BNUMBER:  B-265951
DATE:  January 22, 1996
TITLE:  Centroid, Inc.

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

Matter of:Centroid, Inc.

File:     B-265951

Date:     January 22, 1996

Marc A. Starr for the protester.
Charles J. Roedersheimer, Esq., and Jeffery B. Greer, Esq., Defense 
Logistics Agency, for the agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly rejected an offer of an alternate part to the one 
specified in the solicitation where the offeror did not provide 
technical data required by the solicitation to demonstrate that the 
alternate part was equivalent to the specified one.

DECISION

Centroid, Inc. protests the award of a contract to BEI Sensors & 
Motion Systems Co. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
SP0930-95-R-A191, issued by the Defense Electronics Supply Center 
(DESC) for shaft angle encoders.  Centroid argues that the agency 
improperly rejected Centroid's lower offer of an alternate part to the 
BEI encoder specified in the RFP.

We deny the protest.

DESC issued the solicitation on June 6, 1995, for a fixed-price 
contract for shaft angle encoders (used in radar sets), identified 
generally in the RFP as national stock number (NSN) 5990-01-257-2476, 
and specifically as BEI part number INC23-12G1B.  The agency solicited 
the BEI part number because it lacked unrestricted technical data to 
include in a competitive solicitation.[1]  

The RFP referenced the standard clause at Defense Logistics Agency 
Regulation  sec.  52.217-9002, Products Offered, advising potential 
offerors that the agency had found the named manufacturer's part 
acceptable, and allowing them the option to offer the exact product, 
an alternate product identical to the named one, or a product 
manufactured for the named manufacturer.  According to the clause, an 
offeror of an alternate product had to furnish information--drawings, 
specifications, or other data--describing its product, and covering 
"design, materials, performance, function, interchangeability, 
inspection and/or testing criteria and other characteristics of the 
offered product."   The RFP also advised that the government did not 
have drawings, plans, or specifications for the BEI part; the Products 
Offered clause stated that in such case an offeror of an alternate 
product should furnish, if available, enough information about the 
named product to enable the government to determine equivalence. 

Centroid indicated in its offer that it would furnish an alternate 
product, Centroid part number 1448.  The only information Centroid 
provided with its offer was a copy of a Westinghouse drawing for a 
Westinghouse part, which included some dimensional characteristics and 
which referenced BEI part number INC23-12G1A, and a statement that its 
offered part number 1448 would be in accordance with that BEI part 
number INC23-12G1B.  Since Centroid did not offer the exact BEI part 
that the agency had found acceptable and, in DESC's view, furnished 
nothing to demonstrate the part offered was equivalent, the agency 
concluded that it could not determine the equivalence of the Centroid 
part, and awarded a contract to BEI. 

Centroid contends that the NSN listed in the solicitation "breaks out" 
to both BEI part number INC23-12G1B and the Westinghouse part number 
related to the drawing furnished.  Centroid argues that both parts 
should therefore be acceptable.  Further, Centroid argues, because 
Westinghouse is the original equipment manufacturer, the Westinghouse 
drawing constituted data sufficient to demonstrate that its product 
would meet DESC's needs.

We disagree with Centroid's arguments.  The solicitation expressly 
stated that any product other than the BEI product or one manufactured 
for BEI would constitute an "alternate product," and clearly put the 
burden on the offeror of an alternate to submit sufficient data about 
its own product, as well as data about the named product (if 
available), to demonstrate equivalence.  See Advanced Seal Technology, 
Inc., B-258142, Dec. 12, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  233.  The version of the BEI 
part cited in the Westinghouse drawing that Centroid furnished to DESC 
was an earlier version of the BEI part (INC23-12G1A) of the one 
specified in the RFP (INC23-12G1B), and, other than the dimensions 
noted on the drawing, Centroid's offer provided no data about the 
alternate's design, materials, etc.  In short, we do not see how the 
Westinghouse drawing established how or why Centroid part number 1448 
was equivalent to BEI part number INC23-12G1B.[2]  Moreover, with 
respect to Centroid's statement in its offer that its alternate 
product would be in accordance with the named part, Centroid's mere 
promise of equivalence could not by itself substitute for the data 
required by the solicitation.  See EAP Consultants, B-238103, Apr. 4, 
1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  358.  

In sum, the burden was on Centroid, offering an alternate encoder, to 
include with the offer the data needed for DESC to be sure the 
Centroid part was equal to the BEI part.  We have no basis to disagree 
with DESC that the Westinghouse drawing was inadequate for that 
purpose, and the rejection of Centroid's offer thus was consistent 
with the solicitation's terms.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. DESC executed a justification for other than full and open 
competition to support its decision.

2. To the extent Centroid believed the solicitation should have 
specified the Westinghouse encoder, or required a part in accordance 
with the Westinghouse drawing, the firm should have raised that point 
before submitting its offer.  See Piezo Crystal Co., 69 Comp. Gen. 97 
(1989), 89-2 CPD  para.  477.