TITLE:  American Government Marketing, Inc., B-294895, November 22, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294895
DATE:  November 22, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of: American Government Marketing, Inc.

   File: B-294895

   Date: November 22, 2004

   Daryl Winter for the protester.

   Eric Kattner and Capt. Elwood L. Waters, III, Department of the Air Force,
for the agency.

   Kenneth Kilgour and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Under brand name or equal solicitation, protester's proposal was properly
rejected as unacceptable where the product offered as equal to the brand
name failed to satisfy four minimum requirements set out in the
solicitation.

   DECISION

   American Government Marketing, Inc. (AGM) protests the award of a contract
to Critical Solutions, Inc. (CSI) by the Department of the Air Force under
request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA4803-04-Q-A112, issued to procure 35
all-terrain vehicles (ATV), Yamaha Model Rhino or equal, with various
accessories and maintenance kits.  AGM argues that the agency improperly
rejected its lower-priced quotation.

   We deny the protest.

   The Air Force issued a combined synopsis/solicitation on September 17,
2004, as a small business set-aside.  Firms were to quote prices for 35
ATVs, Yamaha model Rhino 660 or equal, with minimum requirements that
included a 660 cc engine, automatic transmission, 4-wheel drive, minimum
12-inch ground clearance, and a digital speedometer.  The award was to be
made to the vendor providing "best value to the government based on an
integrated assessment of price."   RFQ at 2.  Vendors were advised that
quotations for models other than the specified brand name must demonstrate
how they meet the specifications outlined.  The combined
synopsis/solicitation also required that all quotations show maintenance
capability in the southwest Asia region.

   Sixteen vendors responded.  The agency evaluated the products submitted
and determined that only three met the specifications.  The evaluators
found AGM's product, a Raptor M series ATV, unacceptable for four
reasons:  insufficient 614 cc engine size, different transmission type,
too little ground clearance, and different type of speedometer.  Contract
award was made to CSI, which offered the lowest price of those whose
products met the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

   AGM argues that the agency erred in rejecting its product, which was lower
in price than CSI's.  Under a brand name or equal solicitation, a firm
offering an equal product must demonstrate that the product conforms to
the salient characteristics of the brand name product listed in the
solicitation.  Bryan Constr. Co., B-261482,
Sept. 20, 1995, 95-2 CPD P 142 at 2-3.  If the firm fails to do so, its
product properly is rejected as nonconforming.  Id.  Here, applying the
specifications contained in the RFQ to AGM's product, the agency found
AGM's quotation unacceptable.  In its response to the agency report, AGM
does not dispute that finding, and the record clearly establishes that the
product quoted by AGM failed to meet four minimum specifications contained
in the RFQ.  Accordingly, we find that the agency properly rejected AGM's
product.  

   AGM also raised several other issues in its protest.  Most concern alleged
solicitation improprieties, which AGM effectively abandoned in its
comments on the agency report and which were untimely raised in any
event.  See Bid Protest Regulations,
4 C.F.R. S 21.2(a)(1) (2004) (a protest based upon alleged improprieties
in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing time must be
filed before that time).  To the extent that AGM challenges the selection
of CSI--arguing, for example, that its price is unreasonable because it is
higher than the manufacturer's suggested retail price for the item--AGM is
not an interested party because, having properly been found to have quoted
a nonconforming product, it would not be in line for award even if the
protest were sustained on this ground.  Endure-A-Lifetime Prods., Inc.,
B-219529.2, Oct. 11, 1985, 85-2 CPD P 404 at 3-4.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel