BNUMBER:  B-261349; B-261349.2
DATE:  September 18, 1995
TITLE:  Freedom Graphics, Inc.

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

Matter of:Freedom Graphics, Inc.

File:     B-261349; B-261349.2

Date:   September 18, 1995

Frederic G. Antoun, Jr., Esq., for the protester.
Kerry L. Miller, Esq., Government Printing Office, for the agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
                                                                                                
DIGEST

Protest against Social Security Administration's requirement for 
specified print resolution for notices is denied where agency shows it 
needs notices that can be read by visually impaired and aged 
recipients of social security benefits and lower resolution 
requirements would make notices more difficult to read.
                                                                                                 
DECISION

Freedom Graphics, Inc. protests the terms of invitation for bids (IFB) 
No. 393-168, issued by the Government Printing Office (GPO) for 
production of letter notices for the Social Security Administration 
(SSA).  The protester contends that the solicitation requirements are 
unduly restrictive of competition.

We deny the protest.

On April 25, 1995, the agency issued the solicitation for a 
fixed-price contract for two-sided printing of 7 million multipage 
notices consisting of three forms, ranging from two to eight pages 
(one to four leaves).  The specifications, in pertinent part, required 
laser printing, with a minimum resolution of 300 X 300 dots per square 
inch (dpi),[1] as well as gathering, folding, inserting, and mailing 
the forms.  Shortly prior to the scheduled bid opening on May 10, 
1995, Freedom Graphics filed its initial protest with our Office 
challenging the specifications here; the protest was amended after the 
contracting officer postponed bid opening.

Freedom Graphics generally contends that few contractors have 
facilities capable of meeting the agency's quantity and delivery 
requirements using a resolution of 300 dpi, which requires an imaging 
device that feeds one sheet at a time.  Specifically, the protester 
claims that its ink jet equipment, offering a resolution of 240 dpi, 
can meet the agency's requirements for printing such notices, 
which--in the protester's view--do not require the specified 
resolution.[2]

Where a protester alleges that a requirement is unduly restrictive, we 
review the record to determine whether the requirement has been 
justified as necessary to satisfy the agency's minimum needs.  RMS 
Indus., B-247233; B-247234, May 1, 1992, 92-1 CPD  412.  For the 
reasons set forth below, we conclude that the SSA has reasonably 
articulated a need for higher resolution of its notices. 

The SSA explains that it produces the forms here to notify social 
security recipients of changes in their entitlements, and that many of 
the notice recipients are unable to read printed matter most of the 
population would have no difficulty reading, because of impaired 
vision and advanced age.  The SSA has developed standards for its 
notices using focus groups and public feedback, and has adopted 300 
dpi as the minimum acceptable resolution for these notices.  Although 
the SSA agrees with the protester that a lower resolution may be 
acceptable for certain uses (such as "fill-ins" where a recipient 
fills in blank areas on a form), the agency notes that 300 dpi is also 
the industry standard.

Our review of the record shows that the protester has offered no 
evidence that the agency has unreasonably concluded that its target 
audience, including many older persons with impaired vision, needs the 
higher resolution required here.  In addition, our own examination of 
the samples submitted by the protester shows a distinct difference in 
quality between the protester's 240 dpi ink jet printer and the 300 
dpi laser printer.  Apart from the 240-dpi resolution, the agency 
asserts that the use of an ink-jet imager would create further 
problems--such as letter edges that are not as sharp, spatter and 
wicking (absorption of ink), and a tendency to bleed and display an 
image on the reverse side.  Since a contractor must print the forms 
here on both sides, we find nothing unreasonable about the agency's 
concern that printing the notices with an ink-jet imager may not 
produce a form that can be easily read by the notice's intended 
audience.

The protester also complains that the SSA resolution requirement is 
antiquated because it dates from 1987, when it claims there was no ink 
jet printer capable of printing 240 dpi; further, the protester 
contends that with proper quality control and maintenance, there is no 
appreciable difference between the two resolutions.  The record, 
however, shows that magnified samples submitted by the protester, in 
connection with the protest, exhibit a blurred and jagged text, 
lighter type, and diminished legibility.  Although the protester 
concedes that these defects appear when the text is magnified, it 
contends that the samples should be viewed at their intended size.  We 
note simply that older persons with impaired vision may, in fact, 
resort to magnifying lenses to assist in reading the text of these 
notices, and we believe the agency may validly point to the difference 
in quality as a basis for requiring the sharper resolution.

The protest is denied.

 /s/ Ronald Berger
 for Robert P. Murphy
     General Counsel

1. Hereinafter, rather than refer to 300 X 300 dpi, our decision will 
refer to 300 dpi.

2. For the record, we note that the protester also challenges a 
statement made by the GPO's contracting officer shortly before bid 
opening, wherein the contracting officer stated that SSA's requirement 
for 300-dpi resolution was based on a problem with scanning bar codes 
at the lower resolution.  The protester argued that it has produced 
many bar-coded products at 240 dpi without problem.  The agency 
report, however, does not rely upon this need, and there is no 
evidence apart from the contracting officer's oral statement that a 
problem with scanning bar codes formed the basis for the solicitation 
requirement.  Since we find that the SSA had other valid reasons for 
the requirement, apart from any need to ensure the proper scanning of 
bar codes, we need not address the protester's argument in this 
regard.