BNUMBER: B-261976
DATE: October 31, 1995
TITLE: DIT-MCO International
**********************************************************************
Matter of:DIT-MCO International
File: B-261976
Date: October 31, 1995
Barry Kendrick for the protester.
Col. Thomas F. Brown, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq.,
Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of
the decision.
DIGEST
Protest challenging acceptability of awardee's "equal" item in a brand
name or equal procurement is denied where features of the brand name
item that awardee's item allegedly lacked were not identified as
salient characteristics in the solicitation.
DECISION
DIT-MCO International protests the award of a contract to the Canadian
Commercial Corporation on behalf of Cabletest International Inc. under
request for proposals (RFP) No. F09650-95-R-A021, issued on a brand
name or equal basis by the Department of the Air Force for a wire
harness tester system applicable to the C-130 aircraft. The protester
contends that the test system offered by Cabletest lacks certain of
the capabilities inherent in the brand name product, which it
manufactures.
We deny the protest.
The RFP requested offers for a wiring harness testing system, DIT-MCO
International model number SAS9600 or equal. An attached purchase
description defined the system's required features,[1] which included
the following software capabilities:
"The software must be capable of being programmed and accepting
data from keyboard input, data file, modem data transfer, network
data transfer, and self input from hooking up to a known good
harness. The software is to include a test file editor, address
correspondence editor, syntax checker, automatic program
generator, from-to wire list, error log, checksum generator, and
a schematic generator."
The solicitation provided for award to the offeror submitting the
lowest-priced conforming proposal.[2]
Six offerors submitted proposals by the May 3, 1995, closing date.
After reviewing the descriptive literature submitted by the various
offerors, the agency evaluator determined that two of the proposals
were in full compliance and four in partial compliance with the
purchase description. After discussions had been conducted and best
and final offers received, the agency evaluator determined that all
proposals were in full technical compliance and selected Cabletest,
whose final price of $127,860 was lowest, for award. DIT-MCO's price
was second low.
The protester argues that Cabletest's proposed test system lacks
certain of the capabilities inherent in its brand name model and
should therefore not have been accepted as its equal. Specifically,
the protester complains that the Cabletest system does not use
ASCII[3] files; does not provide 64-character product identifier
strings; does not allow the operator to modify a test program (to
repeat a test, change a parameter, etc.) once the test file has
started to run; and cannot be programmed to perform different tests or
operations contingent upon the results of earlier tests or
operations.[4]
The overriding consideration in determining the equivalency of an
offered product for purposes of acceptability is whether the "equal"
product performs the needed function in a like manner and with the
desired results. See Nicolet Biomedical Instruments, 65 Comp. Gen.
145 (1985), 85-2 CPD 700. The "equal" product need not be an exact
duplicate of the brand name in design or performance. Cohu, Inc ,
B-199551, Mar. 18, 1981, 81-1 CPD 207. Rather, the equal product
must satisfy the salient characteristics as they are set forth in the
solicitation; it generally need not satisfy features of the brand name
that are not specified. Lutz Superdyne, Inc., B-200928, Feb. 19,
1981, 81-1 CPD 114. 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. Solid Waste Integrated Sys. Corp., B-258544, Jan. 17,
1995, 95-1 CPD 23.
Here, the features of DIT-MCO's model with which Cabletest's system
allegedly failed to comply were not identified in the solicitation as
salient characteristics. The RFP's purchase description did not
require that the test files be in ASCII format; that the system
provide 64-character product identifier strings; that the operator be
capable of modifying the test program once the test file has started
to run; or that it be possible to program the system to perform
different tests or operations contingent upon the results of earlier
tests or operations. Thus, the fact that Cabletest's system may have
lacked certain of these features did not require its rejection as
unequal to the brand name system.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Under the heading "Brand Name or Equal Salient Characteristics,"
the RFP provided as follows: "IAW ATCH PURCHASE DESCRIPTION".
2. The RFP did not contain a section M (Evaluation Factors for Award),
but did incorporate by reference, under section L, Federal Acquisition
Regulation 52.215-16, subsection (a) of which provides for award to
the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation
will be most advantageous to the government, cost or price and other
factors, specified elsewhere in the solicitation, considered. No
other factors were specified elsewhere in the solicitation here; thus
the RFP in effect provided for award to the lowest-priced conforming
proposal.
3. ASCII stands for American Standard Code for Information
Interchange, which is a 7-bit universal standard code/language adopted
to facilitate the interchange of data among differing types of data
processing and data communications equipment.
4. The protester also argued in its initial letter of protest that
Cabletest's system did not have Checksum capability, a floating
comparator, or a schematic generator. The agency asserted in response
that Cabletest's system did have all three features. In commenting on
the agency report, the protester did not take issue with or attempt to
rebut the agency response; we therefore consider it to have abandoned
these arguments. Arjay Elecs. Corp., B-243080, July 1, 1991, 91-2 CPD
3.