B-165738, MAR. 14, 1969

B-165738, MAR. 14, 1969

TO CROWLEY AND O-CONNOR:

WE REFER TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF DECEMBER 3, 1968, AND YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 11, PROTESTING, ON BEHALF OF EDM OF TEXAS, INC. (EDM), AGAINST THE CANCELLATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE OF REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) F41608-69-Q-5124, ISSUED OCTOBER 8, 1968, BY HEADQUARTERS SAN ANTONIO AIR MATERIEL AREA (SAAMA).

THE PROCUREMENT COVERS SERVICES FOR THE REPAIR AND RECONDITIONING OF 22 TYPES OF CARBON FACED SEALS USED IN TF-33 AND J-57 AIRCRAFT ENGINES EMPLOYED IN SOUTHEAST ASIA. THE AIRCRAFT ENGINES ARE MANUFACTURED BY PRATT AND WHITNEY AIRCRAFT DIVISION (P-AND-W) OF UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, WHICH HAS BEEN THE SOLE SOURCE TO DATE FOR NEW SEALS AND FOR THE REPAIR OF USED SEALS. ALL OF THE SEALS ARE CLASSED BY THE AIR FORCE AS CRITICAL PARTS.

YOU STATE THAT SAAMA SOLICITED EDM EARLY IN 1968 AS A POSSIBLE SOURCE FOR REPAIR AND REFURBISHMENT OF THE SEALS; THAT EDM, AFTER REPAIRING VARIOUS SEALS FOR THE TF-33 ENGINE, WAS INCLUDED AS A "QUALIFIED VENDOR" ON AN APPROVED SOURCE LIST DATED AUGUST 31, 1968, AND REISSUED ON OCTOBER 7, 1968; AND THAT YOU BELIEVE EDM WAS THE LOWEST OFFEROR UNDER THE RFQ. YOU FURTHER STATE THAT THE DEFENSE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES REGION (DCASR), DALLAS, TEXAS, CONDUCTED A PREAWARD SURVEY OF EDM AT THE REQUEST OF SAAMA DURING THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 18 TO 21, 1968, AND THAT PRIOR TO THE CANCELLATION OF THE PROCUREMENT EDM HAD BEEN ADVISED BY THE AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND (AFLC) THAT AFLC HAD NO REASON TO QUESTION EDM'S QUALIFICATION AND BY SAAMA ENGINEERING PERSONNEL THAT SAAMA REGARDED ITS OWN SPECIFICATIONS AS ADEQUATE. ACCORDINGLY, YOU REQUEST THE ASSISTANCE OF OUR OFFICE IN ASCERTAINING THE BASIS OF THE CANCELLATION OF THE RFQ AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROCUREMENT OF THE SERVICES FROM P-AND-W ON A SOLE SOURCE BASIS.

IN A LETTER TO EDM DATED DECEMBER 4, 1968, SAAMA STATED THAT ITS PRE- SOLICITATION APPROVAL OF EDM AS A SUITABLE SOURCE FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEALS HAD BEEN BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS KNOWN TO SAAMA AND ON EDM'S SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE THEREOF. HOWEVER, SAAMA FURTHER STATED THAT DURING THE EVALUATION OF THE QUOTATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE RFQ, SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS WERE BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION WHICH HAVE A BEARING ON THE ULTIMATE QUALITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT. SPECIFIC MENTION WAS MADE OF UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS REGARDING THE EXACT CARBON MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS APPROVED FOR EACH SPECIFIC PART NUMBERED SEAL AND THE FEASIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF APPLYING ALUMINUM OXIDE COATINGS TO EACH SUCH SEAL. IN ADDITION, SAAMA STATED THAT ITS SPECIFICATIONS DID NOT INCLUDE CERTAIN CRITICAL PROCESSES IN REFURBISHMENT WHICH, IF NOT FOLLOWED, WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SEALS. ACCORDINGLY, SAAMA STATED, IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES CONCERNED TO DEFER COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF THE REPAIR SERVICES UNTIL THE QUESTIONS WERE RESOLVED AND TO CONTINUE PROCUREMENT OF THE SEAL REFURBISHMENT FROM P -AND-W.

IN A REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1969, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HAS ADVISED OUR OFFICE THAT THE SEALS IN QUESTION, IF DEFECTIVE OR IMPROPERLY INSTALLED, CAN CAUSE A SERIOUS ENGINE FIRE WITH A RESULTING AIRPLANE CRASH. FOR SUCH REASON, IT IS STATED, THE PRIOR APPROVAL BY AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND (AFLC) OF THE SAAMA COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT HAS BEEN RESCINDED, AND REFURBISHED SEALS WILL BE OBTAINED ONLY FROM P AND-W, PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED.

AS TO THE QUALIFICATION OF EDM TO PERFORM THE REPAIR SERVICES, THE DEPARTMENT STATES THAT SUCH QUALIFICATION WAS UNDERTAKEN WITH RESPECT TO ONLY ONE OF THE 22 SEALS LISTED IN THE RFQ. THE SEAL, WHICH EDM REPAIRED TO THE SATISFACTION OF SAAMA, IS IDENTIFIED AS P/N246822, AND THE REPORT INDICATES THAT ITS SELECTION FOR THE SAAMA QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES WAS PROMPTED BY ITS BEING COMMON TO BOTH THE TF-33 AND J-57 ENGINES AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS FREQUENTLY IN SHORT SUPPLY.

THE DEPARTMENT CONFIRMS YOUR BELIEF THAT EDM WAS THE LOWEST OFFEROR AND REPORTS THAT THE DCASR PREAWARD SURVEY OF EDM WAS FAVORABLE. THE DEPARTMENT STATES, HOWEVER, THAT DURING THE PERIOD THE VARIOUS QUOTATIONS WERE UNDER EVALUATION SEVERAL QUESTIONS WERE RAISED BY AFLC REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE SAAMA SPECIFICATIONS. ONE SUCH QUESTION INVOLVED STRIKING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SPECIFICATIONS USED BY SAAMA AND THE P-AND-W SPECIFICATIONS. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE SAAMA SPECIFICATIONS CONCENTRATED ON USING ONLY ONE SPECIFIC CARBON MIXTURE FOR THE FACING OF MOST OF THE SEALS WHEREAS P-AND-W SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRE SEVERAL DIFFERENT FORMULAS FOR VARIOUS SEALS. IN ADDITION, BOTH SPECIFICATIONS DIFFERED AS TO THE SURFACE TREATMENT, E.G., CHROMIUM PLATING, IN SPECIFIC CASES.

ANOTHER FACTOR THAT LED TO THE DECISION TO CANCEL THE COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT, THE DEPARTMENT STATES, WAS THE VIEW THAT SWITCHING FROM THE ENGINE MANUFACTURER TO A NEWLY QUALIFIED BUT NOT FULLY TESTED SOURCE FOR 22 DIFFERENT SEALS WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE INVOLVING CONSIDERABLE RISK. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS STATED, THE PROCUREMENT ACTION AS A WHOLE WAS REGARDED AS PREMATURE ESPECIALLY WHEN VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF FLIGHT SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.

THE SUBSEQUENT PROCUREMENT FROM P-AND-W CITED BASIC ORDERING AGREEMENT F41608-67-A-2610-0020. FURTHER, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) 3-202.3 AND 3-410.2 (C), THE SUPPORTING DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS (D-AND-F) ISSUED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATED THAT THE SEALS BORE PRIORITY DESIGNATOR 2, THAT THE PUBLIC EXIGENCY WOULD NOT PERMIT THE DELAY INCIDENT TO FORMAL ADVERTISING, AND THAT NEGOTIATION WAS AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. 2304 (A) (2).

FROM THE FOREGOING, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CANCELLATION OF THE RFQ, WHILE REGRETTABLE, WAS EFFECTED ONLY AFTER A REVIEW OF THE PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENT INDICATED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON TO QUESTION WHETHER COMPLIANCE WITH THE SAAMA TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, WHICH HAD BEEN EMPLOYED IN THE REPAIR OF ONLY ONE TYPE OF SEAL, WOULD PRODUCE RELIABLE WORK ON ALL 22 TYPES OF SEALS LISTED IN THE RFQ, ALL OF WHICH ARE CLASSED AS CRITICAL PARTS. IN ADDITION, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION BUT THAT TIME DID NOT PERMIT ANY FURTHER DELAY IN THE PROCUREMENT OF THE SERVICES IN QUESTION, THE LOW PRIORITY DESIGNATOR BEING EVIDENCE IN ITSELF OF AN URGENT NEED. (SEE ASPR 3-202.3.) IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO LEGAL BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE PROPRIETY OF THE CANCELLATION OF THE RFQ AND THE SUBSEQUENT SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT FROM P-AND-W. B-154028, SEPTEMBER 9, 1964; B 161031, JUNE 1, 1967; B-163118, MARCH 8, 1968. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.