Building Systems Contractors, Inc.

Building Systems Contractors, Inc. BNUMBER: B-266180; B-266184 DATE: January 23, 1996 TITLE: Building Systems Contractors, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Building Systems Contractors, Inc. File: B-266180; B-266184 Date: January 23, 1996 Alberto E. Vidal for the protester. Frank W. Miller, Esq., and Paul D. Warring, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests alleging that solicitations' requirements for brand name equipment are unduly restrictive of competition and that agency's decision to bundle its requirements for equipment and services in the same procurements is improper are denied where solicitations' stated requirements reasonably reflect the agency's minimum needs. DECISION Building Systems Contractors, Inc. protests the terms of invitation for bids (IFB) Nos. F49642-95-B-0024 and F49642-95-B-0025, issued by the Department of the Air Force to replace the heating ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system, lighting system and air-conditioning system of two facilities located at Bolling Air Force Base (AFB). The protester challenges the IFBs' requirements for a brand name computerized energy management control system (EMCS) as unduly restrictive of competition. The protester also contends that consolidating ("bundling") the HVAC system installation services and the acquisition of an EMCS (which will control the HVAC and lighting systems) in the same procurements is improper; Building Systems contends that those requirements should be broken out into separate procurements. We deny the protests. The IFBs, as originally issued, required the manufacturer of the EMCS to be Landis and Gyr Powers, Inc. or an approved equal. Building Systems initially protested that the "or equal" language of the IFBs was meaningless since other solicitation requirements regarding installation and system compatibility specifically required the Landis EMCS. In response to the protests, the agency reexamined its needs and the solicitations' terms and deleted, by amendment to the IFBs, the "or equal" language. The Air Force determined that since Bolling AFB currently has the Landis EMCS installed in 23 facilities on the base, and the Landis equipment operates on a proprietary communication protocol that allows needed communication and sharing of information between facilities, operator consoles, and remote telephone locations, it was necessary to limit the procurement to Landis equipment to ensure the required compatibility between facilities. The protester contends that the Landis brand name requirement unduly restricts competition and exceeds the agency's minimum needs; the protester suggests that a separate system for the two facilities in question, using another manufacturer's EMCS equipment, would also meet the agency's needs. In preparing a solicitation for supplies or services, a contracting agency must specify its needs and solicit offers in a manner designed to achieve full and open competition and to include restrictive provisions or conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the agency's needs. Acoustic Sys., B-256590, June 29, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 393. The contracting agency, which is most familiar with its needs and how best to fulfill them, must make the determination as to what its minimum needs are in the first instance, and we will not question that determination unless it has no reasonable basis. Id.; Corbin Superior Composites, Inc., B-242394, Apr. 19, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 389. Specifications based upon a particular manufacturer's product are not improper in and of themselves, and a protest alleging that such requirements are unduly restrictive is without merit where the agency establishes that the requirements are reasonably related to its minimum needs. Lenderking Metal Prods., B-252035; B-252036, May 18, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 393; Chi Corp., B-224019, Dec. 3, 1986, 86-2 CPD para. 634. In a written "justification for brand name" issued by the agency in support of the Landis system EMCS requirement, and in the agency report responding to the protests, the Air Force states that its minimum need is for the EMCS in each of the two facilities (buildings 5681 and 5683) to be compatible, and be able to communicate, with all of the other 23 facilities on the EMCS network at Bolling AFB.