BNUMBER:  B-281246             
DATE:  January 14, 1999
TITLE: Vision Blocks, Inc., B-281246, January 14, 1999
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Vision Blocks, Inc.

File:B-281246            
        
Date:January 14, 1999

Edward J. Kinberg, Esq., for the protester. 
David R. Hazelton, Esq., Latham & Watkins, for Miller-Holzwarth, Inc., 
an intervenor. 
Gail Booth, Esq., and Walter R. Pierce, Esq., Defense Logistics 
Agency, for the agency. 
Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Contracting agency reasonably waived first article test requirement 
for a firm where the firm had successfully supplied production 
quantities of similar items to the government under a previous 
contract and the firm's first article was tested and approved under 
that contract to the same military specification that applies in the 
current procurement.

DECISION

Vision Blocks, Inc. (VBI) protests the Defense Logistics Agency's 
(DLA) decision to waive first article testing (FAT) for 
Miller-Holzwarth, Inc. (MHI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
SPO750-98-R-2022, for direct vision blocks.  

We deny the protest.

Issued on April 2, 1998, by the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC) 
the RFP solicited offers for supplying 1,797 direct vision blocks, 
national stock number 2510-00-630-0790 (hereinafter referred to as No. 
0790), for use on the M88 recovery vehicle.[1]  RFP at 1, 3-4; 
Contracting Officer's Report at 1.  The RFP required the selected 
contractor to provide a first article for testing and a FAT report for 
approval by the agency.  RFP  sec.  I43(a), (b).  The RFP also provided 
that the agency could waive the FAT requirement where an offeror had 
previously furnished identical or similar supplies to the government.  
RFP  sec.  I43(h).

The protester and MHI submitted offers and requested waiver of FAT; 
after determining that each had previously performed FAT and furnished 
identical or similar vision blocks to the Army, the agency waived the 
requirement for both firms.  Contracting Officer's Report at 1.  After 
a comparative assessment of the offers, the contracting officer 
determined that MHI's offer was lower-priced than VBI's and that MHI's 
offer represented the best value.  Letter from DLA Regional Counsel to 
General Counsel of the General Accounting Office at 2 (Oct. 21, 1998).

On September 17, VBI's president was informed by the contracting 
officer of the agency's decision to waive the FAT requirement for MHI.  
Protest at 2.  By letter of September 21, VBI protested to the 
contracting agency the decision to waive FAT for MHI.  Contracting 
Officer's Report at 2.  The contracting officer denied VBI's protest 
on September 30, explaining that MHI had passed the FAT requirement 
for a similar item it previously supplied to the government.[2]  Id.  
Shortly thereafter, VBI filed this protest with our Office.[3]

The protester alleges that DLA had no reasonable basis for determining 
that the vision blocks MHI previously supplied to the Army were 
"similar or identical" to the parts being purchased in this 
procurement.  Protest at 3.  Therefore, VBI contends that the agency 
improperly waived the FAT requirement for MHI.  Id.

An agency's decision to waive a FAT requirement is largely 
discretionary since the requirement is for the protection and benefit 
of the government, and our Office will not disturb that decision 
unless we find it to be unreasonable.  Marine Instrument Co., 
B-241292.3, Mar. 22, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  317 at 3.  Based upon our review 
of the record, we find that the agency reasonably waived the FAT 
requirement for MHI.

In its request for waiver of the FAT requirement, MHI stated that it 
had manufactured three vision blocks that were similar in 
configuration to the vision blocks being purchased by DLA.  Letter 
from the President of MHI to DSSC at 1 (May 1, 1998).  MHI also stated 
that it had successfully completed FAT for two of the three similar 
vision blocks, and MHI provided a copy of a DLA letter (dated December 
18, 1998) approving MHI's FAT report.[4] Id., Attachment, at 1.  MHI 
also listed four contracts that it had been awarded by the Army for 
the manufacture of vision blocks.  Id. at 2.  

Here, DLA waived FAT for MHI primarily on the basis of the Army's 
previous approval of MHI's FAT report for vision block No. [deleted].  
Contracting Officer's Report at 2.  The agency was aware that there 
were some differences between vision block No. [deleted] and vision 
block No. 0790, but the agency considered them to be "minor 
differences in characteristics and construction" and determined that 
vision block No. [deleted] was "still very similar to the item 
solicited as it has the same critical characteristics."  Id.  Among 
other things, DLA determined that the two types of vision blocks were 
very similar and waived FAT for MHI because:  (1) the FAT for vision 
block No. [deleted] was conducted in accord with the same military 
specification that is applicable to vision block No. 0790; (2) both 
types of vision blocks are Type 1 (i.e., steel cased); (3) both types 
of vision blocks are Class 2 (i.e., composite-laminated, glass-plastic 
construction); (4) both types of vision blocks are classified as Duty 
A (i.e., a specific degree of ballistic resistance).  Id. at 3; 
Statement of DSCC-LECA Section Chief at 1 (Nov. 4, 1998).  Even though 
the vision blocks differ in shape and are mounted differently, the 
agency believed that MHI had the processes, equipment, and experience 
(i.e., over 35 years of experience in producing optical products) to 
shape and mount the vision blocks as required by DSCC.  Statement of 
DSCC-LECA Section Chief at 1 (Nov. 4, 1998); Statement of [deleted], 
DSCC Quality Assurance Specialist at 1 (Nov. 2, 1998).  

In addition to the previous approval of MHI's FAT, the record shows 
that MHI successfully completed performance of the Army contract, 
manufacturing and furnishing more than [deleted] vision blocks, and 
the Army reported no deficiencies on any of the vision blocks it 
received.  Contracting Officer's Report at 2; Army Report on Contract 
No. DAAE07-90-C-1197 at 3, 5.  Furthermore, our visual examination of 
the two types of vision blocks (VBI provided a sample of each type to 
our Office) reveals no basis for disputing or finding unreasonable 
DLA's determination that the vision blocks being procured by DLA were 
similar to those previously supplied to the Army.  In these 
circumstances, we think that the agency reasonably determined that MHI 
had previously manufactured a similar vision block under the Army 
contract and, since MHI's FAT under that Army contract was approved to 
the same military specification that would be applied by DLA in this 
procurement, the agency also reasonably waived FAT for MHI as allowed 
under the RFP.  Aero Tube and Connector Co., B-216280, Dec. 11, 1984, 
84-2 CPD  para.  650 at 2; see also Marine Instrument Co., supra. 

In its November 16, 1998, comments on the agency's report, VBI alleged 
for the first time in our Office a number of specific differences 
between the vision block MHI previously produced for the Army and the 
vision block being acquired by DLA.  Protester Reply to Agency Report 
at 7-8.  These allegations are untimely because they were known to VBI 
when it filed its initial protest in our Office, but the specific 
differences were not alleged until VBI commented on the DLA report 
more than 5 weeks later.[5]  Where, as here, a protester raises a 
broad ground of protest in its initial submission, but fails to 
provide any detail on the protest ground until later, so that a 
further response from the agency would be needed for an objective 
review of the matter, we decline to consider such protest grounds 
because they are presented in a piecemeal fashion, which is disruptive 
to the prompt and orderly resolution of the protest.  Management Sys. 
Applications, Inc., B-259628, B-259628.2, Apr. 13, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
216 at 11.  

In addition, VBI asserts in its comments that MHI's 
previously-manufactured vision block used a different "potting" 
material and bonding agent.  Protester Reply to Agency Report at 2-3.  
However, VBI did not provide any detailed explanation of why these 
alleged differences are significant, or why they make the two types of 
vision blocks so dissimilar that the agency determination to waive FAT 
was unreasonable.[6]  Even if true, without additional explanation, 
these allegations provide no basis to overturn DLA's decision to waive 
FAT.  Thus, the allegations do not provide sufficient bases for 
protest and are dismissed.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.1(c)(4), 21.1(i) (1998). 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. A vision block is a block made up of layers of glass cemented 
together with clear adhesive.  A vision block is positioned into a 
slot in the driver's compartment of a vehicle to allow the driver to 
see out while preventing projectiles from small weapons from entering 
the vehicle.  Contracting Officer's Report at 1.  

2. MHI manufactured a vision block, part No. [deleted], for the Army 
under contract No. DAAE07-90-C-1197.   Letter from the President of 
MHI to DSCC at 1 (May 1, 1998); Contracting Officer's Report at 2.

3. Award has been held in abeyance pending our resolution of the 
protest.  Contracting Officer's Report at 2.

4. The Army approved the FAT report but, since DLA was administering 
the contract for the Army, the letter communicating that approval to 
the contractor was signed by a DLA official and was on DLA letterhead.

5. It is evident that the alleged differences were known to VBI before 
it filed its protest in our Office, since VBI states that it has been 
manufacturing both vision blocks for over 10 years and since VBI had 
earlier raised the differences with DLA.  Declaration of the President 
of VBI, at 4 (Nov. 16, 1998); Letter from VBI Counsel to DLA Counsel, 
at 1-2 (Oct. 1, 1998). 

6. Regarding potting material, DLA states that the Army has approved 
MHI's potting method as an improvement that eliminates yellowing and 
degrading of the optical bonds.