BNUMBER:  B-274668; B-274668.2
DATE:  December 23, 1996
TITLE:  Ericsson, Inc.

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Ericsson, Inc.

File:     B-274668; B-274668.2

Date:December 23, 1996

John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Christina M. 
Pirrello, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter, & D'Ambrosio, for the 
protester.
David B. Apatoff, Esq., Arnold & Porter, for Motorola, Inc., an 
intervenor.
Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Department of the Army, for the 
agency.
David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest against rejection of proposal as unacceptable is denied where 
agency reasonably determined that proposed digital commercial land 
mobile radio system did not comply with mandatory solicitation 
requirements for handheld radios to operate at a UHF frequency range 
of 403-470 MHz and for the digital interface unit to store up to eight 
encryption keys; protester's interpretation of specifications as 
permitting gaps in the required frequency range and only requiring 
that the interface unit be capable of future upgrade to an eight 
encryption key storage capacity was unreasonable.

DECISION

Ericsson, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's award of a 
contract to Motorola, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DAJB03-96-R-0036, for replacement of the radio network currently used 
by the Eighth United States Army, Eighth Military Police Brigade (8th 
MP).  Ericsson argues that the Army improperly rejected its 
lower-priced proposal as technically unacceptable.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation contemplated award--to the low, technically 
acceptable offeror--of a fixed-price contract to provide a new digital 
commercial land mobile radio system (CLMRS) that would be compliant 
with frequency changes mandated by the Republic of Korea effective 
January 1, 1997.  The solicitation generally provided that the 8th MP 
"requires a handheld radio network with repeater system capable of 
operating in the analog, digital unencrypted and digital encrypted 
modes" and consisting of handheld radios, repeaters, dispatcher 
control consoles, digital interface units, and base stations.  In 
addition, Attachment C to the solicitation included a detailed 
checklist of requirements for each component; the RFP (as amended) 
stated that technical acceptability would be determined on the basis 
of "Attachment C only."  Offerors were required to furnish "written 
documentation that substantiates their equipment's ability to meet the 
salient characteristics identified in this solicitation." 

Three proposals were received by the closing time on July 26, 1996.  
Since none of the proposals was considered technically acceptable as 
submitted, the agency entered into written discussions with each 
offeror, requesting additional information showing conformance of the 
proposed system to specified Attachment C requirements.  After 
concluding that Ericsson's response still did not establish 
conformance with these requirements, the agency first generally 
requested the protester "to requote an alternate unit meeting all 
solicitation criteria" and "provide proof of meeting each listed area 
in which you did not receive a technical 'go,'" and then in a 
subsequent telephone call raised several specific areas of concern.  
After receiving another submission from Ericsson, the Army requested 
best and final offers (BAFO) from all offerors.  The agency determined 
that Ericsson's proposal was technically unacceptable due to 
noncompliance with Attachment C requirements, and ultimately made 
award to Motorola based on its finding that only Motorola's BAFO 
complied with all of the Attachment C requirements.

The procuring agency has primary responsibility for evaluating the 
technical information supplied by an offeror and determining the 
technical acceptability of the offeror's item.  Alpha Technical 
Servs., Inc., B-250878; B-250878.2, Feb. 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  104.  Our 
Office will not question an evaluation of proposals unless the agency 
deviated from the evaluation criteria or the evaluation was otherwise 
unreasonable.  IDB Int'l, B-257086, July 15, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  27.  The 
Army reasonably rejected Ericsson's proposal as technically 
unacceptable.  We discuss two areas of unacceptability below.

FREQUENCY RANGE

Attachment C provided that the handheld radios must operate at a "UHF 
frequency of 403-470 MHz."  Ericsson entered the general notation 
"Yes" opposite the radio frequency range requirement in its Attachment 
C checklist response, but specifically described the equipment 
characteristics of its handheld radio as including three UHF subbands 
in its tuning range:  403-430 MHz, 440-470 MHz, and 470-500 MHz.  
Although requested during discussions to demonstrate conformance of 
its proposed radio to the frequency range requirement, Ericsson 
essentially repeated and referred the agency to the above sections of 
its initial proposal.  The Army determined that the 430-440 MHz gap in 
the frequency range of Ericsson's radio, and its reliance on subbands, 
rendered the radio noncompliant with the requirement for a 403-470 MHz 
UHF frequency range.  

Ericsson essentially argues that the solicitation did not require the 
system to operate over the entire frequency range without subbands or 
gaps, and points to Motorola's proposal as support for this 
conclusion.  Specifically, Ericsson notes that, while Motorola's 
handheld radios operate over the entire 403-470 MHz frequency range 
without subbands or gaps, Motorola's proposed base station is 
described in the firm's proposal as including three UHF subbands:  
403-433 MHz, 450-482 MHz, and 482-512 MHz.  Ericsson essentially 
concludes that its radio is as compliant with the requirement as 
Motorola's.

This argument is without merit.  First, it is simply untenable to 
maintain that a     10-MHz gap in frequency range is consistent with a 
clear, unqualified requirement for a "UHF frequency of 403-470 MHz" 
for the handheld radios.[1]  Further, the evaluation of Motorola's 
proposal was fully consistent with this clear requirement; while the 
specific, enumerated "GO/NO-GO" requirements in Attachment C for the 
handheld radios included a requirement for a "UHF frequency of 403-470 
MHz," the enumerated requirements for the base station did not include 
a frequency range requirement.[2]  There thus is no basis to question 
the agency's determination that Ericsson's proposed handheld radio did 
not meet the specific frequency range requirement for the handheld 
radios, and that Motorola's did.[3] 

ENCRYPTION KEYS

Attachment C of the solicitation contained the following requirement 
for the digital interface unit:  "Multi key capability.  Stores up to 
eight encryption keys.  These keys are essential to decoding/encoding 
inbound and outbound transmissions."  Ericsson's initial proposal 
Attachment C checklist indicated a dash, rather than a "Yes" notation 
opposite this requirement, and explained that:

        "(This vendor specific feature is of no use since the console 
        specification does not provide multi-key capability.  
        [DELETED]  If multi-key is required Ericsson will requote an 
        alternate unit upon request."

In response to the Army's request during discussions to demonstrate 
conformance of its proposed digital interface unit to the encryption 
key requirement, Ericsson stated that [DELETED].  The record indicates 
that the agency subsequently generally advised Ericsson "to requote an 
alternate unit meeting all solicitation criteria" (as it had offered 
to do in its initial proposal), and then specifically questioned 
Ericsson--according to Ericsson's letter to the agency dated August 
21, 1996--with respect to the agency's "concern for noncompliance" 
with respect to "the multikey operation of the console interface."  
However, in response, Ericsson essentially reiterated its previous 
position, stating that:

        "[DELETED]  The Ericsson unit offered meets the specification 
        as required by Attachment 'C' . . . 'Multi key Capability.'"

Since [DELETED], the Army determined its proposal to be noncompliant 
with the Attachment C encryption key requirement.

Ericsson argues that it reasonably interpreted Attachment C as 
requiring that the digital interface unit be capable of being upgraded 
to store eight encryption keys, and not that the system as initially 
supplied at the contract price be equipped to store eight encryption 
keys; it maintains that this interpretation is consistent with the 
normal meaning accorded the term "capable" in the land mobile radio 
industry.  In any case, according to the protester, at best the 
specification was ambiguous with respect to the meaning of 
"capability," and thus cannot provide a basis for rejecting its 
proposal.  

Ericsson's position is without merit because it does not take into 
account all language of the requirement or the content of Ericsson's 
negotiations with the agency on this point.  First, we think the 
statement in Attachment C that "[t]hese keys are essential to 
decoding/encoding inbound and outbound transmissions," was sufficient 
to put offerors on notice that the agency considered multiple 
encryption keys an important requirement for the radios to be 
furnished; Ericsson's interpretation accords the requirement no 
particular importance, instead relegating it to a matter the agency 
merely may address in the future.  In fact, we think Ericsson's 
initial response with a dash, rather than "Yes," beside the encryption 
key requirement, its explanation that "[t]his vendor specific feature 
is of no use," and its offer to "requote an alternate unit upon 
request" if multi-key is required, show that Ericsson understood that 
its system did not comply with the requirement, and that it was trying 
to persuade the agency that a multi-key capability was unnecessary.  

Further, any uncertainty as to the agency's interpretation that the 
system furnished at the contract price must be equipped to store eight 
encryption keys was eliminated during discussions.  As indicated, the 
agency initially requested that Ericsson demonstrate conformance of 
its proposed digital interface unit to the encryption key requirement, 
and then again raised (according to Ericsson) the agency's "concern 
for noncompliance" with respect to "the multikey operation of the 
console interface" during oral discussions.  It should have been clear 
to Ericsson at least at this point that the agency desired that the 
system furnished be equipped to store eight encryption keys. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States      

1. Although Ericsson also argues that the Army failed to advise it 
during discussions of the agency's interpretation of the frequency 
range requirement, we note that it was requested during discussions to 
furnish additional information showing conformance of its proposed 
system to the frequency range requirement.  In view of the clear, 
unqualified specification requirement for a "UHF frequency of 403-470 
MHz," we believe that the agency's clarification request in this 
regard was sufficient to place Ericsson on notice that its 
interpretation of the specifications was incorrect and that a handheld 
radio with gaps in the required frequency range would be unacceptable.

2. Although Ericsson points to language in the introductory overview 
of the "Frequency, Bandwidth and Channel Separation Requirements" in 
Attachment C which generally stated that "the CLMRS must be capable of 
operating at a UHF frequency of 403-470 MHz (UHF)," and suggests that 
this established a requirement applicable to every component of the 
CLMRS, we note that its position fails to account for the preceding 
language in the paragraph making clear that "[t]his criteria outlines 
the minimum essential technical requirements for the 8th MP Brigade 
CLMR radios."  (Emphasis added.)    

3. According to the agency, while base stations and repeaters are set 
for a single subband, handheld radios need to be capable of switching 
from one band to another.