BNUMBER:  B-261089
DATE:  August 8, 1995
TITLE:  Datacomm Management Sciences, Inc.

**********************************************************************

REDACTED DECISION
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.

Matter of:Datacomm Management Sciences, Inc.

File:     B-261089

Date:     August 8, 1995

Rex L. Fuller III, Esq., for the protester.
David H. Turner, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Behn Miller, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly made award to firm whose automated 
matrix switching control system was not equal to the brand name system 
specified in the solicitation is denied where agency reasonably 
determined that awardee's product was functionally equivalent to the 
specified system.

DECISION

Datacomm Management Sciences, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Telenex Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
N00140-94-R-BA60, issued by the Department of the Navy for a "brand 
name or equal" automated matrix switching control system for the 
Technical Control Facility at the Naval Computer and 
Telecommunications Station in Cutler, Maine.  Datacomm contends that 
Telenex's offered system is not equal to the protester's brand name 
system.

We deny the protest.

On August 11, the Navy issued the RFP, which contemplated the award of 
a fixed-price contract to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable 
offeror.  As initially issued, the RFP requested a switching control 
system "comprised of items brand name or equal [emphasis in original] 
to the following Data[c]omm Management Sciences, Inc. items [emphasis 
added]."  Under this description, the RFP's pricing schedule listed 14 
sub-contract line item numbers (sub-CLINs), identified by 14 
corresponding Datacomm component part numbers, each of which required 
a separate unit price.  The RFP provided that all system components 
would be purchased from one offeror, since different equipment items 
from different manufacturers use unique and proprietary interfacing 
language--or software--to operate as a system.

By the September 19 closing date, four proposals--including the 
protester's--were received; only Datacomm proposed the specified 
14-item brand name system.  In performing the technical evaluation, 
the agency discovered that although the other three offerors proposed 
alternate switching control systems comprised of different component 
architectures and configurations, these systems could, in fact, meet 
the Navy's functional requirements as set forth in section C of the 
RFP.  As a result, while the evaluators were required to rate the 
three alternate system offers as technically unacceptable since these 
systems' individual components were not equal on an item-by-item basis 
to the specified Datacomm components, the evaluators nevertheless 
recommended that the three alternate offers be kept in the competitive 
range--along with Datacomm's--and that the solicitation be reviewed to 
remove unnecessary technical requirements.

On December 7, the agency issued amendment No. 0002 which eliminated 
some of the component interfacing requirements, and afterwards 
conducted written discussions with each offeror.  On February 3, 1995, 
as a result of these discussions, the agency issued amendment No. 0003 
to the RFP which provided that:

     "All systems proposed must comply with all salient 
     characteristics identified in Section C.  Offerors are permitted 
     to propose a system with a configuration different from the 
     configuration identified above so long as the proposed 
     configuration complies with all salient characteristics.  
     Offerors proposing other than the brand name system shall 
     identify, for each component, the manufacturer part number."  
     [Emphasis added.]

In addition, the Navy modified the RFP's brand name or equal clause to 
require a switching control system "brand name or equal [emphasis in 
original], to the Datacomm Management Sciences, Inc. system [emphasis 
added]"; in this regard, while the RFP's pricing schedule still listed 
the 14-component items of the Datacomm system, the corresponding 14 
sub-CLINs, pricing blanks, and component quantities were eliminated.  
Instead, offerors were required to propose one price for the entire 
switching system.

By March 9, each of the four initial offerors submitted best and final 
offers (BAFO) which were evaluated as technically acceptable by the 
agency.  Consequently, the agency ranked proposals according to price:  
Telenex submitted the lowest price, $158,968; Datacomm submitted the 
next lowest price, $166,384.

On March 29, the Navy awarded a contract to Telenex as the 
lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror.  On April 17, Datacomm 
filed this protest with our Office.

PROTESTER'S CONTENTION

Datacomm contends that Telenex's proposed switching control system 
does not meet the salient characteristics of the RFP, and therefore 
should have been rejected by the agency as technically unacceptable.  
Datacomm maintains that because the Telenex system relies on system 
architecture different from the architecture used in the Datacomm 
system, the protester "believes" that three of the Telenex system 
components--the matrix switch module, the matrix switch assembly, and 
the satellite shelf assembly--lack the required satellite port 
capacity to connect the various equipment and computer terminals to a 
pre-existing satellite communications network.  Datacomm also contends 
that the data base entry software proposed by Telenex fails to provide 
all the required utilities needed to run a control switching system.  
Finally, Datacomm asserts that Telenex failed to propose a spare 
satellite control module component, as required by the RFP.  As 
explained below, we find no basis to question the Telenex award.

DISCUSSION

In a brand name or equal procurement, an equal product need only meet 
the item's salient characteristics listed in the solicitation, not 
unstated features of the brand name item.  See American Bristol 
Indus., Inc., B-249108.2, Oct. 22, 1992, 92-2 CPD  268.  When a 
salient characteristic is stated in general terms, the equal product 
need not meet the characteristics exactly as the brand name does; it 
need only be functionally equivalent to the brand name.  See Ross 
Cook, Inc., B-231686, Sept. 7, 1988, 88-2 CPD  216; Cohu, Inc., 
B-199551, Mar. 18, 1981, 81-1 CPD  207.  Thus, the listing of a 
manufacturer's stock number or part number  does not transform all of 
the equipment's design features into salient characteristics that an 
alternative source must address in order to meet the agency's minimum 
needs.  See Solid Waste Integrated Sys. Corp., B-258544, Jan. 17, 
1995, 95-1 CPD  23; Lanier Business Prods., Inc., B-240990, Jan. 14, 
1991, 91-1 CPD  30.  In this regard, the procuring agency enjoys a 
reasonable degree of discretion in determining whether a particular 
product meets the solicitation's technical requirements as set forth 
in the salient characteristics, which we will not disturb unless it is 
shown to be unreasonable.  See Solid Waste Integrated Sys. Corp., 
supra.

Port Capacity

With regard to system satellite port capacity, section C of the RFP 
stated that any proposed system must be capable of processing a 
"minimum capacity of 1000 ports."  Section C also required that:

     "Port Cards shall interface with the [matrix] switch [assembly 
     component] in the following quantities:  248 digital ports (124 
     can be DCE and 124 can be DTE) and 248 VF ports."

In response to Datacomm's allegation that the Telenex matrix switch 
module cannot process the requisite 1000 ports, the cognizant Navy 
technical evaluator explains in a detailed affidavit that, in fact, 
the Telenex matrix system is equipped with 16 standard switching board 
components which allow the system to process up to 1024 ports--thus 
exceeding the required minimum 1000 port capacity.  In the same 
affidavit, the Navy technical evaluator also explains that the Telenex 
matrix switch assembly component fully supports both the 248 digital 
and 248 VF port connections, as required by the RFP.

In its comments on the agency report, Datacomm generally challenges 
the technical evaluator's affidavit, but provides no substantive 
response to the Navy's technical conclusions.[1]  Instead, Datacomm 
asserts that the affidavit is conclusory and by itself does not 
establish that the Telenex equipment meets this requirement.

We disagree with the protester's assessment.  In our view, the 
affidavit provided by the Navy is cogent and clearly describes the 
basis for why the Navy concluded that the offered Telenex equipment 
meets the port capacity specifications.  Without a substantive 
rebuttal to the Navy's explanations, and without a rationale for a 
conclusion that the Navy's acceptance of this equipment was 
unreasonable, Datacomm's challenge of these technical conclusions is 
unsupported, and provides no basis to reject the Navy's selection 
decision.  Atmospheric Research Sys., Inc., B-240187, Oct. 26, 1990, 
90-2 CPD  338.

Satellite Shelf Assembly Component

In addition to the listed salient characteristics, section C of the 
RFP also set forth a brief definition of 11 of the Datacomm sub-CLIN 
components listed in the pricing schedule[2]; according to the Navy, 
these definitions were not intended as salient characteristics, but 
were provided in order to enhance offerors' understanding of the 
composition of the specified brand name system.

With regard to sub-CLIN 0001AF--the satellite shelf assembly--section 
C defined this part as a component which "provide[s] 64 ports for 
connection to terminal equipment."   Datacomm contends that the 
Telenex system should have been determined technically unacceptable 
because the Telenex system relies on a differently configured 
satellite shelf assembly.

The Navy admits that the proposed Telenex satellite shelf assembly 
component holds only 16 ports, but claims that this characteristic was 
deleted by amendment No. 0003--which expressly permitted alternate 
configurations.  Consequently, the Navy argues that Telenex was not 
required to propose a satellite shelf-assembly component with 64 
ports.

In its comments on the agency report, Datacomm maintains that because 
the agency did not remove the list of Datacomm components from the 
RFP's pricing schedule--or remove the satellite shelf assembly 
component sub-CLIN definition from section C--amendment No. 0003 did 
not have any impact on these criteria.  Thus, Datacomm argues that 
Telenex was required to propose a satellite shelf assembly component 
with the same 64-port configuration as the specified Datacomm 
component.  We disagree.

To be reasonable, an interpretation of solicitation language must be 
consistent with the solicitation when read as a whole.  See Lithos 
Restoration, Ltd., 71 Comp. Gen. 367 (1992), 92-1 CPD  379.  In this 
case, as noted above, amendment No. 0003 expressly provided that 
offerors were "permitted to propose a system with a configuration 
different from the configuration identified in Section B, the 
[Pricing] Schedule."  Thus, we think it is clear that alternate port 
configurations--for any system component-- were expressly allowed.  
While the definition of the satellite shelf assembly component set 
forth in section C is described in part by referring to a component 
equipped with "64 ports for connection to terminal equipment," we 
think the revisions made by amendment No. 0003 clearly allowed the 
agency's consideration of a differently configured shelf assembly 
component, such as Telenex's 32-ported satellite shelf assembly part.  
Any interpretation to the contrary would render meaningless the 
revisions made by amendment No. 0003.  See
Tutor-Saliba Corp., et al., B-255756, Mar. 29, 1994, 94-1  223.

In any event, we note that because of the assembly configuration of 
Telenex's satellite shelf assembly component, there appears to be 
little functional difference between it and the Datacomm system.  The 
Datacomm system, specified in the RFP, contains 8 satellite shelf 
assemblies, each of which is equipped with 64 ports.  Thus, as a 
system, the Datacomm System provides 512 satellite shelf assembly 
ports.  The record shows that Telenex has offered a system comprised 
of 32 satellite shelf assembly components, each of which is equipped 
with 16 ports.  Consequently, like the Datacomm system, the Telenex 
system also provides

512 satellite shelf assembly ports.  We therefore find no merit to 
this aspect of Datacomm's protest. 

Remaining Contentions
 
Datacomm next contends that the software proposed by Telenex fails to 
perform several of the utility functions necessary to run a control 
switching system.  However, the Navy reports that contrary to 
Datacomm's contention, the Telenex System software fully meets the 
Navy's functional requirements, including:  successful access and 
control of one or more system switches and data bases; monitoring of 
system status; expert code communication; creating and printing 
customized switch management reports; general system support 
diagnostics; and other features.  The Navy also points out that unlike 
the port capacity features, salient characteristics pertaining to 
software were not enunciated in the RFP; nevertheless, because of the 
above-referenced functions, the Navy considers the Telenex system 
software to be functionally equivalent to the Datacomm system 
software.

To the extent Datacomm argues that Telenex's proposal should have been 
rejected as technically unacceptable for failing to offer a spare 
satellite control module component, as noted above, the amended RFP 
permitted offerors to propose a functionally equivalent switching 
control system comprised of different configurations and components.  
The Navy responds that Telenex did not propose a spare satellite 
control module because its system is based on architecture which is 
different from the architecture used in the Datacomm system and is not 
configured to run on "time division multiplexing"; as such, the 
function provided by the satellite control module in the Datacomm 
system is not required in the Telenex system.  However, 
notwithstanding different architectures, the Navy reports that Telenex 
has nonetheless proposed an equivalent spare component--the Chassis 
Control Board--which provides communications control for the Telenex 
system, as does the satellite control module for the Datacomm system.

As noted above, in determining whether a particular item meets the 
solicitation's technical requirements set forth as salient 
characteristics, a contracting agency enjoys a reasonable degree of 
discretion which we will not disturb if the technical determination is 
reasonable.  American Bristol Indus., Inc., supra.  In this case, 
given the RFP's clear license to propose alternative control switching 
systems based on different architectures and configurations, as well 
as the Navy's reasoned explanation of the Telenex system's functional 
equivalence to the specified Datacomm brand name system, we conclude 
that the Navy reasonably determined that Telenex's offered system 
satisfied the RFP's salient characteristics.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Rather than provide a substantive response, Datacomm argues that 
our Office should convene a hearing to explore the credibility of the 
technical evaluator.  However, absent evidence that a protest record 
is questionable or incomplete, this Office will not hold a bid protest 
hearing merely to permit the protester to orally reiterate its protest 
allegations or otherwise embark on a fishing expedition for additional 
grounds of protest.  See Border Maintenance Serv., Inc.--Recon., 
72 Comp. Gen. 265 (1993), 93-1 CPD  473. 

2. The only Datacomm system components not defined in section C were a 
switching component and two cable components.  These items were 
apparently deemed self-explanatory by the agency.