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.