Mossberg Corporation

B-274059 Nov 18, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest against solicitation requirements relating to construction and safety of shotguns is sustained where record does not establish that requirements are necessary to meet agency's minimum needs. Mossberg maintains that certain of the RFP's requirements unduly restrict competition and are unnecessary for the agency to satisfy its minimum needs. Indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for shotguns that will be used by the agency's border patrol agents. At issue in this protest are two aspects of the specifications: the construction of the guns' receiver. ALUMINUM VERSUS STEEL RECEIVER The receiver is the central component of any gun. It is the place where the shell or bullet is inserted into the gun. View Decision Matter of: Mossberg Corporation File: B-274059 Date: November 18, 1996 Protest against solicitation requirements relating to construction and safety of shotguns is sustained where record does not establish that requirements are necessary to meet agency's minimum needs; although agencies properly may set requirements relating to human safety so as to achieve the highest possible reliability and effectiveness, the requirements must nonetheless be reasonable and withstand logical scrutiny. Attorneys DECISION Mossberg Corporation protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ-96-19, issued by the United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), for a quantity of shotguns. Mossberg maintains that certain of the RFP's requirements unduly restrict competition and are unnecessary for the agency to satisfy its minimum needs. We sustain the protest. The RFP contemplates the award of a fixed-price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for shotguns that will be used by the agency's border patrol agents. At issue in this protest are two aspects of the specifications: the construction of the guns' receiver, and the type of safety mechanism to be employed. Mossberg maintains that these aspects of the specifications preclude it from competing for the requirement. ALUMINUM VERSUS STEEL RECEIVER The receiver is the central component of any gun--it is the place where the shell or bullet is inserted into the gun, and where the firing explosion takes place. Virtually all of the gun's remaining parts, such as the barrel, stock, safety, firing mechanism, trigger mechanism, and ammunition magazine tube, are attached to the receiver. The receiver typically is constructed of metal that is coated or treated for protection from corrosion. The RFP here calls for the shotguns to have a nonreflective steel receiver that has been "parkerized" [1]; the agency states that it has specified steel receivers because it is easier and less costly to reparkerize steel than it is to reanodize aluminum. Mossberg maintains that this requirement is unnecessary to meet the agency's minimum needs and that, in fact, the anodized aluminum receivers on its own shotguns will better meet the agency's needs, since they do not need to be refinished to maintain their nonreflective surface. The agency contends that, regardless of the type of shotgun purchased, the receivers will become scratched over time and will require refinishing because its guns need to have a nonreflective surface to ensure the safety of its agents during "interdiction by surprise" type operations. Procuring agencies are required to specify their needs in a manner designed to promote full and open competition; agencies thus may include restrictive requirements only to the extent they are necessary to satisfy their legitimate minimum needs. CardioMetrix, B-259736, Apr. 28, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 223. Where a protester challenges a specification as unduly restrictive, the agency must establish that the requirement is reasonably necessary to meet its minimum needs; we will examine the adequacy of the agency's position to ensure that it is rational and can withstand logical scrutiny. Id. While a solicitation provision relating to human safety or national defense may be written to achieve not just reasonable results, but the highest possible reliability and effectiveness, Acoustic Sys., B-256590, June 29, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 393, the requirement must nonetheless withstand logical examination. Raymond Corp.--Recon., B-251405.2, Aug. 26, 1993, 93-2 CPD Para. 124. Based on the record here, which includes substantial oral testimony taken during a hearing in this matter, we find that the steel receiver requirement does not meet this test. First, the record does not establish that Mossberg's aluminum receivers will need to be refinished.