  Matter of:Apache Enterprises, Inc.

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

Matter of:Apache Enterprises, Inc.

File:     B-275813.2

Date:April 23, 1997

J. Michael Slocum, Esq., Slocum & Boddie, for the protester.
Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and H. Bruce Bartholomew, Esq., Department 
of the Army, for the agency.
Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that source controlled components offered by the awardee 
were not properly qualified is denied where the record shows that the 
components satisfied the qualification requirements specified in the 
applicable drawings.

2.  Protester was not prejudiced by the procuring agency's failure to 
identify in the solicitation the awardee as an approved source for the 
components where the record does not show or otherwise evidence that 
the protester would or could have altered its bid to its competitive 
advantage had the protester known of this source approval.

DECISION

Apache Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Panelite 
Engineering, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
DAAJ09-96-B-0046, issued by the U.S. Army Aviation and Troop Command 
for night vision modification kits.

We deny the protest.

The IFB, issued June 21, 1996, as a small business set-aside, sought 
28 night vision modification kits to be provided to the Republic of 
Korea under the Foreign Military Sales program.  The night vision kits 
consist of 39 components, three of which (two postlight bases and one 
postlight cap) are identified as source approved items.  The postlight 
bases and cap provide illumination for aircraft control panels under 
night vision conditions.  

The IFB identified drawings required for the kit components.  These 
drawings identified Apache as the only approved source for the 
postlight bases and caps, and stated the requirements for source 
approval.  Among other things, sources seeking approval for the caps 
were required to provide a test report, which verified that the source 
satisfied the radiance requirements stated in the applicable military 
standard, MIL-L-856762A, and in note 5B of the drawings; at note 5B, 
the method by which the illumination requirements must be tested is 
set forth.

The IFB also informed bidders that they were required to utilize parts 
from only approved sources and that bidders could be required to 
document prior to award that arrangements to obtain source approved 
components had been made.  The IFB provided for first article testing, 
which, among other things, would verify the use of source controlled 
components.

At the July 30 bid opening, the Army received three bids, including 
those of Apache and Panelite.  Panelite submitted the low bid of 
$145,200, and Apache submitted the second low bid of $246,788.18.  
Panelite was asked to verify its bid, which it did.  A pre-award 
survey was also conducted.  In response to Apache's complaints, the 
Army investigated whether Panelite could provide the required source 
approved components, discovering that Panelite intended to furnish 
postlight bases and caps of Pan-A-Lite, Inc.,[1] which had been 
approved as a source for these restricted components in early May 
1996, although Pan-A-Lite was not listed on the drawings.  Although 
Panelite was found technically capable of performing, the survey 
recommended "no award" because of Panelite's high delinquency rate on 
deliveries.  Based on this negative pre-award survey, the Army 
determined that Panelite was not responsible.  This matter was 
referred to the Small Business Administration, which issued a 
certificate of competency.  Award was made to Panelite on December 8, 
and this protest followed.

Apache objects to the Army's approval of Pan-A-Lite as a source to 
provide the restricted postlight bases and caps.  Apache contends that 
Pan-A-Lite's product was not subjected to the same testing as was 
Apache's to ensure that Pan-A-Lite's product would meet the agency's 
needs.[2]

The system of qualifying and approving products, which is generally 
used prior to, and independent of, individual procurements, is 
nevertheless an integral part of the system of procuring qualified and 
approved products.  Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 72 Comp. Gen. 28, 
31-32 (1992), 92-2 CPD  para.  315 at 5; Chemonics Indus., Inc., B-260284, 
Apr. 19, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  206 at 2-3.  Where, as here, a solicitation 
requires that the product procured be qualified or approved, it is 
improper to include in the list of approved products an item that has 
not been properly approved and does not satisfy the applicable 
specifications; including such a product in the list may constitute a 
basis for sustaining a protest if the agency's action prejudices the 
protester.  Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 72 Comp. Gen. at 40-41, 92-2 
CPD  para.  315 at 17.

The record shows that the Army's approval of Pan-A-Lite as a source 
for the postlight bases and caps was based upon the test report 
submitted by Pan-A-Lite to demonstrate that its product satisfied the 
requirements identified on the source controlled drawings.  This test 
report described the requirements specified on the drawings, detailed 
the qualification test procedures used, and provided test results 
demonstrating that Pan-A-Lite's product satisfied all the requirements 
specified on the source controlled drawings.  The Army states that it 
approved Pan-A-Lite as source for the postlight bases and caps based 
upon this test report, and, in early May amended the applicable source 
controlled drawings to indicate that Pan-A-Lite was an approved 
source.

Apache asserts that Pan-A-Lite's test report does not demonstrate that 
firm's product satisfied the applicable source approval requirements.  
Specifically, Apache complains that Pan-A-Lite's qualification testing 
was conducted by a party that is interested in Pan-A-Lite's receiving 
source approval; that a government quality assurance representative 
was not present during the qualification testing; and that the 
illumination pattern testing performed was not sufficient to ensure 
even brightness across a specified quadrant only took one illumination 
reading in each quadrant.

We find, contrary to Apache's arguments, that Pan-A-Lite's test report 
provided the Army with a reasonable basis to approve Pan-A-Lite as a 
source for the postlight bases and caps.  The test report on its face 
shows that the testing of Pan-A-Lite's product was conducted in 
accordance with the requirements specified on the source controlled 
drawings and that the product tested satisfied those requirements.  
While Apache complains that the illumination testing of Pan-A-Lite's 
product consisted of only one reading in each quadrant, the tests 
specified in the drawings did not require more than this; 
specifically, the drawings only provide, in this regard, that 
"measurements shall be taken in each of the four quadrants shown."  

There is also no requirement stated in the drawings that specifies who 
must conduct the qualification testing or that testing must be 
conducted before a government quality assurance representative.  While 
Apache states that the testing was done by an "interested party," the 
protester does not explain, nor does the record otherwise evidence, 
why the company that performed the testing is "interested" or how this 
indicates that the testing was improper.  In the absence of any 
evidence discrediting the qualification testing or test results, we 
find no basis to question the Army's acceptance of the test report.

Apache also complains that it was prejudiced by the Army's failure to 
identify for bidders that Pan-A-Lite was an approved source for these 
components.  The Army responds that although Pan-A-Lite was approved 
as a source for these components prior to the issuance of the 
solicitation, the agency's contracting personnel were unaware of 
Pan-A-Lite's qualification until after bid opening.  The agency states 
that its engineering personnel amended the drawings identifying 
Pan-A-Lite as an approved source and forwarded these drawings to the 
U.S. Army Aviation and Troop Command data repository in early May 
1996, but that it takes the repository approximately 2 months to 
update the drawings, and this is the reason the IFB drawings did not 
identify Pan-A-Lite as an approved source.  The Army argues that, in 
any event, Apache was not prejudiced by the agency's failure to 
identify Pan-A-Lite as an approved source.  Specifically, the Army 
notes that Apache's $246,788 bid is more than $100,000 higher than 
Panelite's $145,200 bid and that the cost impact of the three source 
approved components on the total kit cost was minimal.[3]

Prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest, and where no 
prejudice is shown, or is otherwise evident, our Office will not 
disturb an award, even if some technical deficiency in the procurement 
may have occurred.  Lithos Restoration, Ltd., 71 Comp. Gen. 367, 371 
(1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  379 at 5-6.  Here, to establish prejudice, Apache 
would need to show that it could and would have displaced Panelite as 
the low bidder had Apache known of Pan-A-Lite's qualification as an 
approved source.  See Hughes Georgia, Inc., B-244936; B-244396.2, Nov. 
13, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  457 at 9-10.

The record does not show or otherwise evidence that Apache was 
prejudiced by the agency's actions.  Apache's generalized statement 
that it could have submitted a lower bid had it known of Pan-A-Lite's 
qualification is not sufficient to demonstrate prejudice in these 
circumstances where there was a large disparity between Apache's and 
Panelite's bid prices and the cost of the source approved components 
is minimal in relation to the overall cost of the kits.  Moreover, 
Apache's argument that it would have sought to qualify a product under 
the allegedly lesser standard applied to Pan-A-Lite's product does not 
support a finding that Apache was prejudiced in light of the finding 
above that Pan-A-Lite's product was reasonably approved under the 
qualification standards stated in the source controlled drawings.  In 
sum, there is simply no evidence in the record showing that Apache 
could or would have altered its bid to its competitive advantage had 
it known that Pan-A-Lite was an approved source for the postlight 
bases and caps.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The record shows that Panelite and Pan-A-Lite are different 
companies.  Although Apache complains that the two companies may be 
affiliated, this is not relevant to whether Pan-A-Lite was properly 
approved as a source for the controlled components.

2. To the extent that Apache's complaint is that its product was 
subjected to more stringent testing than that provided for by the 
drawings, we will not consider a protest that a procurement should be 
subject to greater restriction than an agency believes is necessary to 
meet its needs.  See Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., B-241037, Oct. 12, 
1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  289 at 2.  The question we resolve in this protest is 
whether Pan-A-Lite's product was properly approved as a source in 
accordance with the requirements specified in the drawings.

3. The Army purchased the postlight caps under a prior purchase order 
at a unit price of $28 per each cap.