BNUMBER:  B-277160 
DATE:  July 2, 1997
TITLE: JEOL USA, Inc., B-277160, July 2, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:JEOL USA, Inc.

File:     B-277160

Date:     July 2, 1997

Janice D. Sogard for the protester.
Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., and Jerald J. Kennemuth, Esq., National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably rejected as technically unacceptable a proposal for 
an electron microscope where the solicitation required the submission 
of descriptive literature to demonstrate compliance with the stated 
requirements, and the information provided by the protester prior to 
award did not show that its proposed microscope satisfied the working 
distance requirement stated in the solicitation.

DECISION

JEOL USA, Inc. protests an award to Hitachi Scientific Instruments 
under request for offers (RFO) No. RFO3-072251, issued by the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Lewis Research Center, 
for a field emission scanning electron microscope.  JEOL protests that 
the rejection of its offer as technically unacceptable was 
unreasonable.

We deny the protest.[1]

The solicitation, issued on May 5, 1997, contemplated the award of a 
fixed-price contract.[2]  The solicitation required offerors to 
provide:

     "a description (including manufacturer, brand, and model no.) in 
     sufficient detail to show that the product or service offered 
     meets the Government's requirement included in the attached model 
     contract."

The model contract stated detailed minimum requirements for the 
microscope, including:

     "The resolution must be at least 2.5 [nanometers (nm)] for an 
     accelerating voltage of 1 [kilovolt (kV)] and 1.5 nm for an 
     accelerating voltage of 15 kV at a working distance of 12 
     [millimeters (mm)]."[3]

NASA received four offers by the May 15 due date, including those of 
JEOL for $368,368 and Hitachi for $451,319.  

JEOL's proposal stated that its "[o]ffer meets all of the 
specifications of the request document."  The descriptive literature 
provided with the proposals stated the following resolution 
specifications:

     "1.2 nm guaranteed (at 15 kV) 
     2.5 nm guaranteed (at 1 kV)"

JEOL's proposal did not state the working distances for these 
resolution specifications.

On May 22, NASA conducted a telephone conference with JEOL.  During 
this call, NASA asked about the resolution capability of the proposed 
microscope.  JEOL's product manager stated that the specified 
resolution of JEOL's microscope was for much shorter working distances 
than required under NASA's specification.  He stated that the 
resolution was 2.5 nm at 1 kV for a working distance of 3 mm, and 1.5 
nm at 15 kV for a working distance of 6 mm.

NASA determined that JEOL's proposal was unacceptable, as were the 
proposals of two other offerors.  These three proposals were rejected 
and award was made to Hitachi on May 23.  This protest followed.

JEOL now alleges that its microscope satisfies the resolution 
requirement at a working distance of 12 mm.  It contends that its 
proposal was technically acceptable because it stated that it would 
meet all of the stated solicitation requirements.

When a solicitation in a negotiated procurement requires the 
submission of descriptive literature showing technical adequacy, an 
offeror must demonstrate technical sufficiency in its proposal.  Power 
Dynatec Corp., B-251501.3, Aug. 3, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  73 at 3.  A 
blanket offer of compliance with the specification is not sufficient 
to comply with a solicitation requirement for detailed technical 
information necessary for evaluation purposes.  Id.; AEG 
Aktiengesellschaft, 65 Comp. Gen. 418, 421 (1986), 86-1 CPD  para.  267 at 
4.  The contracting agency is responsible for evaluating the data 
supplied by an offeror and ascertaining if it provides sufficient 
information to determine the acceptability of the offeror's item; we 
will not disturb this technical determination unless it is shown to be 
unreasonable.  Inframetrics, Inc., B-257400, Sept. 30, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  
138 at 3.

The solicitation established the working distance requirement, and 
JEOL's proposal did not supply information evidencing that its 
proposed microscope satisfied that.  The only information available to 
the agency relating to the working distance of JEOL's microscope was 
the oral statement of JEOL's product manager, who did not indicate 
that JEOL's proposed microscope satisfied the working distance 
requirement, but stated that the microscope's resolution was designed 
for a shorter working distance and provided the resolution of JEOL's 
microscope for working distances of 3 mm and 6 mm (but not for working 
distances greater than 6 mm).  We think that, based on this 
information, the agency reasonably concluded that JEOL's proposal did 
not offer the required resolution at the required working distance of 
12 mm.  Since the agency had no basis at the time of award to 
determine that JEOL's microscope could satisfy the greater working 
distance requirement, rejection of JEOL's proposal as technically 
unacceptable was reasonable.  See AZTEK, Inc., B-228376, Feb. 5, 1988, 
88-1 CPD  para.  113 at 4-5.

To the extent JEOL alleges that the agency's inquiry about the working 
distance was inadequate because NASA did not specifically ask whether 
JEOL's microscope complied with the 12 mm working distance 
requirement, we think that the agency's inquiry about resolution and 
working distance, considered together with the working distance 
requirement clearly stated in the solicitation, was sufficient to 
alert JEOL to the apparent deficiency in its proposal.  See Renaissant 
Dev. Corp., B-260947, Aug. 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  58 at 5 (discussions 
need not be overly specific to be meaningful).

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. This protest was developed, and this decision is being issued, 
pursuant to an accelerated schedule. 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.10(e) (1997).

2. Award was to be based on a best value evaluation plan with 
technical and past performance factors combined being substantially 
equal to price.

3. The 12 mm working distance is a critical requirement because the 
material to be examined, irregular surfaces of fractured ceramic 
composite samples, typically has protruding fibers which preclude a 
closer working distance.