BNUMBER:  B-277095 
DATE:  September 2, 1997
TITLE: TLC Systems, B-277095, September 2, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:TLC Systems

File:     B-277095

Date:September 2, 1997

Sidney Earley for the protester.
Frank J. Tokarz for Monaco Enterprises, and Emerson B. Fisher for 
King-Fisher Company, intervenors.
Vicki E. O'Keefe, Esq., and Jan M. Whitacre, Esq., Department of the 
Navy, for the agency.
Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office 
of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency may reasonably restrict competition for fire alarm 
reporting system to equipment of a particular manufacturer where this 
manufacturer is the only one that can provide Factory Mutual-approved 
equipment capable of interfacing with equipment already installed at 
the agency.

2.  Where estimated value of procurement was beneath the simplified 
acquisition threshold of $100,000, agency's use of simplified 
acquisition procedures was appropriate.

DECISION

TLC Systems protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 
N63387-97-Q-5201, issued by the Navy Public Works Center, San Diego, 
California for installation of a radio fire alarm reporting system 
connecting nine San Diego area military base fire alarm systems with a 
central dispatch center.  TLC contends that the RFQ, which requires 
King-Fisher radio transmitting and receiving equipment, is 
unnecessarily restrictive of competition since the equipment of other 
manufacturers would satisfy the agency's needs.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The Navy's goal in conducting this procurement is to acquire a fire 
alarm reporting system capable of relaying alarm signals from nine 
military bases around the San Diego area to a single receiver located 
in a central dispatch office.  The local alarm systems on eight of the 
nine bases are wired; the ninth, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot 
(MCRD), has a radio reporting system consisting of King-Fisher 
transmitters and receivers (located on the base). 

The RFQ, as originally issued, did not specify King-Fisher equipment.  
It did require, however, that the system to be installed have been 
listed by the Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) or by the Factory 
Mutual System (FM) as a Public Fire Alarm Reporting System, in 
accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NPFA) Standards 
72 and 1221.  In addition, it required that the new receiver be 
capable of receiving transmissions from the King-Fisher transmitters 
already installed at MCRD.  TLC complained to the agency and to our 
Office that these two requirements, taken together, limited offerors 
to offering the equipment of a single manufacturer, King-Fisher, since 
only King-Fisher offers a UL-listed or FM-approved Public Fire Alarm 
Reporting System incorporating King-Fisher transmitters.  In other 
words, no "mixed" system consisting of King-Fisher transmitters and 
another manufacturer's receiver(s) has been approved by UL or FM.

After reviewing TLC's protest, the Navy concurred with TLC that the 
requirement for an integrated fire alarm system, as written in the 
solicitation, limited the competition to companies offering 
King-Fisher equipment.  The Navy therefore prepared a Justification 
and Approval for Other than Full and Open Competition (J & A) and 
amended the RFQ to require King-Fisher radio transmitting and 
receiving equipment.  The agency explained in its J & A that 
restricting the competition to King-Fisher equipment was justified 
since no known manufacturer, other than King-Fisher, could provide UL- 
or FM-approved equipment capable of interfacing with the King-Fisher 
transmitters already installed at MCRD.

ANALYSIS

TLC disputes the agency's determination that only King-Fisher 
equipment will satisfy its needs.  The protester contends that Signal 
Communications (SigCom), whose equipment it installs, offers an 
FM-approved system which incorporates  transmission boxes capable of 
receiving and decoding radio signals from King- Fisher transmitters 
and retransmitting them to a SigCom receiver.  The protester concedes 
that the SigCom boxes are not FM-approved to interface with the King- 
Fisher transmitters, but argues that it could satisfy the agency 
requirement for FM certification by obtaining, after installation, an 
FM Site Approval Certification of Compatibility.

The Navy responds that FM "acceptance" of a system--which, according 
to the agency, is the proper terminology for what the protester refers 
to as Site Approval Certification of Compatibility--is not equivalent 
to FM "approval" of a system, and that it requires an FM-approved 
system.[1] 

In preparing a solicitation for supplies or services, a contracting 
agency must specify its needs and solicit bids in a manner designed to 
achieve full and open competition, 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2305(a)(1)(A)(i) 
(1994), and include restrictive provisions or conditions only to the 
extent necessary to satisfy the agency's needs.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2305(a)(1)(B)(ii).  We will not question the contracting agency's 
determination of its minimum needs and the best method of 
accommodating those needs unless it has no reasonable basis.  G.H. 
Harlow Co., Inc.,  B-254839, Jan. 21, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  29 at 3.

The Navy explains that FM acceptance of a system (as opposed to FM 
approval) will not meet its needs for several reasons.  First, FM 
acceptance testing, by definition,[2] cannot be accomplished until 
after the equipment has been installed, which means that system 
activation would have to be delayed until after FM can accomplish its 
testing and issue a report.[3]  It also means that the agency would 
have to accept the risk that the system, once installed, might not 
pass the testing and would need to be replaced.  In addition, the 
acceptance procedure involves significantly less testing than the 
approval procedure, according to the agency, and thus does not assure 
the same degree of system reliability.  For example, approval testing 
would include tests of component and system operational capability 
across a broad temperature range whereas acceptance testing would only 
include ambient temperature(s) on the test date(s).

We think that the agency has demonstrated a reasonable basis for 
requiring an FM-approved system.  First and foremost, we think that it 
is reasonable for the agency to require independent confirmation, 
prior to installation, of the satisfactory performance of a system 
vital to the safety of its employees.  Tek Contracting, Inc., 
B-245454, Jan. 6, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  28 at 3.  In our view, the agency 
should not be required to accept the risk that the system, after 
installation, will fail to obtain FM acceptance.  Further, we do not 
think that the agency should be required to delay activation of a 
critical safety system to allow the contractor to seek 
post-installation FM certification.  See Tek Contracting, Inc., 
B-245590, Jan. 17, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  90 at 4.  Along the same lines, it 
seems to us reasonable for the agency to prefer a system whose 
performance has been demonstrated in a broad range of conditions, and 
not simply in the conditions that existed on the date of testing.[4]

TLC also argues that the agency should have used an invitation for 
bids (IFB), rather than an RFQ, to solicit its requirements.  In 
essence, TLC contends that quoters' prices can be expected to exceed 
the simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000, see Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  2.101 (definition of "simplified 
acquisition threshold"), and thus that the agency's use of simplified 
acquisition procedures--specifically, issuance of an RFQ instead of an 
IFB--was improper.

The Navy responds that its estimate for the work to be performed was 
$96,296,[5] and that the only acceptable quotation that it received in 
response to the RFQ was for substantially below that amount.  Given 
that the agency expected to--and did in fact--receive a quotation for 
under $100,000 to accomplish the work called for in the solicitation, 
we see no basis to question the agency's use of simplified acquisition 
procedures to conduct this acquisition.  See FAR  sec.  13.103(a).  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States  

1. The Navy also argues that TLC is not an interested party to protest 
the solicitation's terms since it is not a prospective quoter under 
the RFQ, which calls for the installation of a fire alarm reporting 
system.  The agency bases this assertion on TLC's letterhead, which, 
according to the Navy, indicates that TLC is a manufacturer's 
representative or supplier.  We see no merit to the agency's position 
given that the letterhead to which it refers represents that, in 
addition to serving as a manufacturer's representative and supplier, 
TLC performs installations and provides service.

2. The FM guide defines acceptance as "confirmation that equipment or 
materials installed at a specific location are suitable for their 
intended use." 

3. It is unclear from the record how long it would take FM to complete 
its testing and issue its report.  TLC has furnished a copy of a 
facsimile transmission from FM to SigCom, dated July 22, 1997, which 
states that FM foresees being able to do the on-site testing necessary 
to evaluate the compatibility of the SigCom Vision 21 equipment with 
the King-Fisher KFRA receiver and KF-1 and KF-2 radioboxes within a 1- 
to 2-week period, and that it would then take another 2 weeks to 
produce a report.  The facsimile further states, however, that FM does 
not foresee being able to schedule the on-site visit until 
mid-September 1997--and that the time frame could change from the 
preliminary estimate.  In other words, although it appears that FM 
would be able to issue its report within a month after commencing 
testing, it is unclear how soon it would be able to start the testing.

4. The Navy offered two additional arguments in support of its 
position that only FM approval would satisfy its needs:  that the cost 
of acceptance testing (estimated at $15,000 to $20,000) would increase 
the cost of the acquisition, and that the acceptance would address 
only the system configuration, as tested, meaning that any equipment 
substitutions, modifications, or upgrades to the system would 
"probably require" additional testing.  We find neither argument 
persuasive, and thus relied on neither in reaching our conclusion that 
the agency had demonstrated a reasonable basis for requiring an 
FM-approved system.  Regarding the first argument, it is the 
contractor, not the agency, that would bear the cost of acceptance 
testing.  To the extent that these costs, which presumably would be 
reflected in the contractor's price quotation, render its price 
noncompetitive, the agency would be under no obligation to accept the 
quotation.  Regarding the second argument, we see no reason that if a 
system such as the SigCom one proposed by TLC were installed, upgrades 
to any part of the system other than the King-Fisher transmitters 
installed at MCRD would require acceptance retesting since that is the 
only part of the system involving "mixed" equipment.  Moreover, if an 
upgrade at MCRD were to involve the substitution of SigCom 
transmitters for the existing King- Fisher ones, there would be no 
need for acceptance testing (since both the transmitters and the 
receiver would be part of the FM-approved SigCom system).

5. It should also be noted that this estimate included the cost of 
work to be performed at Miramar that was subsequently deleted from the 
solicitation.