BNUMBER:  B-278298 
DATE:  January 14, 1998
TITLE: Midmark Corporation, B-278298, January 14, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Midmark Corporation

File:     B-278298

Date:January 14, 1998

Dick Moorman, Jerry Stahl, and Olive Tumbusch for the protester.
Charles D. Kellam for Enochs Manufacturing, Inc., an intervenor.
Col. Nicholas P. Retson, Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., and Fredrick 
M. Lewis, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly placed an order with Federal Supply Schedule vendor 
offering the lowest price for equipment meeting the agency's needs.

DECISION

Midmark Corporation protests the issuance of delivery order No. 
DAKF23-97-F-0524 to Enochs Manufacturing, Inc. by the Department of 
the Army for medical examination tables for the Blanchfield Army 
Community Hospital (BACH) at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.  The delivery 
order was placed under Enochs's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 
contract.

We deny the protest.

After receiving a purchase request from BACH for 119 medical 
examination tables, the contracting officer decided to purchase the 
requirement under the FSS program.  The FSS program, directed and 
managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), provides federal 
agencies with a simplified process for obtaining commonly used 
commercial supplies and services at prices associated with volume 
buying.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  8.401(a).  When 
placing an order under an FSS, an agency is not required to seek 
further competition, synopsize the solicitation or award, or determine 
fair and reasonable pricing, since the planning, solicitation, and 
award phases of the FSS satisfy these FAR requirements.  FAR  sec.  
8.404(a); Design Contempo, Inc., B-270483, Mar. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
146 at 2.

The BACH purchase request was for an examination table with a pelvic 
tilt and listed the Midmark Model No. 405 as a compliant model.  The 
contract specialist checked the FSS catalog to assess whether there 
were other examination tables that satisfied the hospital's needs, 
and, after reviewing the schedule information, determined that two 
listed tables met the government's needs.  The tables were the Enochs 
Power 4000, listed at $3,483.78 per unit, and the Midmark Model No. 
405, listed at $3,385.85 per unit.  Because of the substantial 
quantity to be ordered, in accordance with FAR  sec.  8.404(b)(3), the 
contracting officer contacted both vendors about the possibility of a 
price reduction.  

Enochs submitted quotes for its Power 4000 of $3,100.56 per unit for a 
total of $368,966.64 with a 4-year parts and labor warranty, and 
$2,900 per unit for a total of $345,100, for the same model with a 
1-year parts and labor warranty and an additional 3-year parts-only 
warranty.

Midmark submitted a quote for its Model No. 405 of $3,419.02 per unit 
for a total of $406,863.38 with a 1-year parts and labor warranty (the 
quote was slightly higher than the FSS price due to the addition of a 
bracket).  Midmark also submitted quotes for the Ritter Model 105 at 
$3,240.14 per unit for a total of $385,576.66 and the Ritter Model 107 
at $2,440.16 per unit for a total of $290,379.04--both with the same 
1-year warranties.  In addition, Midmark offered a $250 trade-in 
credit for each Midmark or Ritter power examination table and $50 for 
each Midmark or Ritter non-power box style examination table (for up 
to 119 trade-ins).[1]

BACH technical representatives reviewed the quotes and evaluated the 
tables to determine if they met BACH requirements.  After the 
evaluation, the agency determined that the Enochs 4000 table (with a 
1-year parts and labor warranty and additional 3-year parts-only 
warranty) best met the government's needs at the lowest price.  The 
technical evaluators considered Midmark's quote for the Ritter 105 and 
107 examination tables, but determined that these tables did not meet 
the agency's needs.  The Ritter models were considered unacceptable 
because no extended warranties were offered and because the models 
lacked required safety features. The most significant feature which 
these models did not provide was an operator-resettable, externally 
mounted circuit breaker, which permits the operator to re-set the 
breaker without calling for additional maintenance support, and which 
was considered an essential patient safety requirement.  A delivery 
order was issued to Enochs on September 18.  Delivery of the tables 
has been suspended pending resolution of the protest.

In its protest, Midmark asserted that its Model 405 was the specified 
brand name and had certain unique features not found in the Enochs 
4000.  Midmark also argued that if award was based on price, then its 
Ritter Model 107 met the specifications and was cheaper than the 
Enochs 4000.  The agency pointed out in its protest report that this 
acquisition was not conducted as a brand name or equal procurement and 
that the unique features of the Model 405 referenced by Midmark were 
neither requested nor required by the user activity.  In its comments 
on the agency report, Midmark abandoned its argument concerning its 
Model 405 and essentially asserted that it should have been issued the 
delivery order because its Ritter 107 meets the specifications at the 
lowest price.  Midmark maintains that an external circuit breaker was 
not specified by the agency, but if one was necessary, Midmark could 
provide it at no extra cost, and that Midmark could also provide an 
extended warranty.  

When ordering from the FSS, the procuring agency should place orders 
with the schedule contractor whose product represents the best value 
and meets the agency's needs at the lowest overall cost.  FAR  sec.  
8.404(b)(2) (June 1997).  The determination of the agency's needs and 
which product on the FSS meets those needs is properly the agency's 
responsibility, and we will only examine the agency's assessment of 
technical acceptability to ensure that it has a reasonable basis.  
Design Contempo, Inc., supra at 3. 

Here, the agency evaluated the available technical information and 
concluded that the Midmark 405 and the Enochs 4000 met its 
requirements.  When it contacted the appropriate vendors about the 
possibility of a price reduction, Enochs reduced the price for its 
warranted product.  Midmark quoted a higher price for its Model 405 
and, while Midmark also quoted its Ritter 107 model at the lowest 
price, the protester did not offer an extended warranty with this 
model, and the table lacked safety features which the agency 
considered essential to meet it needs.   Consequently, the agency 
issued the delivery order to Enochs because it offered the table that 
best met agency requirements at the lowest price.

The agency explains that, while it does have some older Ritter 107 
tables in use, because of the types of procedures they anticipate 
performing, this model lacks the safety features and the extended 
warranty necessary to meet the agency's current needs.  In this 
regard, FAR  sec.  8.404(b)(2)(ii)(A), (D) (June 1997) provided that the 
ordering activity may take into consideration warranty conditions and 
special features of an item not provided by comparable items, which 
are required for effective program performance.  Here, based on these 
considerations, the agency reasonably determined that the Enochs 4000 
table met agency requirements and that the Ritter 107 table did not.  
Midmark's assertion in its protest submissions that it could provide 
the Ritter 107 with an external circuit breaker at no extra cost and 
offer the same warranty as did Enochs, at an unspecified price, does 
not establish that this model will meet the requirements of the agency 
at the lowest price.[2]  Accordingly, we have no basis to question the 
agency's decision to issue the delivery order to Enochs.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States               

1. The agency reports that the trade-in offer was not considered 
because BACH did not desire to trade in any examination tables.

2. To the extent that the protester argues that the agency did not 
specifically advise it of the requirement for an external circuit 
breaker or extended warranty, there is no requirement under the 
regulations governing the use of the FSS that firms holding FSS 
contracts be provided with an exact statement of agency needs or that 
agencies negotiate special terms or conditions with FSS contractors 
for individual purchases.  FAR Subpart 8.4.  Such a requirement would 
be inconsistent with the catalog-type approach of the FSS program.