Matter of: ACR Electronics, Inc.

B-266201 Jan 24, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The contracting agency enjoys a degree of discretion in determining whether an offeror has provided sufficient information to show that the offeror's product is acceptable. The General Accounting Office will not disturb such a determination unless it is unreasonable. Offer of "equal" product under brand name or equal solicitation was properly rejected where the technical information available to the contracting agency failed to demonstrate compliance of the "equal" product with all of the salient characteristics set forth in the solicitation. The agency reasonably determined that discussions were unnecessary. ACR argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable and that the agency improperly made award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions. View Decision Matter of: ACR Electronics, Inc. File: B-266201 Date: January 24, 1996 Under brand name or equal procurement, the contracting agency enjoys a degree of discretion in determining whether an offeror has provided sufficient information to show that the offeror's product is acceptable; the General Accounting Office will not disturb such a determination unless it is unreasonable. Offer of "equal" product under brand name or equal solicitation was properly rejected where the technical information available to the contracting agency failed to demonstrate compliance of the "equal" product with all of the salient characteristics set forth in the solicitation, and the technical information supplied by the protester after filing its protest demonstrates that the protester's proposed product fails to meet the solicitation requirements. Agency properly made award based upon initial proposals without conducting discussions where the request for proposals advised offerors that the agency intended to award the contract on the basis of initial proposals, and the agency reasonably determined that discussions were unnecessary. Attorneys DECISION ACR Electronics, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Alden Electronics, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-95-R-5044, issued by the Department of the Navy for Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) to replace obsolete emergency radios at the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, St. Inigoes, Maryland. ACR argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable and that the agency improperly made award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for 820 EPIRBs. The EPIRBs are carried aboard lifeboats used by Navy personnel in emergency situations to transmit a position-identifying signal through low orbiting COSPAS-SARSAT [1] satellites which then relay the signal to Search and Rescue (SAR) units via a ground receiving station. The requirement was originally synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) as a sole source procurement for Alden. When eight potential sources, including ACR, responded to the sole source announcement, the agency requested that the interested firms submit capability statements. ACR, among others, submitted its capability statement and the technical activity found it to be capable on March 29. The procurement was then synopsized in the CBD as a competitive procurement with a brand name or equal specification. The solicitation specified the SATFIND-406 S-1015 Category 2 Survival EPIRB transmitter as the brand name product, listed the salient characteristics that had to be satisfied by any product offered as equal to the brand name item, and required that a technical volume with descriptive literature be submitted with the offer to demonstrate compliance with those characteristics. [2] Specifically, the salient characteristics called for EPIRBs capable of transmitting on 406.025 MHz and 121.5 MHz and meeting a number of specific requirements concerning, among other things, stability, modulation, packaging, antenna type, operating life, operating temperature, storage temperature, battery type, weight, mounting bracket size, lanyard buoyancy, and size. The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. The RFP incorporated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.215-16, Alternate III, which states that the government intends to award a contract without discussions and encourages offerors to submit their best offers in their initial proposals. This clause also reserves the agency's right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary. The agency received three proposals, including those of ARC and Alden, by the RFP's extended July 27 closing date. [3] The agency's technical source selection evaluation board (TSSEB) evaluated ACR's proposal.