BNUMBER:  B-270360.2
DATE:  June 11, 1996
TITLE:  Container Products Corporation

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

Matter of:Container Products Corporation

File:     B-270360.2

Date:June 11, 1996

Joel Hughes for the protester.
James Y. Miyazawa, Esq., and Eric A. Lile, Esq., Department of the 
Navy, for the agency.
Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably rejected protester's response to notice of 
sole-source award in Commerce Business Daily as technically 
unacceptable where notice required potential offerors to submit 
technical literature and data demonstrating compliance with the listed 
performance, safety and construction standards; protester submitted 
only general technical information, failing even to identify the exact 
equipment being offered.

DECISION

Container Products Corporation protests the rejection of its response 
to solicitation No. N00600-95-N-3559 POC, which was issued by the 
Department of the Navy for special industry machinery described as a 
"ultra high pressure water blast recovery and filtration system" to be 
used in Naval shipyards.  We deny the protest.

On September 18, 1995, the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center 
published its intent in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) to award a 
sole-source contract for the equipment under the above referenced 
solicitation number to United Technologies, Waterjet Systems, Inc.  
The CBD notice described a system that would be capable of removing 
underwater and above-water paint from ships located in drydock and 
specified required physical and performance characteristics for the 
equipment.  The notice specified that: 

     "[e]quipment shall be of the manufacturer's 'current field proven 
     design,' that is, offerors shall submit (1) data that 
     demonstrates compliance with the performance, safety, and 
     construction standards of the specifications; (2) structural, 
     mechanical, and electrical design, construction and performance 
     specifications for all major assemblies and subassemblies of the 
     equipment; (3) description of operation, including maintenance 
     and trouble-shooting techniques; (4) utilities required and 
     estimated quantity, in standard units, to support operation of 
     the equipment."

The synopsis, referencing CBD note 22, stated that in order to be 
considered, interested firms must submit technical literature 
describing their capability to provide the required product as well as 
terms and conditions and a complete price quote, within 45 days of 
publication of the synopsis.  The CBD notice stated that no formal 
solicitation existed, and that none would be issued unless the 
contracting officer determined to do so, based on responses from other 
interested potential sources.  
 
Container Products submitted an 8-page response describing its 
product.  The protester's submission asserted in its opening summary 
that it was offering the system as described in the solicitation, and 
stated that "this design, as proposed, meets in total the requirements 
of the solicitation," but did not otherwise identify the specific 
equipment being offered, either by model number or other means.  The 
submission included no technical literature.  Container Products 
stated in its submission that the firm's "field equipment includes the 
S/SSAP. . . Self-Supporting All Purpose Cleaning System and the 
S/SCARP. . . Self-Contained Automatic Retrieval Product," and stated 
that both units "are totally self-supporting recycling cleaning 
systems."  It did not disclose, however, which (if any) of these 
systems was being offered, nor did it provide any information 
concerning either product's status as a "field-proven design." 

When Container Products' technical response was evaluated, it was 
found technically unacceptable.  The contracting officer advised the 
firm of this conclusion by letter, listing five specific areas in 
which the submission failed to provide information demonstrating 
compliance with the requirements of the solicitation.  In summary, the 
omitted information concerned whether the system was a current field 
proven design; how (or whether) the listed components were integrated 
into a system; whether one of the two systems listed in the proposal 
was an unacceptable "abrasive media system;" how water recovery by 
"powerful vacuum" was to be accomplished; and what type of paint 
system the equipment would remove, as well as the condition of the 
surface following the paint removal.  This protest followed. 

Container Products protests that its product complies with the 
agency's requirements, and challenges each of the bases cited by the 
agency for the rejection of its proposal.  The protester argues, for 
example, that the firm "does have 'Field Proven Designs' that need 
only extension to 40,000 [pounds per square inch] to meet the 
solicitation requirements," and cites patent numbers that have been 
issued for certain processes it employs.  

An offeror must affirmatively demonstrate that its product will meet 
the government's needs where required to do so by the agency.  See 
Discount Mach. & Equip., Inc., B-253094, Aug. 2, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  68.  
Where, as here, prospective contractors are required to furnish 
information necessary to establish compliance with the agency's 
requirements, an agency may reasonably find a submission that fails to 
include such information technically unacceptable.  Id.

The protester argues that its product complies with the synopsis 
requirements; however, we think the rather general technical 
information included in the protester's submission failed to address a 
number of the CBD notice requirements.  For example, although the 
synopsis required prospective offerors to demonstrate that the offered 
product was a current field proven design, Container Products did not 
even specifically identify the particular model or equipment that it 
was proposing to supply, much less address the question of how long 
(or in what capacity) it had been in service.[1]  The most descriptive 
part of the submission was a list of the various components included 
in the system; however, the submission did not include any 
explanation, illustration, or photograph to show how the components 
were integrated.      

In sum, Container Products' submission did not include any technical 
literature or data as requested by the agency to permit the agency to 
establish that Container Products's equipment was capable of 
satisfying the agency's requirements.  We think the agency's 
conclusion that Container Products' submission did not demonstrate 
compliance with the stated requirements was reasonable. 

Container Products also argues that if its price was low, it should 
have been given a further chance to demonstrate its system.  We 
disagree.  Since the agency reasonably judged the protester's 
technical response to be unacceptable, its decision not to further 
consider Container Products' submission and to proceed with a 
sole-source award (to the firm which met its needs) was not 
objectionable.[2]  See Elsinore Aerospace Servs., Inc., B-239672.6, 
Apr. 12, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  368.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States 
  
1. Even in its protest submission, Container Products does not 
identify one particular product that it is offering, and suggests that 
its current design would require modifications to meet the agency's 
requirement in any case, stating that the firm "does have 'Field 
Proven Designs' that need only extensions to 40,000 psi [pounds per 
square inch] to meet the solicitation requirements." 

2. We note that Container Products does not specifically challenge the 
propriety of the agency's requirements as specified in the CBD 
synopsis or the sole-source procedures followed for this procurement.