TITLE:  Handheld Systems, Inc., B-288036, August 10, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-288036
DATE:  August 10, 2001
**********************************************************************
Handheld Systems, Inc., B-288036, August 10, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Handheld Systems, Inc.

File: B-288036

Date: August 10, 2001

Michael Berg for the protester.

Marion T. Cordova, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.

Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency's tests of offered handheld field computers were reasonable where
they were consistent with the specifications and simulated actual field use.

DECISION

Handheld Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Juniper Systems,
under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 20-01-046, issued by the Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture, for handheld field computers.

We deny the protest.

The agency issued the RFQ on April 11, 2001 as a commercial item
acquisition. The RFQ included a list of specifications. Many of the
specifications were labeled critical or essential, whereas others were
labeled very desirable or desirable. The solicitation provided that award
was to be made based on price and technical factors. The technical factors
were warranty information, delivery time, and how well the proposed handheld
field computers met the specifications.

The agency received eight quotes by the May 1 due date. Five quotes,
including Handheld's, were found not to have met the specifications. The
three acceptable quotes all offered the same model handheld computer. The
agency made award to Juniper Systems on May 7, because it submitted the
lowest price of the acceptable quotes.

On that same day, Handheld found out that its quote had not been selected
and requested a debriefing. At the agency's request, Handheld sent a list of
questions to the agency regarding the evaluation of its product and the
award to Juniper. In response, Handheld was furnished a written debriefing
letter responding to the questions. Upon receipt, Handheld verbally notified
the agency on that date that one of its questions concerning the compliance
of Juniper's offered product with certain specifications had not been
answered, and that it would like to discuss this and other matters with the
agency. On May 24, the agency sent Handheld another letter that explained
why Juniper's product met the questioned specifications. In response,
Handheld specifically requested a description of the battery testing
procedures, including system settings, such as backlight setting and
processor speed, that the agency used in testing the products offered in
response to the RFQ. The agency provided the requested information in a June
6 letter. Upon receipt of this information, Handheld filed this protest in
our Office on June 11.

Handheld, while admitting that its offered computer does not comply with
various specifications, contends that Juniper's computer did not meet
several "critical" specifications, that is, the requirement that the
operating system be Oracle Lite compatible, the minimum memory/storage
requirements, and the battery operating life requirements pertaining to
normal battery life and low temperature battery life. Handheld claims its
offered computer actually comes closer than Juniper's to complying with the
specifications.

Some of Handheld's protest grounds are untimely. Specifically, Handheld knew
of its bases for protest regarding whether Juniper's computer met the RFP
specifications regarding operating system compatibility and memory/storage
requirements, at the latest, when it received the May 24 agency letter
explaining why Juniper met these specifications; it obtained no additional
information concerning these protest bases after its receipt of this letter.
Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission
of protests. Under these rules, a protest based on other than alleged
improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no later than 10 calendar days
after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for protest,
whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2001). The fact that Handheld
may not have been satisfied with all aspects of the debriefing it received,
and that it continued to pursue certain questions with the Forest Service,
did not extend the time for filing a bid protest. See Robert B.
Hammett-Recon., B-253720.2, B-253721.2, Aug. 3, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 76. Thus,
the protest grounds regarding operating system compatibility and
memory/storage requirements, raised more than 10 days after May 24, are
dismissed as untimely.

With regard to battery operating life requirements, Handheld contends that
the battery test procedures unfairly favored the computer that Juniper
quoted, and that the computer that Handheld quoted would have satisfied
these requirements and Juniper's computer would not have, if proper tests
had been conducted. [1] Specifically, Handheld contends that, when the
operating life of Juniper's battery was tested, the processor speed and the
backlight intensity on the computer were set at very low settings; Handheld
contends that a proper test of battery life would have been to set processor
speed and backlight intensity on the tested computers at the same higher
settings, in which case its computer would have passed the tests and
Juniper's would not have.

An agency's evaluation of technical proposals is primarily the
responsibility of the contracting agency; the agency is responsible for
defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them, and must bear
the burden of any difficulties resulting from a defective evaluation. Roche
Diagnostic Sys., Inc., B-255578.4, Sept. 16, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 103 at 5. An
agency should be afforded considerable discretion to establish the tests or
procedures necessary to determine product acceptability, and we will not
disturb the agency's determination unless it is shown to be unreasonable.
Id. at 7.

The specifications indicate that battery operating life tests would be
conducted and stated the parameters of the tests. The specifications do not
mention any particular processor speed and backlight intensity settings on
the computers during such tests.

The agency explains that the battery tests it employed are based on its
"battery drain procedure," which has been used for several years and which
can predict with a high degree of certainty the actual field performance of
the handheld computers and their batteries. This procedure can be run at
fast, medium and slow battery drain rates, and, for the test, the various
settings, including backlight and processor speeds, are specified to allow
the offered system to use power management to power back and conserve
battery power during the test, so as to simulate actual field use. The
agency states that Handheld knew or should have known from the
specifications that the agency intended to use appropriate power
conservation features, such as backlight power management and reduced
processor speed, to achieve longer battery life during testing because this
is how the computers will be used in the field. Specifically, the agency
references the specifications stating "[n]ormal operating conditions are
defined as 1 hour of backlight during low light conditions, keyboard entry
and power management is used," and "[l]onger life should be achievable by
optional reduction in clock [processor] speed." RFQ at 12; Agency
Supplemental Submission (July 6, 2001) at 1.

Here, the protester has not shown that the agency's method of testing the
handheld computers was unreasonable or inconsistent with the specifications
or that the tests failed to simulate normal daily use. It appears that
Juniper's model has adjustable settings for processor speed and backlight
settings, which Handheld's computers lacked. See Handheld's Comments at 5.
Therefore, Juniper's computers were able to be tested in part at lower
settings than Handheld's computers, and these low settings had a "dramatic
[e]ffect on battery life." Id. The protester essentially argues that, to
level the playing field to account for the fact that Handheld's computer
lacks the adjustable settings for backlight and processor speed that are on
Juniper's, Juniper's computer should have been tested at the same, much
higher settings as those used to test Handheld's computer. It appears that
what the agency did during the test was to take advantage of a feature that
the awardee's computers possessed, adjustable settings, that the protester's
computers did not have. Since the solicitation did not specify any
particular setting for backlight or processor speed, and the agency has
justified the settings that it did choose as simulating actual field use, we
find the agency's actions reasonable.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. We consider this protest contention, based primarily upon the agency's
June 6 letter to Handheld, to be timely.