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.