BNUMBER:  B-265616
DATE:  December 6, 1995
TITLE:  Bridgeport Machines, Inc.

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

Matter of:Bridgeport Machines, Inc.

File:     B-265616

Date:     December 6, 1995

Richard F. Vogel for the protester.
Socrates Lenders for Advanced Industrial Technology, Inc., an 
interested party.
Amalia Evola, Esq., and Benjamin G. Perkins, Esq., Defense Logistics 
Agency, for the agency.
M. Penny Ahearn, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Contracting officer properly may rely on awardee's 
self-certification that it will provide United States or Canadian 
machine tools, where there is no indication that certificate is 
inaccurate and that the awardee in fact is proposing a foreign end 
product.

2.  Protest that awardee's proposed milling machine does not meet 
certain specification requirements because awardee's descriptive 
literature did not address areas at issue is denied where agency 
accepted similar general statements of compliance from both offerors, 
and thus treated them equally. 

DECISION

Bridgeport Machines, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Advanced 
Industrial Technology, Inc. (AIT) under request for proposals (RFP) 
SP0490-95-R-3004, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), 
Defense General Supply Center, for milling machines.  Bridgeport 
asserts that the machine offered by AIT is not in compliance with 
restrictions on the acquisition of foreign machine tools and several 
specification requirements.  

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND 

The RFP solicited offers to supply 10 milling machines in accordance 
with military specification (MIL-SPEC) MIL-M-80016C, as amended.  The 
solicitation stated that the equipment must be "new (not a prototype) 
and one of the manufacturer's current production models."  The RFP 
required the submission of descriptive literature to establish 
compliance with "each paragraph" of the requirements; requirements not 
addressed in the descriptive literature were to be "submitted in a 
narrative form."  

The RFP also contained the preference for United States and Canadian 
machine tools clause, Department of Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement (DFARS)  252.225-7017.  This clause defines 
machine tools meeting the preference as those manufactured in the 
United States or Canada for which the cost of components manufactured 
in either country exceeds 50 percent of the total cost of all 
components.  Under this provision, machine tools which are not of 
United States or Canadian manufacture are evaluated on the basis of 
the offered price plus a 50-percent evaluation factor.  

DLA received five offers.  Only the offers submitted by AIT and 
Bridgeport were evaluated as technically acceptable.  Both offers 
indicated that the proposed machines were of domestic origin, and both 
included statements of compliance with the specification requirements, 
descriptive literature, and additional narrative technical 
information.  During the ensuing discussions, AIT, at the request of 
the agency, certified that its offered machine "is manufactured in the 
United States or Canada and the cost of its components manufactured in 
the United States or Canada exceeds 50 percent of the costs of all its 
components." 

Best and final offers (BAFO) were requested.  AIT offered the low BAFO 
total price ($383,750); Bridgeport offered the second low BAFO price 
($476,960).  DLA made award to AIT based on its low, technically 
acceptable proposal.  

DOMESTIC MANUFACTURE

Bridgeport argues that AIT's offered milling machine is not of United 
States or Canadian manufacture, and that a 50-percent evaluation 
factor therefore should have been added to AIT's price for evaluation 
purposes, thus displacing it as the low offeror.  Bridgeport 
challenges the agency's reliance on AIT's certification of United 
States or Canadian manufacture, arguing that the agency was required 
to conduct further investigation.  
  
Although an agency should not automatically rely on a United 
States/Canadian end product self-certification if it has reason to 
question whether a United States/Canadian product will in fact be 
furnished, where the agency has no information prior to award 
indicating that the product to be furnished is a foreign end product, 
the agency may properly rely on the offeror's self-certification 
without further investigation.  See Intermagnetics Gen. Corp., 
B-255741.2; B-255741.3, May 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD  302; Manufacturing 
Technology Assocs., Inc., B-251759, Apr. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD  293.  AIT 
certified prior to award that the cost of components manufactured in 
the United States or Canada exceeded 50 percent of the cost of all 
components.  Since there was nothing on the face of AIT's offer which 
called into question the accuracy of this self-certification, DLA 
acted reasonably in relying on the certification without conducting a 
further investigation.  In any event, in response to the protest, AIT 
submitted to the agency a list of its milling machine's components, 
their country and state of origin/manufacture, and their percentage of 
the total cost of the machine.  This list shows that the machine frame 
was manufactured in Taiwan, and that the cost of the frame comprises 
only 40.66 percent of the total cost of the components; the list 
indicates that the remaining 59.34 percent of components (by cost) are 
of domestic manufacture.

The protester argues that AIT's domestic content figure contains 
accessory end items which, pursuant to the DFARS preference clause, 
are precluded from 
consideration in the calculation of the machine tool component cost.  
See DFARS  252.225-7017(b); Discount Machinery & Equip., Inc., 
B-242793, June 6, 1991, 91-1 CPD  541.  AIT's component list 
specifically stated that "the domestic portion does not include 
accessory end items or labor as a component cost."   In any case, even 
if the cost of these accessory items, valued at 9.15 percent of the 
total cost, is subtracted from AIT's listed 59.34-percent domestic 
component cost, the United States/Canadian content is still 
sufficient, at 50.19 percent, to meet the 50-percent United 
States/Canadian content requirement. 

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

Manufacturer's Current Production Model

Bridgeport argues that AIT's milling machine does not meet the 
specification requirement that the machine be one of the 
manufacturer's current production models.  According to the protester, 
AIT is not a manufacturer but, rather, a mere assembler of a group of 
items.  Bridgeport claims that, as a result, AIT's machine could only 
be a prototype machine.

We find no basis to question DLA's determination of compliance with 
the requirement for a current production model.  AIT represented in 
its proposal that the milling machine offered was a current production 
model.  Bridgeport does not allege that the awardee must materially 
modify the offered model to meet solicitation requirements.  Omatech 
Serv. Ltd., B-254498; B-254498.2, Dec. 17, 1993, 93-2 CPD  329.  
Although Bridgeport questions whether AIT is a manufacturer, we note 
that in response to the protest, AIT has submitted a statement 
explaining that the milling machine frame is imported from an overseas 
firm and then shipped to AIT's Torrance, California facility in 
"stripped down" form (i.e., "without spindle motor, electrical 
enclosures, magnetics, axis drives and motors, coolant system, 
leadscrews, and digital readout system"), where domestic components 
are  incorporated to form a completed machine.  We have previously 
recognized that such assembly of the components necessary to transform 
the "base frame" or "base iron" into a milling machine which meets the 
solicitation requirements constitutes manufacturing.  See A & D 
Machinery Co., B-242546; B-242547, May 16, 1991,       91-1 CPD  473; 
Manufacturing Technology Solutions, B-237415, Jan. 22, 1990, 90-1 CPD  
88.  Thus, the mere fact that AIT will merely assemble the machine in 
no way precluded the agency from accepting the firm's representation 
that the machine is a current production model.

Technical Specifications

Bridgeport argues that the awardee's descriptive literature does not 
demonstrate compliance with the specifications with respect to the 
requirement for a saddle to support the milling machine table and the 
machine's electrical system.[1]  DLA responds that AIT's offer was 
determined technically acceptable based on the firm's statements of 
compliance in its offer, including statements of compliance with each 
of the requirements at issue, as well as a review of the submitted 
descriptive literature, which gave no indication of noncompliance.  

The record before us shows that, although both the awardee and the 
protester submitted general statements of compliance with the 
specifications at issue, neither submitted descriptive literature 
specifically addressing these areas.  Since the agency accepted 
general statements of compliance from both offerors, and thus treated 
both equally, there is no basis for concluding that AIT's proposal was 
inadequate in this regard.  See Inframetrics, Inc., B-257400, Sept. 
30, 1994, 94-2 CPD  138; Power Dynatec Corp., B-251501.3, Aug. 3, 
1993, 93-2 CPD  73.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In its comments on the supplemental agency report, Bridgeport did 
not respond to the agency's position that, notwithstanding 
Bridgeport's initial allegations to the contrary, AIT's milling 
machine in fact complied with other specification requirements.  
Consequently, we view these protest grounds as having been abandoned 
by the protester.  See Viereck Co., B-222520, Aug. 5, 1986, 86-2 CPD  
152.