BNUMBER:  B-265649.2
DATE:  January 22, 1996
TITLE:  Tri Tool, Inc.

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

Matter of:Tri Tool, Inc.

File:     B-265649.2

Date:     January 22, 1996

Dan Skorcz for the protester.
Granette A. Trent, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency.
Robert C. Arsenoff, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest of rejection of equal product offered in response to a brand 
name or equal procurement is sustained where rejection was based on 
bidder's failure to meet salient characteristics that were not set 
forth in the solicitation.

DECISION

Tri Tool, Inc. protests the rejection of its bid under invitation for 
bids (IFB)        No. 1PI-B-1498-95, issued by the Department of 
Justice, Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI),[1] for pipe cutting 
components, which are to be assembled by FPI into kits for the 
Department of the Army.  The protester alleges that its bid was 
improperly rejected as nonresponsive.

We sustain the protest.

The IFB was issued on May 25, 1995, with bid opening on June 26.  
Section B of the solicitation, the schedule of items, contained 43 
line items representing different pipe cutting components for which 
bidders were to offer a firm fixed price.  Award was to be made on an 
all-or-none basis to the lowest responsible bidder whose products 
conformed to the item descriptions set forth in section B.

Each line item description referred to a part number from the 
incumbent contractor--E.H. Wachs Company--and contained the phrase "or 
equal."  Some of the line item descriptions also contained design and 
performance requirements and many referenced a national stock number 
(NSN).  Although section L of the solicitation generally informed 
bidders where they could obtain government specifications, no 
specifications were referenced in the item descriptions.

Three bids were received.  Tri Tool, which offered an "equal" line of 
pipe cutting components, submitted the low bid of $273,854; Wachs bid 
its own line of components, as listed in the IFB, and submitted the 
next low bid of
$458,128.

After bid opening, FPI realized that through what the agency called an 
"oversight," the phrase "or equal" was included in the item 
descriptions.  FPI also realized that the IFB did not contain the 
standard "brand name or equal clause" which alerts bidders to include 
information in their bids sufficient to establish the equality of the 
products they are offering to the listed brand name.  Nonetheless, FPI 
elected to treat the procurement as a "brand name or equal" 
procurement and contacted Tri Tool to give the firm two opportunities 
to submit descriptive literature so that the agency could determine 
whether the protester's bid satisfied the solicitation requirements.  
In response, Tri Tool indicated that it was modifying its standard 
line of pipe cutting equipment and provided six sketches of various 
equipment it was offering to supply.  Tri Tool also indicated that the 
8-inch pipe cutting machine it proposed to supply has an internal ring 
gear rather than an external ring gear as featured in Wachs's 
machine.[2]

The Army evaluated this information and based on the Army's 
recommendation, FPI determined that the protester had not offered 
equal equipment.  Specifically, the agency found that the sketches of 
tool bits (line items 0041, 42 and 43) did not conform to dimensional 
requirements of the Army and that Tri Tool's sketch of a pneumatic 
drive bracket (line item 0011--also called a mounting flange) was 
inadequate to "complete an evaluation of its acceptance."  The agency 
also expressed concern about Tri Tool's proposal to modify its 
standard equipment and questioned whether the firm had ever 
manufactured the tool bits or brackets before.  Finally, the agency 
reports that it was concerned that Tri Tool had offered a pipe cutting 
machine with an internal ring gear.

Tri Tool's bid was rejected as nonresponsive, award was made to Wachs 
and this protest followed.  Tri Tool alleges, inter alia, that its bid 
was improperly rejected for failure to satisfy requirements which were 
not set forth in the solicitation.  For the reasons set forth below, 
we agree.  

To be responsive under a brand name or equal solicitation, a bidder 
offering an equal item must provide sufficient descriptive literature 
to permit the contracting agency to assess whether the product 
possesses each salient characteristic of the brand name specified in 
the solicitation.  Industrial Storage Equip.-Pac., B-228123, Dec. 4, 
1987, 87-2 CPD  para.  551.  The contracting agency, however, has an 
obligation to inform bidders of the characteristics that are essential 
to the government's needs.  Thus, a product offered as an "equal" one 
need not meet unstated features of the brand name product and, where 
an agency does not include a list of salient characteristics in the 
solicitation, the agency is precluded from rejecting an "equal" bid 
for noncompliance with a specific performance or design feature unless 
the offered item is significantly different from the brand name 
product.  Id.  Moreover, it is improper to reject a product as being 
not equal to the brand name product because of concerns that a firm 
may modify its standard products to conform to the government's needs 
or because the firm may not have sufficient experience in 
manufacturing the required equipment if the solicitation does not 
preclude the modification of standard products or specify minimum 
experience requirements.  See NITCO, B-246185, Feb. 21, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  
212.

The record discloses that none of the requirements forming the basis 
for rejecting Tri Tool's bid were set forth in the IFB.  The item 
descriptions for the rejected tool bits (items 0040-43) contain no 
dimensional requirements--rather, they merely reference Wachs's part 
numbers without stating what features of the brand name are essential 
to the agency's needs.  The same is true of the rejected mounting 
flange (item 0011).  An examination of schedule B also discloses no 
specification for an external ring gear.  Finally, the solicitation 
did not preclude modification of existing product lines to satisfy the 
government's needs nor did it contain any experience requirements.  

Thus, even assuming that the agency could have properly evaluated the 
information submitted by Tri Tool after bid opening (which it could 
not), the agency could not properly reject the protester's bid for the 
reason it did because the agency's requirements were not set forth in 
the solicitation.  

We recommend that Wachs's contract be terminated and the government's 
requirements be resolicited with specifications which are 
appropriately tailored to communicate the actual requirements.  (In 
making this recommendation, we take into consideration the agency's 
statement that the salient characteristics which were omitted from the 
solicitation and formed the basis for rejecting the protester's bid 
are essential to the Army's needs.)  We also find that Tri Tool is 
entitled to be reimbursed for its cost of pursuing this protest, 
including reasonable attorneys' fees.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.6(d) (1995).  The protester should submit its detailed and 
certified claim directly with the agency within 60 days of receipt of 
this decision.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.6(f).

The protest is sustained.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. FPI is a wholly owned government corporation within the Justice 
Department that operates under the trade name "UNICOR" at various 
federal correctional institutions in the federal prison system.  FPI 
operates approximately 100 factories at 53 different locations that 
manufacture a variety of products for the government.

2. Insofar as this was a sealed bid procurement, the agency acted 
improperly by giving Tri Tool an opportunity to establish 
acceptability of the product it was offering after opening.  See GTA 
Containers, Inc., B-249327, Nov. 3, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  321.