BNUMBER: B-271194
DATE: May 22, 1996
TITLE: R&B Equipment Company
**********************************************************************
Matter of:R&B Equipment Company
File: B-271194
Date:May 22, 1996
Mitch Green for the protester.
Col. Thomas F. Brown, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that solicitation for industrial chillers is unduly
restrictive of competition because it requires that the compressor
bearing housing be equipped with removable access panels is denied
where the record shows that the requirement is reasonably based on
historical data, including preventive maintenance records and the
contracting agency's engineers' personal observations and experience,
which support the agency's determination that the panels generally
facilitate inspection and repairs on critical components of the
chillers, thereby enhancing equipment longevity and reliability,
while significantly reducing overall maintenance costs.
DECISION
R&B Equipment Company protests the terms of invitation for bids (IFB)
No. F34650-95-B-0037, issued by the Department of the Air Force to
replace three 2,000 ton-capacity industrial chillers at Tinker Air
Force Base (AFB), Oklahoma. R&B contends that the IFB is unduly
restrictive of competition.
We deny the protest.
Amendment No. 4 to the IFB added the following specification:
"Compressor bearing housing shall be provided with removable
access/inspection cover plate of sufficient size to permit
inspection and replacement of compressor bearings."
According to R&B, none of the manufacturers of industrial chillers can
provide equipment that meets the requirement. Specifically, R&B
asserts that none of the manufacturers can claim that the compressor
bearings on their respective equipment can be inspected or replaced
through a removable access plate. R&B further asserts that only one
manufacturer, Carrier Corporation, can offer equipment with "token"
access plates. The protester maintains, however, that even Carrier's
equipment does not meet the IFB's specification. Nevertheless, R&B
concludes that the requirement was written so as to favor Carrier, and
that the IFB improperly excludes any other manufacturers from
competing.[1]
Agencies are required to specify their needs in a manner designed to
promote full and open competition, and may only include restrictive
provisions in a solicitation to the extent that they are necessary to
meet the agency's minimum needs. Pipeliner Sys., Inc., 73 Comp. Gen.
61 (1993), 93-2 CPD para. 343. Where a protester alleges that a
requirement is unduly restrictive, we will review the record to
determine whether the requirement has been justified as reasonably
necessary to satisfy the agency's minimum needs. Sunbelt Indus.,
Inc., B-246850, Mar. 31, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 325. The contracting
agency, which is most familiar with its needs and how best to fulfill
them, must make the determination as to what its minimum needs are in
the first instance, and we will not question that determination unless
it has no reasonable basis. Johnson Controls, Inc., B-243605, Aug. 1,
1991, 91-2 CPD para. 112. Here, the record supports the agency's
determination to require the access panel.
The chillers in question provide year-round climate control to several
important computer systems critical to the mission of Tinker AFB.
These computer systems are very sensitive to changes in building
temperature, requiring a continuous controlled climate for optimal
operation. Air Force engineers have calculated the cost of computer
failure due to inadequate cooling of these advanced computer systems
at more than $300,000 per hour. Due to the critical nature of the
services provided by the computer equipment, and the costs associated
with computer "down time," the agency states that its paramount
concern in replacing the existing chillers is facilitating the
engineers' access to critical components of the equipment, such as the
compressor bearings, as well as controlling maintenance costs.
According to the Air Force, the access panels facilitate upkeep of the
equipment in several respects, resulting in lower maintenance costs.
The agency states that the eight chillers currently operating at
Tinker AFB have had preventive maintenance and repairs performed using
the access panels. Maintenance records kept by the Air Force show
that engineers have used the access covers to perform maintenance on
the existing chillers at least 18 times over the last 2 years. In
each instance, the agency explains, equipment "down time" would have
been considerably longer and service expenses significantly higher had
the chillers not been equipped with the removable access covers.
Specifically, the agency explains that ease of access to the equipment
means less time (i.e., labor hours) required for engineers to inspect
and replace the compressor bearings, a critical component of the
chillers. In response to R&B's protest, Air Force engineering
personnel, who are most familiar with the type of maintenance required
by the equipment, estimated that with the access covers, inspecting
the bearings on one chiller would require approximately 8 hours, and
replacing them would require about 16 hours. Without the access
panels, inspecting the bearings on one unit would take approximately
80 hours, while replacing them would require about 100 hours.
According to the agency, the access panels therefore would save a
total of at least 216 hours of maintenance time each year, and would
save about 84 hours each time the bearings are replaced.
The agency further states that the time saved performing routine
maintenance and emergency maintenance is directly related to lower
maintenance costs. In this connection, the agency calculates that,
based on the repair records for the eight existing chillers at Tinker
AFB, maintenance over the 30-year expected life of the equipment
(without the access panels) would cost more than $100,000 per chiller
over the cost of chillers with the access panels. According to the
Air Force, these calculations do not include the cost of additional
training that would be required to familiarize personnel with
procedures for disassembling the compressors to access the bearings;
this is an additional expense not required with the access panels.
The protester does not dispute the agency's calculations of labor hour
savings or estimates of maintenance costs, and we see no basis to
question the agency's own experts' estimates in this regard.
The protester's arguments that no manufacturer can provide chillers
with the required access panels, or that the access panels do not
provide any of the advantages claimed by the Air Force, are not
supported by the record. The record contains manufacturers'
literature showing that at least two different manufacturers claim to
provide equipment with features specifically designed to facilitate
the inspection of bearings and gear without requiring the disassembly
of their respective chillers. In addition, contrary to the
protester's assertions, Air Force maintenance records show that
engineers have, in fact, inspected and replaced compressor bearings on
the existing chillers through access panels. The agency further
explains that with the access covers, maintenance engineers have been
able to observe the bearings directly, confirm and diagnose problems
while they are occurring, and take appropriate actions to prevent
major compressor bearing-related failures.
The protester argues that the agency's assumptions underlying its
position that the access panels simplify maintenance and improve
equipment reliability are flawed. R&B maintains that the proper method
for detecting problems with the bearings is by analyzing oil samples,
monitoring on-line vibration of the equipment, and by continuous
microprocessor monitoring. The protester also asserts that the access
panel is merely another feature that could cause other problems, such
as refrigerant leaks, and questions how a damaged chiller could be
repaired through the access panel. The protester also maintains that
the requirement is unduly restrictive of competition and unnecessary
since other military installations using industrial chillers have not
required the access panels in the past. In summary, the protester
takes the position that the access panels do not provide the
advantages claimed by the Air Force, and contends that the agency's
reliance on the access panels to argue that the requirement will
facilitate equipment inspection or maintenance is misplaced.
As is evident by the maintenance records for the existing chillers, it
is clear that the Air Force engineers have found that the panels
facilitate equipment maintenance in several respects. In addition to
the maintenance records, the agency provided a short videotape
recording[2] showing how the panel on a current chiller, once removed,
facilitates access to critical components of the equipment. With
respect to the protester's argument that the access panels could
provide an opportunity for a refrigerant leak, the agency explains
that an access cover is not the only place where such a leak could
occur and that if there were a leak through a seal in the compressor,
an access cover would allow replacing the seal without disassembling
the entire compressor housing. The agency further states that
different types of failures require different repairs, some which
could be more easily effected through the required removable access
ports. The protester does not dispute the agency's assertions in this
regard.
In essence, the protester's position simply reflects its disagreement
with the expert opinion of the agency's engineers. We will not
substitute our technical judgment for the contracting agency's
technical judgment unless its conclusions are shown to be arbitrary or
otherwise unreasonable. Teledyne Brown Eng'g, Inc., B-237368, Feb.
16, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 285. As discussed above, the record here
reasonably supports the agency's decision to require access panels
based on its experience showing that the panels reduced the time and
expense associated with maintenance of the chillers. R&B's
disagreement with the agency's technical judgment concerning the
benefits derived from having removable access panels on the compressor
housing is not a basis for sustaining the protest. See Xerox Corp.,
B-236072.2 et al., Nov. 29, 1989, 89-2 CPD para. 502.
Further, we are not persuaded by the protester's argument that the
requirement is restrictive simply because other contracting activities
have not required removable access panels in the past. Each
procurement action is a separate transaction and the action taken
under one is not relevant to the propriety of the action taken under
another procurement for purposes of a bid protest. Westbrook Indus.,
Inc., B-248854, Sept. 28, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 213. In other words, the
fact that other military installations believed--correctly or
incorrectly--that chillers without the removable access panels
adequately met their minimum needs in the past has no effect on the
reasonableness of the Air Force's conclusion here that chillers with
access panels meets its minimum needs. Requiring agencies to fashion
every procurement based on prior practices and without regard to
technological advances or mechanical improvements would create an
overwhelming burden on the agency's ability to procure supplies and
services that are necessary to meet its minimum needs. See Komatsu
Dresser Co., B-251944, May 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 369. Although R&B
expresses its disagreement with the Air Force's determination of its
minimum needs, we have no basis upon which to question the propriety
of the specification.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Throughout these proceedings, the protester has requested that we
obtain statements from various third parties, such as the Army Corps
of Engineers and Carrier, which presumably would support R&B's protest
allegations. Our Office generally does not conduct independent
investigations to substantiate a protester's allegations.
Fayetteville Group Practice, Inc., B-226422.5, May 16, 1988, 88-1 CPD para.
456; Kisco Co., Inc., B-216646, Jan 18, 1985, 85-1 CPD para. 56.
2. Pursuant to our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.3(i) (1996),
our Office granted the Air Force's request to supplement the record
with, among other things, a short (approximately 14 minutes)
videotaped recording showing an Air Force engineer removing the access
panel on an existing chiller at Tinker AFB and briefly describing the
observable components; the protester responded to the agency's
supplemental filing with written comments.