BNUMBER: B-266219
DATE: February 7, 1996
TITLE: A-1 Postage Meters and Shipping Systems
**********************************************************************
Matter of:A-1 Postage Meters and Shipping Systems
File: B-266219
Date: February 7, 1996
J. Hatcher Graham, Esq., for the protester.
Grace Bateman, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for
Pitney Bowes, Inc., an interested party.
Bryant L. Durham, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest challenging the terms of a purchase description for a mail
processing machine is denied where, contrary to protester's
allegations, specifications that protester challenges are not
impossible to perform and do not otherwise preclude the protester from
competing.
DECISION
A-1 Postage Meters and Shipping Systems protests the terms of request
for quotations (RFQ) No. F09650-95-Q-4383, issued by the Air Force for
an automated mail processing machine for the Base Information Transfer
Center (BITC) at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center.
We deny the protest.
The RFQ, which sought quotations for equipment listed on a General
Services Administration federal supply schedule, included a purchase
description with detailed specifications and delivery, installation,
and quality assurance requirements for the mail processing machine.
A-1 alleges that certain provisions of the purchase description are
impossible to meet. A-1 further argues that the purchase description
includes requirements that are available only in mail processing
machines manufactured by Pitney Bowes, Inc. and which exceed the
agency's actual minimum needs. Explaining that it is familiar with
the operation of the BITC, A-1 maintains that the actual requirements
of that facility are limited to the ability to timely meter and
account for postage on letters and packages up to 70 pounds.
According to
A-1, the solicitation requires equipment that exceeds these minimum
requirements.
Agencies are responsible for specifying their needs in a manner
designed to promote full and open competition. D & R Tank Co., Inc.,
B-258529, Jan. 26, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 53. Where a protester challenges
a solicitation requirement, our Office will not substitute its
judgment for the contracting agency's, which is most familiar with the
conditions under which the supplies and services are to be used,
unless the protester proves that the challenged specification is
impossible to meet or otherwise unduly restricts competition.
California Inflatables Co., Inc., B-249348, Nov. 9, 1992, 92-2 CPD para.
331. Moreover, the fact that specifications are based upon a
particular product is not improper in and of itself; nor will an
assertion that a specification was "written around" design features of
a particular product provide a valid basis for protest if the record
establishes that the specification is reasonably related to the
agency's minimum needs. Hewlett-Packard Co., 69 Comp. Gen. 750
(1990), 90-2 CPD para. 258.
We have considered the specifications that A-1 has challenged and we
conclude that none of those requirements are impossible to perform or
improperly restrictive of competition.
A-1 first challenges section 3.2.4.1 of the purchase description,
which requires that the mail machine include the following features
and performance characteristics:
"Modular mailing system which automatically feeds without
operator intervention various sizes and weights of mail ranging
from post card size to flats measuring at least 11 inches by 13
inches by 1/2 inch thick. The system will also be equipped with
a flat feeding kit to ensure efficient automated feeding. The
machine shall be capable of determining nonstandard size mail,
and if required, automatically add the required surcharge to the
appropriate postage."
A-1 argues that the requirement for feeding "without operator
intervention" is physically impossible since with any machine an
operator will have to insert pieces of mail face up, with addresses
parallel to the machine, the top edge against the feeder, and writing
on the envelope facing the operator.
In response to this contention, the agency argues that A-1's reading
of the purchase description is unreasonable since section 3.2.4.1
simply calls for a machine that "automatically feeds without operator
intervention" (emphasis added), but does not call for loading and
starting the machine without operator activity. According to the
agency, with any machine, an operator will have to turn the machine
on, identify the class of mail to be processed, select the appropriate
accounting code, and load the mail. The agency explains that section
3.2.4.1 calls for a machine that allows the operator to load mixed
sizes and weights of mail, select the appropriate class and account
number, and select a process button so that mail is weighed, postage
applied, and the appropriate account charged "without operator
intervention."
We agree with the agency that A-1's reading of the challenged
specification as establishing an impossible requirement is
unreasonable. Section 3.2.4.1 does not call for a machine that
arranges and loads the mail and turns itself on. Rather, as the
agency notes, any machine will require some operator activity to load
and start the machine. Read in context, the activity required to be
performed without operator intervention is feeding the mail through
the machine.[1]
A-1 also challenges as unduly restrictive the requirement of section
3.2.4.1 that the machine be capable of determining nonstandard size
mail and automatically adding any required surcharge to the
appropriate postage.
The agency explains that the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) requires that
a surcharge be added to "nonstandard mail," that is, any mail piece
weighing less than one ounce and exceeding size limits established by
the DMM. According to the agency, if the surcharge is not included in
the postage, the mail will be returned by the Postal Service due to
insufficient postage.
A-1 argues that no one would send a piece of mail weighing less than
an ounce and exceeding the size limits in the DMM. As a result,
according to A-1, the circumstances requiring a surcharge would not
occur so the requirement for a machine that can apply a surcharge to
mail that requires it exceeds the agency's minimum needs. However,
A-1 also states that "[i]t should be noted that the Protestant's
machine can identify and affix postage to nonstandard pieces, as
necessary." A-1 thus concedes that, as required by section 3.2.4.1,
A-1's machine is "capable of determining nonstandard size mail, and if
required, automatically add[ing] the required surcharge to the
appropriate postage."
Prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest. See
Hines/Mortenson,
B-256543.4, Aug. 10, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 67. Since A-1's machine can
perform the function in issue, and since the firm admits that it can
meet the RFQ requirement, section 3.2.4.1 does not affect A-1's
ability to compete. We therefore will not consider the issue further.
A-1 similarly challenges a number of other provision of the purchase
description but concedes that its machine can meet those
requirements--demonstrating that it is not prejudiced by the
challenged requirements. For example, A-1 challenges section 3.2.4.2
of the purchase description, which states,
"The system shall be equipped with an 11 ounce capacity scale
which will allow the system to apply, without operator
intervention, appropriate postage and calculate discounts for
zip+4, presort, or bar coded mixed weight mail pieces, and
automatically reject mail exceeding the US Postal Service 11
ounce limit for first class letters/flats while processing at a
rate of at least 200 pieces per minute when processing uniform
mail."
A-1 again questions the term "without operator intervention," arguing
that an operator would have to select an appropriate mail class and
discounts and would have to load the mail on the machine. In
response, the agency again maintains that the protester's reading of
the specifications is unreasonable. According to the agency, although
it is true that the operator would have to select the appropriate mail
class and discounts and load the mail, the mail would then be weighed,
postage applied, and the cost charged to the appropriate account
without operator intervention. The agency states that, contrary to
A-1's contentions, section 3.2.4.2 does not call for a machine that
would allow the operator to walk away from the machine while it is
operating.
In its comments on the agency report, the protester states that its
machine "would perform the required service as well as [a Pitney Bowes
machine]. However, it would be performed in the Differential Weigh
Mode and would not have to be presorted as would the Pitney Bowes
machine." Since A-1's machine would, according to A-1, perform the
required service as well as the Pitney Bowes machine, it is unclear to
us how section 3.2.4.2 would prevent A-1 from offering its machine.
Again A-1 is not prejudiced by the requirement.
A-1 also challenges the requirements of section 3.2.4.8 that the
machine be equipped with user identification codes for up to 12
operators and section 3.2.4.9 which requires "supplier provided bar
codes." Here again, since A-1 concedes that it can meet these
requirements, it is not prejudiced by these provisions.[2]
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. In its comments on the agency report, A-1 for the first time
challenges the requirement of section 3.2.4.1 for a "flat feeding
kit." This allegation is untimely. Under our Bid Protest
Regulations, a protest based upon alleged improprieties in a
solicitation that are apparent prior to the time set for receipt of
quotations must be filed before that time. 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.2(a)(1)
(1995). Where a protester initially files a timely protest and later
supplements it with new and independent grounds of protest, the later
raised allegations must independently satisfy our timeliness
requirements, since our Regulations do not contemplate the unwarranted
piecemeal presentation or development of protest issues. See Remtech,
Inc., 70 Comp.
Gen. 165 (1991), 91-1 CPD para. 35. Here, quotations were due on
September 22, 1995. Since A-1 first challenged the flat feeding kit
requirement in its comments submitted on November 24, after the
closing date, the allegation will not be considered.
2. Although A-1's protest also challenged sections 3.2.4.3, 3.2.4.4,
3.2.4.7, and 5.1, the protesters' comments on the agency report did
not address the agency's response. Where a protester comments on the
agency report and fails to address issues to which the agency report
responded, we consider such issues abandoned. Datum Timing, Div. of
Datum Inc., B-254493, Dec. 17, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 328.