BlueStar Battery Systems Corporation

BlueStar Battery Systems Corporation BNUMBER: B-270111.2; B-270111.3 DATE: February 12, 1996 TITLE: BlueStar Battery Systems Corporation ********************************************************************** Matter of:BlueStar Battery Systems Corporation File: B-270111.2; B-270111.3 Date: February 12, 1996 Alan Grayson, Esq., and Victor Kubli, Esq., for the protester. Richard J. Bednar, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for Saft America Inc.; Norman A. Steiger, Esq., for Power Conversion, Inc., intervenors. Richard A. Couch, Esq., Vera Meza, Esq., and John J. Reynolds, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 The Army properly restricted urgent procurement for large quantities of batteries to power various types of portable communications-electronics equipment essential to accomplishing the Army's battlefield mission to the only two manufacturers that had supplied the batteries to the Army under previous contracts, where: (1) the Army reasonably believed those offerors were the only manufacturers that would have a high probability of delivering quality batteries in a timely manner; and (2) the protester, which was excluded from the competition, had never manufactured the batteries for the Army and had only supplied relatively small quantities of the batteries to the Government of Canada. DECISION BlueStar Battery Systems Corporation protests the Department of the Army's decision to exclude it from the competition under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAAB07-95-B-G346, for supplying batteries used in military applications.[1] We deny the protest. The Army's Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) issued the IFB on September 20, 1995, orally soliciting bids for supplying 408,000 BA-5590/U nonrechargeable lithium sulfur dioxide batteries from Saft America Inc. and Power Conversion Inc. (PCI), the only two firms that had produced the battery for the Army previously. The BA-5590/U battery is a small, lightweight battery that can provide high power output over a wide temperature range. It is the primary power source for approximately 50 different types of portable communications-electronics equipment[2] used by soldiers, many of which are essential to the Army's ability to accomplish its battlefield mission. Both Saft and PCI submitted bids by September 25. Saft's total bid price was $16,870,800 and PCI's was $21,750,480. After pre-award surveys were conducted on both offerors, the contracting officer determined that PCI was responsible but Saft was not and, on September 30, the contract was awarded to PCI. BlueStar filed its protest in our Office on October 10, alleging that the agency improperly failed to solicit a bid from it even though BlueStar had previously expressed to the Army its desire to compete in procurements for BA-5590/U batteries,[3] and that CECOM knows BlueStar is an experienced, responsible battery producer. The protester points out that as recently as July 1995 it had expressed to CECOM its interest competing in a procurement for BA-5590/U batteries and in fact had received a copy of the solicitation from the agency. BlueStar also contends that the agency was aware that it presently makes the BA-5590/U battery for the Government of Canada. The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) provides for the use of noncompetitive procedures where the 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). This authority is limited by the CICA provisions at 10 U.S.C. sec. 2304(e), which require agencies to request offers from as many sources as practicable. An agency using the urgency exception may restrict competition to the firms it reasonably believes can perform the work properly within the available time, and we will object to the agency's determination only where the decision lacks a reasonable basis. Equa Indus., Inc., B-257197, Sept. 6, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 96; see also Hercules Aerospace Co., B-254677, Jan. 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 7. In this regard, a military agency's assertion that there is a critical need related to human safety and national defense carries considerable weight. See Equa Indus., Inc., supra; Dash Eng'g, Inc; Engineered Fabrics Corp., B-246304.8; B-246304.9, May 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 363. We believe the Army reasonably restricted the competition to the only two firms (Saft and PCI) that had previously supplied the batteries to the Army.