Vertol SystemsCompany, Inc., B-293644.6; B-293644.7; B-293644.8; B-293644.9; B-293644.10, July 29, 2004

Vertol SystemsCompany, Inc., B-293644.6; B-293644.7; B-293644.8; B-293644.9; B-293644.10, July 29, 2004 TITLE: Vertol SystemsCompany, Inc., B-293644.6; B-293644.7; B-293644.8; B-293644.9; B-293644.10, July 29, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293644.6; B-293644.7; B-293644.8; B-293644.9; B-293644.10 DATE: July 29, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision A A Matter of: Vertol SystemsCompany, Inc. A File: B-293644.6; B-293644.7; B-293644.8; B-293644.9; B-293644.10 A Date: July 29, 2004 A Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., and Nolan Sklute, Esq., for the protester. Capt. Peter G. Hartman, Department of the Army, and Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agencies. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST A Protest of procurement of foreign threat systems aircraft under the Economy Act is denied where the Army and Air Force reasonably determined that protester*s aircraft could not satisfy the agencies* requirements for demonstrated airworthiness. DECISION A Vertol Systems Company, Inc. protests the actions of the United States Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) and the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) in acquiring foreign threat systems aircraft for use in military exercises. Vertol generally asserts that the agencies improperly procured these aircraft from the Threat Systems Management Office (TSMO), Department of the Army, or under an existing contract, in violation of the Competition in Contracting Act, 10 U.S.C. SA 2304(a)(1)(A) (2000), and the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. S 644(a) (2000). A We deny the protests. A ACQUISITIONS FROM TSMO A Background A Vertol primarily focuses on the agencies* actions in acquiring foreign threat systems aircraft from TSMOa**a**instead of allowing Vertol, a small business, to compete to provide the required aircrafta**a**for use in military exercises.[1] In this regard, TSMO controls a fleet of government-owned foreign ground and aviation systems, currently operated and maintained by Research Analysis & Maintenance, Inc. (RAM), which are used to provide realistic threats during training exercises and the testing of United States weapons systems. A On March 16, 2004, the Joint National Training Center, JFCOM, executed a determination and findings (D&F) pursuant to the Economy Act, 31A U.S.C. SA 1535A (2000), in support of a military interdepartmental purchase request to TSMO for the provision of two Russian helicoptersa**a**a Russian Mi-17 transport helicopter and a Russian Mi-24D attack helicoptera**a**with necessary maintenance and operational support, to support opposition forces in a joint training exercise to occur JuneA 12a**21,A 2004. JFCOM anticipated that the helicopters would actively participate in day and night operations during the exercise, with the Mi-17 transport helicopter ferrying troops and the Mi-24D attack helicopter conducting air assault missions in close proximity to military and civilian personnel. JFCOM*s D&F indicated that, before aircraft could be used in a military exercise, they must first be determined airworthy in accordance with military instructions and regulations. JFCOM*s D&F further indicated that only TSMO could provide aircraft with the required airworthiness certification; according to the D&F, there were no commercial sources that could provide the required aircraft certified airworthy in accordance with applicable military instructions and regulations. Army D&F, Mar.A 16, 2004; Memorandum, Joint Training Directorate, Mar. 19, 2004. A On April 27, 2004, the Air Force executed a D&F pursuant to the Economy Act in support of a military interdepartmental purchase request to TSMO for the provision of a Russian Mi-8 transport helicopter, flight crew, support and maintenance crew and instructor pilot to support the training of pilots and troops of the 6th Special Operations Squadron (6th SOS) through August 31, 2004. The contemplated training requirement included a need for night vision goggle capabilities. The Air Force determined that safety considerations required that only an aircraft with a standard air worthiness certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or the military equivalent certification to carry government employees, could be used. The D&F, and the agency*s accompanying market research report, indicated that the agency had concluded, based on its market research, that no private source was qualified to provide aircraft with the required airworthiness certification and approved flight and ground operations.