BNUMBER:  B-278925 
DATE:  April 10, 1998
TITLE: Wincor Management Group, Inc., B-278925, April 10, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Wincor Management Group, Inc.

File:     B-278925

Date:April 10, 1998

Allen D. Westbrook for the protester.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Although specifications for the lease of commercial washers and 
dryers are stated in broad functional terms and include only minimal 
physical characteristics, protest that the specifications should be 
more clearly defined is denied since the specifications are 
sufficiently detailed so as to provide all offerors with a common 
understanding of what is required under the contract in order that 
they can compete intelligently on a relatively equal basis.

2. Protest that a requirements format is not appropriate for a 
contract for the lease of commercial washers and dryers is denied 
where, consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  16.503(b), the 
contracting agency anticipates a recurring need for the washers and 
dryers but it cannot predetermine the precise quantities of machines 
that will be needed. 

DECISION

Wincor Management Group, Inc. protests the terms of request for 
proposals (RFP) No. F41636-97-R-0115, issued by the Department of the 
Air Force for a requirements contract for the lease and maintenance of 
washers and dryers for Lackland Air Force Base.

We deny the protest.

The RFP sought proposals for a base year and 4 option years.  The 
contractor is to lease to the Air Force all of the washers and dryers 
that the Air Force requires in the dormitories at Lackland Air Force 
Base and provide maintenance on those machines during the life of the 
contract.  The contractor is to own the machines and will retake 
possession of them at the end of the contract.

The RFP was issued under the procedures set forth in Part 12 of the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), "Acquisition of Commercial 
Items."  As a commercial item solicitation, the RFP did not include 
detailed government specifications for the washers and dryers.  
Instead, when it was issued, the RFP included the following schedule 
of the line items for each year of the contract, each with an 
estimated quantity:

1.  Washers, electric, 18 pound, top loading; 
2.  Dryers, electric, 18 pound, front loading;
3.  Dryers, gas, 18 pound, front loading;
4.  Dryers, gas, 30 pound, front loading;
5.  Washers, electric, 18 pound, top loading; 
6.  Dryers, electric, 18 pound, front loading;
7.  Removal and/or replacement of 18 pound machines due to 
renovations; and
8.  Removal and/or replacement of 30 pound machines due to 
renovations;

The RFP was later amended to include two additional line items for 
each year of the contract.  Those additional line items call for 
machines to support a temporary Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) 
deployment in May through August of each year of the contract.  As 
amended, the RFP includes a ninth line item under each year for 18 
pound, top loading, electric washers and a tenth line item for 30 
pound, front loading, gas dryers.  

Beyond this information in the schedule, the only other description of 
the washers and dryers in the RFP was in a Statement of Need.  That 
document includes, among other things, a scope of work section and a 
brief list of specifications.

Wincor, the incumbent contractor, first argues that the RFP is 
defective because it does not include detailed specifications for the 
washers and dryers.  Wincor argues that neither the RFP schedule of 
items or the specifications set forth in the RFP Statement of Need 
include "the boiler plate specifications for laundry equipment found 
in all contracts."  According to Wincor, the previous two 
solicitations for this requirement included detailed specifications 
and, since there is a vast range of equipment and prices available, 
offerors should be given more detailed information concerning the 
agency's needs.

The Congress has set forth as policy that Department of Defense (DOD) 
agencies and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
shall "ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable," agency 
requirements for the procurement of supplies and services are defined 
so that commercial items may be procured to fulfill such requirements.  
10 U.S.C.A.  sec.  2377(a)(2) (West Supp. 1998).  A key element of efforts 
to increase purchases of commercial products is stating requirements 
in broad functional or performance terms, rather than using detailed 
military specifications.  See 10 U.S.C.A.  sec.  2377(a)(1); Federal 
Acquisition Regulation  sec.  11.002(a), 11.101: Adventure Tech, Inc., 
B-253520, Sept. 29, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  202 at 3, recon. denied, 
Adventure Tech, Inc.--Recon. and Costs, B-253520.2, B-253520.3, Feb. 
9, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  105.  

This preference for broad product descriptions and 
nondevelopmental/commercial items is consistent with, and does not 
relieve the contracting agency of, the obligation to specify its 
requirements in a manner designed to achieve full and open 
competition.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  2305(a)(1)(A) (1994); Adventure Tech, Inc., 
supra, at 4.  That is, where an agency intends to acquire a commercial 
item, it is obligated to describe the item in a way that identifies 
the agency's needs with sufficient detail and clarity so that all 
vendors have a common understanding of what is required under the 
contract in order that they can compete intelligently on a relatively 
equal basis.  Adventure Tech, Inc., supra, at 4.

Here, although the RFP specifications are stated in broad functional 
terms and include only minimal specific physical characteristics for 
the washers and dryers, we conclude that the specifications are 
sufficiently detailed.  For the washers and dryers to be proposed 
under particular line items, the RFP schedule specifies the required 
capacity of the machines, whether they are required to be gas or 
electric powered, and whether particular dryers are to be front or top 
loaded.  In addition, section 3.3 of the RFP Statement of Need 
includes various other minimum requirements for machines that are 
proposed.  For example, section 3.3.3 specifies that all gas operated 
dryers shall be equipped with an electronic igniter, section 3.3.3.1 
specifies that the contractor shall provide and install flexible gas 
lines from the dryers to the gas line wall feeder, and section 3.3.3.3 
requires that 30 pound dryers have signs on the bottom front panel 
stating that the machine is not to be opened while it is drying.  
Although Wincor argues that offerors should be given more detailed 
information concerning the agency's needs, the RFP apparently includes 
those requirements that the agency considers essential and the 
protester does not indicate what additional information is necessary.  
Under the circumstances, and since no other prospective offerors have 
complained that the specifications are not sufficiently detailed, we 
conclude that the RFP included sufficient detail to provide offerors 
with a common understanding of what is required in order that they can 
compete intelligently on a relatively equal basis.  See id.

Wincor also challenges the use of weight to specify the required 
capacity of the washers and dryers.  According to Wincor, 
manufacturers do not rate their machines in pounds, but rather in 
cubic feet.  In response, the Air Force argues that many manufacturers 
do in fact express the capacity of their washers and dryers in pounds.  
The agency also provided copies of advertisements and commercial 
literature that shows capacity of various washers and dryers in 
pounds.  In addition, the Air Force states that, for any manufacturer 
whose commercial literature does not express capacity in pounds, the 
agency will accept a letter from the manufacturer that includes that 
information.  We conclude that the record does not support Wincor's 
allegation.  

Wincor also argues that the RFP "confuses bidders with current need 
estimates versus projected need estimates," and that "future estimated 
quantities should not appear on this bid schedule prior to the need 
occurring."  In this respect, Wincor argues that offerors should not 
be required to provide firm prices for future estimated 
requirements--in other words, requirements that are not specifically 
known at this time.  

Essentially, Wincor is challenging the Air Force's decision to meet 
its needs using a requirements contract.  In fact, when the Air Force 
responded to the protest by explaining why it used a requirements 
format, Wincor argued that "the solicitation may be improperly 
classified as a requirements contract."  According to Wincor, since 
the range of latitude in ordering under the contract will be 
unpredictable, the use of a requirements format imposes an 
unreasonable financial burden on the contractor.  Wincor argues that 
the schedule for the base year of the contract should not contain 
estimates for machines that may be called for at a later date and the 
agency should not expect a contractor to provide additional equipment 
at a later date than the contract start date for the same monthly 
price in any given year of the contract.  Rather, according to Wincor, 
the schedule should only include those needs that are known when the 
RFP was issued and future estimated quantities should be separately 
priced (as the agency did with the ROTC requirements) or separately 
negotiated when the need arises.

The contracting agency has the primary responsibility for determining 
its needs and the best method of accommodating them, including the 
procurement format to be used.  Eng'g and Prof'l Servs. Inc., 
B-262074, Nov. 21, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  234 at 2.  The use of requirements 
contracting is authorized by FAR  sec.  16.503(b), which states that such 
contracts may be used when an agency anticipates recurring 
requirements but cannot predetermine the precise quantity of supplies 
or services needed during a definite period.  Sunrise Int'l Group, 
Inc., B-261448, July 21, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  43 at 3.  Our Office will 
not overturn the agency's decision to use a particular procurement 
method unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.  
See Eng'g and Prof'l Servs. Inc., supra, at 2.

The Air Force reports that it anticipates a recurring need for washers 
and dryers but it cannot predetermine the precise quantities of 
machines that will be needed.  The RFP does include the agency's 
estimates of the quantities of the various machines that will be 
needed during each contract period and estimates of the number of 
machines that may need to be removed during each period.  Furthermore, 
in response to the concerns raised by Wincor, the RFP was amended to 
add two line items for short-term ROTC training from May to August of 
each year of the contract.[1] 

The agency states that a requirements-type contract is appropriate 
because it will allow the agency the flexibility to order what it 
needs and what it can afford during the contract period.  As the 
record does not indicate, and Wincor provides no evidence to show, 
that the RFP's estimated quantities are inaccurate or somehow could be 
made more precise--by means of a different contract format--and since 
this approach serves the agency's needs, we have no basis to object to 
the Air Force's decision to use a requirements contract format.

To the extent that Wincor contends that the requirements format places 
too much risk on the contractor, the protest provides no basis for 
overruling the agency's decision.  As previously stated, the 
contracting agency bears primary responsibility for determining the 
procurement format to be used.  Eng'g and Prof'l Servs. Inc., supra, 
at 3.  Risk is inherent in most types of contracts, especially 
fixed-price contracts such as this one, and the fact that an offeror, 
in computing its proposal, must consider a variety of scenarios that 
might differently affect its anticipated costs does not render a 
solicitation defective.  Id. at 3-4.

Wincor also complains that the RFP includes notations that a number of 
locations in which washers and dryers are to be installed have 
inadequate exhaust systems.  According to Wincor, it is unsafe to 
place washers and dryers in locations without adequate exhaust.  In 
response to this allegation, the Air Force reports that the conditions 
affecting the adequacy of the exhaust systems in the noted buildings 
have been corrected and that the RFP was amended to remove the 
notations of inadequate exhaust systems.

Although Wincor challenges this explanation, arguing that it knows of 
no corrective action at the listed locations, the firm does not 
indicate that it has made any effort to determine whether the 
conditions it complains of still exist.  Under the circumstances, and 
since the Air Force has reported that the conditions have been 
corrected, the record provides no support for this allegation.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Wincor initially argued in its protest that the RFP should be 
amended to add separate line items for machines that will be needed 
only for 2 1/2 months every year during ROTC training.  Although the 
agency addressed this concern by amending the RFP to add the line 
items for washers and dryers for 4 months of ROTC training in each 
year, Wincor argues that it does not believe that the ROTC training 
lasts 4 months; nonetheless, the firm has provided no evidence to 
support this contention.  Wincor also argues that the temporary ROTC 
usage "inevitably will not ever pay actual equipment cost because it 
remains in a storage building not producing revenue to help pay 
equipment mortgages."  The point of amending the RFP to provide 
separate line items for the ROTC usage was to allow offerors to take 
into account when preparing their proposals that the agency's 
usage--and therefore its payment--for these machines will be shorter 
than for the machines provided under the other line items.  We do not 
see why Wincor, and other offerors, cannot take these circumstances 
into account in preparing their prices.