BNUMBER:  B-272291
DATE:  September 13, 1996
TITLE:  T&S Products, Inc.

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

Matter of:T&S Products, Inc.

File:     B-272291

Date:September 13, 1996

Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., Sullivan & Worcester, for the protester.
James D. Connors, for Sealed Air Corp., an intervenor.
David L. Frecker, Esq., General Services Administration, for the 
agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that requirement for diskette mailers with a pressure 
sensitive adhesive seal covered by a liner (i.e., a "peel seal")  
exceeds agency's minimum needs and is restrictive of competition is 
denied where agency demonstrates that the requirement is reasonably 
necessary to meet need for security and convenience.

DECISION

T&S Products, Inc. protests the terms of General Services 
Administration (GSA) invitation for bids (IFB) No. 2FYS-BN-96-0010-N, 
with respect to diskette mailers.

We deny the protest.

T&S argues that the requirement for the method of closing the diskette 
mailer--a flap with a pressure sensitive adhesive covered by a 
removable peel seal--unnecessarily restricts competition, since it 
excludes T&S's self-locking diskette mailers which lock without 
adhesive (edges are folded and inserted into slits).  T&S asks that 
the IFB be amended accordingly.

GSA explains that the mailers are being purchased at the request of 
and for resale to the United States Postal Service (USPS), which will 
sell them to retail customers in post offices throughout the United 
States.  The technical requirements for the mailers were determined 
through meetings and discussions between the GSA and USPS, as well as 
an industry survey.  The survey showed that there were three commonly 
used methods of closure, including the peel seal method specified by 
the solicitation, and the self-locking method advocated by the 
protester.  USPS rejected the self-locking method on the basis that, 
since the closure is not secure, the contents could be lost, damaged, 
or (since the mailers can easily be opened and reclosed) tampered 
with.  To remedy the potential problems of accidental or intentional 
loss or damage to the diskettes in the self-locking mailers, customers 
would have to take the additional step of taping or gluing the mailer, 
which would be inconvenient for the customer.  USPS concluded that the 
requirements for maximum security and customer convenience dictated 
the use of the peel seal mailers.

Where a protester challenges a specification as unduly restrictive of 
competition, the agency must establish that it is reasonably necessary 
to meet the agency's minimum needs.  T&S Prods., Inc., B-261852, Oct. 
4, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  161.  The peel and seal restriction is reasonable 
here.  First, GSA has established that the peel and seal mailers are 
preferable to the self-locking type with regard to security and 
convenience; T&S has not shown otherwise.  We see no reason why GSA 
cannot properly restrict the IFB to the preferable peel and seal 
mailers; USPS has a legitimate need to supply its customers with 
products that will both safeguard mailed items--to ensure customer 
satisfaction and protect itself against liability for lost or damaged 
items--and provide maximum convenience.  See T&S Prods., Inc., supra; 
T&S Prods., Inc., B-261287, Aug. 14, 1995, 96-2 CPD  para.  ___.  

T&S cites the fact that USPS currently utilizes self-locking diskette 
mailers--in particular T&S points to a contract with USPS in 
Birmingham--as evidence that there in fact is no legitimate basis for 
excluding its self-locking mailers here.  

Each post office is responsible for procuring its own supplies, and 
until recently did so from independent sources.  Since 1993-94, GSA 
has been used as a primary source of supply for packaging products, 
but it is not a mandatory source of supply and individual post offices 
thus still may purchase supplies from other sources.  It is 
well-established, however, that each procurement stands on its own, 
Digital Sys. Group, Inc., B-258262.2, Jan. 20, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  30, 
and the fact that not all individual post offices have made the same 
determination as USPS and GSA regarding diskette mailers does not 
invalidate that otherwise reasonable determination.[1]

The protest is denied.
 
Comptroller General
of the United States

1. T&S also argues that the requirement that the mailer have a static 
liner is ambiguous.  Since we have determined that T&S's self-locking 
mailers properly were excluded, and T&S does not assert that it can 
furnish peel and seal mailers, T&S is not a potential bidder and thus 
is not an interested party for purposes of challenging the liner 
specification.  See H.L. Bouton Co., Inc., B-256014.4, Oct. 24, 1994, 
94-2 CPD  para.  149.