Engineering and Professional Services Incorporated

B-262074 Nov 21, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that invitation for bids (IFB) for a requirements contract to install office telephone systems at Army recruiting stations is not specific enough to permit bidders to prepare bids because it does not specify the exact number. Locations of telephone systems to be installed is denied because this information is not available with any certainty. The IFB (1) describes the various sizes and features of systems that will be needed. (2) includes estimates of the quantities of each size system and key equipment that will be needed. (4) states that at least one system will be installed in each state. Protest alleging that solicitation for telephone systems is unduly restrictive because its specifications can only be met by one manufacturer is dismissed where the protest does not include sufficient factual information (for example. View Decision Matter of: Engineering and Professional Services Incorporated File: B-262074 Date: November 21, 1995 Protest that invitation for bids (IFB) for a requirements contract to install office telephone systems at Army recruiting stations is not specific enough to permit bidders to prepare bids because it does not specify the exact number, size, and locations of telephone systems to be installed is denied because this information is not available with any certainty, and the IFB (1) describes the various sizes and features of systems that will be needed, (2) includes estimates of the quantities of each size system and key equipment that will be needed, (3) includes an up-to-date list of recruiting stations and their addresses, and (4) states that at least one system will be installed in each state. Protest alleging that solicitation for telephone systems is unduly restrictive because its specifications can only be met by one manufacturer is dismissed where the protest does not include sufficient factual information (for example, a statement of which specifications are allegedly restrictive or the name of the firm whose product is allegedly described by the specifications) or any evidence establishing the likelihood that procurement laws or regulations were violated. Attorneys DECISION Engineering and Professional Services Incorporated (EPS) protests invitation for bids (IFB) No. DABT23-95-B-0068, issued by the Department of the Army for delivery and installation of office telephone systems. The protester contends that: (1) the IFB is not specific enough to permit preparation of fixed-price bids and, therefore, the agency should issue a request for proposals and negotiate with offerors for this requirements contract; (2) the specifications are unduly restrictive; and (3) the agency failed to respond to its request for technical clarifications. We deny the protest. Issued on June 21, 1995, the IFB seek firm, fixed-price bids for delivery and installation of telephone systems in Army recruiting offices throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. The IFB contemplates award of a 1-year requirements contract with an option for an additional 1-year period. The IFB describes various features to be included in all telephone systems, including: speed-dialing, conference calls, certain ringing and dialing options, outgoing call restrictions, intercom capability, line illumination, transfer capability, call hold, and individual programming. Because the size of the telephone system will vary depending upon the size of the recruiting office, bids are to include prices for various-sized systems. EPS filed its protest prior to the July 31 bid opening date, and the agency extended bid opening indefinitely pending our resolution of the protest. The crux of EPS' protest is that the specifications are inadequate to permit bidders to intelligently prepare their bids. Because of uncertainties concerning location, type, and number of the telephone systems to be replaced/installed, EPS contends that the agency should request competitive proposals and conduct negotiations to resolve uncertainties. The protester also states that offerors need to make site visits to ascertain the types of systems to be replaced and that the contractor will have to travel to unknown locations throughout the United States and Puerto Rico to install new systems. Consequently, EPS contends that the solicitation should be amended so that the contract will reimburse the contractor for all travel costs incurred for pre-award site visits and to install the new telephone systems, thus eliminating the "unreasonable amount of risk" for bidders under the IFB as written. The contracting agency has the primary responsibility for determining its minimum needs and the best method of accommodating them, including the procurement format to be used. Jewett-Cameron Lumber Corp. et al., B-229582 et al., Mar. 15, 1988, 88-1 CPD 265. The use of requirements contracting is authorized by Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec.