BNUMBER:  B-278582.2 
DATE:  February 19, 1998
TITLE: CPAD Technologies, Inc., B-278582.2, February 19, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:CPAD Technologies, Inc.

File:     B-278582.2

Date:February 19, 1998

Peter Mellon for the protester.
Capt. Joseph R. Doyle and Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Department of the 
Air Force, for the agency.
Robert C. Arsenoff, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul I. 
Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in 
the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging agency's placement of an order against a federal 
supply schedule contract at a price higher than that offered by 
protester is denied where record reflects that the agency reasonably 
concluded that the ordered product is the lowest price schedule item 
that meets agency needs.

DECISION

CPAD Technologies, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's 
issuance of a purchase order for nine narcotics and explosives 
detection systems to Barringer Instruments, Inc. under request for 
quotations (RFQ) No. F11623-97-T-3062.  The protester complains that 
the agency should have purchased CPAD's lower-priced systems.

We deny the protest.  

On July 3, 1997, the agency published a notice in the Commerce 
Business Daily seeking quotations for narcotics and explosives 
detection systems, specifically stating that it was seeking to acquire 
"commercial items."  The systems are to be used at various Air Force 
bases around the world.  Quotations were submitted by three companies, 
including CPAD's quote of $410,000 and Barringer's quote of $429,656.  
The agency conducted product demonstrations at Scott Air Force Base on 
September 3 and 4.

As a result of the product demonstrations, the agency determined that 
Barringer's systems best met the agency's needs.  Among other things, 
the agency found that Barringer's systems were easier to set up and 
operate, were lighter and smaller, and had the best ability to detect 
explosive material.  

Thereafter, the agency issued a purchase order for the detection 
systems from Barringer's federal supply schedule (FSS) contract.  CPAD 
complains that:  (1) it should have been notified of the agency's 
intent to purchase from the federal supply schedule; (2) the agency 
did not use formal testing procedures; and (3) the agency should have 
purchased CPAD's slightly lower-priced detection systems.[1]  However, 
CPAD has not presented any information to this Office showing that the 
agency's actions were improper.

Regarding CPAD's complaints that it was improper for the agency to 
award an FSS contract, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  8.001 
(June 1997) states: 

     [A]gencies shall satisfy requirements for supplies and services 
     from or through the sources and publications listed below in 
     descending order of priority--
           
               .    .    .    .    .

        (vi) Mandatory Federal Supply Schedules (see Subpart 8.4);

        (vii)Optional use Federal Supply Schedules (see Subpart 8.4); 
        and

        (viii)Commercial sources . . . .

Regarding CPAD's complaint that the agency failed to engage in formal 
selection procedures, FAR  sec.  8.404(a) (June 1997) provides as follows:  

     When placing orders under a Federal Supply Schedule, ordering 
     activities need not seek further competition, synopsize the 
     requirement, make a separate determination of fair and reasonable 
     pricing, or consider small business set-asides . . . .

Accordingly, CPAD's assertions that it was improper for the agency to 
satisfy its requirements by placing an order under an FSS contract, 
and that formal notice and selection procedures were required, are 
simply legally incorrect.  

Regarding CPAD's assertion that the agency improperly selected 
Barringer's slightly higher-priced detection systems, when placing 
orders under FSS contracts, a procuring agency need not order 
lower-priced items which do not meet the agency's needs.  Rather, the 
agency must reasonably ensure that the items purchased meet the 
agency's needs at the lowest overall cost.  Commercial Drapery 
Contractors, Inc., B-271222, B-271222.2, June 27, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  290 
at 3.  The determination of the agency's needs and which product meets 
those needs is properly the agency's responsibility, and we will 
examine the agency's assessment of technical acceptability only to 
ensure that it has a reasonable basis.  Midmark Corp., 
B-278298, Jan. 14, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  17 at 3.

Here, the agency states, among other things, that the Barringer 
system's lighter weight, smaller size, and effectiveness of operation 
caused the agency to conclude that the Barringer system best meets its 
needs at the lowest overall cost.  CPAD has not offered any credible 
evidence to demonstrate that the agency's determination in this regard 
was unreasonable.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. CPAD also complains that award of this contract will establish a 
"standard" for other Air Force bases.  To the extent CPAD is asserting 
that other contracts may be awarded in the future based on issuance of 
this purchase order, the protest is premature since it is based on 
CPAD's speculation regarding future agency activities.