A-1 Postage Meters and Shipping Systems

B-266219 Feb 07, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest challenging the terms of a purchase description for a mail processing machine is denied where. Specifications that protester challenges are not impossible to perform and do not otherwise preclude the protester from competing. A-1 alleges that certain provisions of the purchase description are impossible to meet. A-1 further argues that the purchase description includes requirements that are available only in mail processing machines manufactured by Pitney Bowes. Explaining that it is familiar with the operation of the BITC. A-1 maintains that the actual requirements of that facility are limited to the ability to timely meter and account for postage on letters and packages up to 70 pounds. View Decision Matter of: A-1 Postage Meters and Shipping Systems File: B-266219 Date: February 7, 1996 Protest challenging the terms of a purchase description for a mail processing machine is denied where, contrary to protester's allegations, specifications that protester challenges are not impossible to perform and do not otherwise preclude the protester from competing. Attorneys DECISION A-1 Postage Meters and Shipping Systems protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. F09650-95-Q-4383, issued by the Air Force for an automated mail processing machine for the Base Information Transfer Center (BITC) at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center. We deny the protest. The RFQ, which sought quotations for equipment listed on a General Services Administration federal supply schedule, included a purchase description with detailed specifications and delivery, installation, and quality assurance requirements for the mail processing machine. A-1 alleges that certain provisions of the purchase description are impossible to meet. A-1 further argues that the purchase description includes requirements that are available only in mail processing machines manufactured by Pitney Bowes, Inc. and which exceed the agency's actual minimum needs. Explaining that it is familiar with the operation of the BITC, A-1 maintains that the actual requirements of that facility are limited to the ability to timely meter and account for postage on letters and packages up to 70 pounds. According to A-1, the solicitation requires equipment that exceeds these minimum requirements. Agencies are responsible for specifying their needs in a manner designed to promote full and open competition. D & R Tank Co., Inc., B-258529, Jan. 26, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 53. Where a protester challenges a solicitation requirement, our Office will not substitute its judgment for the contracting agency's, which is most familiar with the conditions under which the supplies and services are to be used, unless the protester proves that the challenged specification is impossible to meet or otherwise unduly restricts competition. California Inflatables Co., Inc., B-249348, Nov. 9, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 331. Moreover, the fact that specifications are based upon a particular product is not improper in and of itself; nor will an assertion that a specification was "written around" design features of a particular product provide a valid basis for protest if the record establishes that the specification is reasonably related to the agency's minimum needs. Hewlett-Packard Co., 69 Comp.Gen. 750 (1990), 90-2 CPD Para. 258. We have considered the specifications that A-1 has challenged and we conclude that none of those requirements are impossible to perform or improperly restrictive of competition. A-1 first challenges section 3.2.4.1 of the purchase description, which requires that the mail machine include the following features and performance characteristics: "Modular mailing system which automatically feeds without operator intervention various sizes and weights of mail ranging from post card size to flats measuring at least 11 inches by 13 inches by 1/2 inch thick. The system will also be equipped with a flat feeding kit to ensure efficient automated feeding. The machine shall be capable of determining nonstandard size mail, and if required, automatically add the required surcharge to the appropriate postage." A-1 argues that the requirement for feeding "without operator intervention" is physically impossible since with any machine an operator will have to insert pieces of mail face up, with addresses parallel to the machine, the top edge against the feeder, and writing on the envelope facing the operator. In response to this contention, the agency argues that A-1's reading of the purchase description is unreasonable since section 3.2.4.1 simply calls for a machine that "automatically feeds without operator intervention" (emphasis added), but does not call for loading and starting the machine without operator activity.