Dynamic Instruments, Inc.

B-270236 Feb 20, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency improperly rejected protester's offered equipment under proposed sole-source procurement is denied where record shows that protester's equipment. Subsequent correspondence from the protester disclosed that Dynamic Instruments was seeking qualification of a Vibration Analysis Test Set (VATS) to satisfy the agency's needs. It was discovered. There was no way to ensure that the engine was not being damaged during the testing. Not currently being tested could suffer damage while an operator was running tests on the other portion. The record shows that the VATS is not comparable to the PBS 4100 in two of the three functions mentioned in the CBD. The protester contends that its equipment will meet the agency's needs without those features. View Decision Matter of: Dynamic Instruments, Inc. File: B-270236 Date: February 20, 1996 Protest that agency improperly rejected protester's offered equipment under proposed sole-source procurement is denied where record shows that protester's equipment, an engine balancing system, did not meet the agency's minimum needs because of the system's limited ability to provide real-time data on engine vibration levels. Attorneys DECISION Dynamic Instruments, Inc. protests the sole-source award of a contract to Mechanical Technology Inc. (MTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41608-95-R-0239, issued by the Department of the Air Force for a portable balancing system. We deny the protest. On March 8, 1995, the agency issued the solicitation for a fixed-price requirements contract for a PBS 4100 portable balancing system, plus accessories, for the F108 engine used in the KC-135R aerial tanker. The agency subsequently executed a justification and approval (J & A) authorizing the use of other than full and open competition. That J & A identifies MTI as the only source for the PBS 4100, based on the agency's lack of technical data and drawings necessary for any other firm to manufacture the PBS 4100. The J & A and the synopsis that the agency published in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) described the PBS 4100 as follows: "Automatically collects vibration data during engine test run and calculates balance solution, displays a diagram of engine balance to indicate where weights should be installed." In other words, the system monitors engine vibration at different speeds and produces a recommended configuration for attaching weights to keep vibration within acceptable limits. Dynamic Instruments provided a timely expression of interest in the procurement; subsequent correspondence from the protester disclosed that Dynamic Instruments was seeking qualification of a Vibration Analysis Test Set (VATS) to satisfy the agency's needs. The protester submitted an offer by the amended closing date of July 7, and requested an opportunity to make a presentation on the capabilities of the VATS. The Air Force granted this request and, after the presentation, scheduled a demonstration test for the VATS at the Rickenbacker Air National Guard facility in Ohio. The technician in charge of the demonstration test noted several shortcomings in the VATS. Where the PBS 4100 produced a survey of vibration from ground idle to take-off, the VATS required acceleration at a set rate, within a pre-established range. The operator, it was discovered, became distracted from monitoring engine gauges by the need to provide boost at these prescribed levels. Further, the VATS did not allow an analysis for all phases of engine operation, but only analyzed vibration at the prescribed settings. More seriously, the technician noted, the VATS could not monitor fan frame vibration and turbine rear frame vibration simultaneously. The VATS did not display real-time data, but provided a balance solution only at the end of the testing cycle. Consequently, with no means of monitoring vibration during testing, there was no way to ensure that the engine was not being damaged during the testing. Further, that portion of the engine--fan frame or turbine rear frame--not currently being tested could suffer damage while an operator was running tests on the other portion. Air Force technical personnel concluded that although the VATS could track engine vibration and provide a balance solution, it would not be able to balance the engines safely--without danger of damage during testing--without significant modification. On October 13, 1995, the Air Force rejected Dynamic Instruments's offer. This protest followed. The protester challenges the decision to procure the engine balancing system on a sole-source basis, essentially arguing that the agency improperly concluded that the protester's equipment would not also meet the agency's needs.