Access Logic, Inc.

Access Logic, Inc. BNUMBER: B-274748; B-274748.2 DATE: January 3, 1997 TITLE: Access Logic, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Access Logic, Inc. File: B-274748; B-274748.2 Date:January 3, 1997 Andrew Mohr, Esq., Cohen & White, for the protester. Russell F. Sauer, Jr., Esq., Latham & Watkins, for EISI, Inc., an intervenor. Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., and Thomas W. Berndt, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of rejection of equal products offered in response to a brand name or equal procurement for commercial items is sustained where rejection was based on failure of proposal to meet requirements that were not conveyed by the solicitation. DECISION Access Logic, Inc. protests the award of a contract to EISI, Inc., under request for offers (RFO) No. 2-36632(CDT), issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for a 360-degree rear projection display system which will be used to simulate the outside view from an air traffic control tower. We sustain the protest. NASA conducted this procurement under the procedures set forth in Part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), "Acquisition of Commercial Items." Pursuant to FAR sec. 12.202 (Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 90-39), the agency conducted market research to determine which products would best meet its needs. After evaluating various projectors and screens during demonstrations held at vendor and customer sites and an industry convention, pursuant to the streamlined procedures set forth in FAR Subpart 12.6, and in particular FAR sec. 12.603, the agency issued the RFO as a combined synopsis/solicitation. The RFO incorporated FAR sec. 52.212-1 (FAC 90-39), "Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items," which stated that offers must show, among other things, "[a] technical description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the requirements of the solicitation. This may include product literature, or other documents, if necessary." The RFO also stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror which submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer responsive to the solicitation. Among other items, the RFO specified the Electrohome Marquee 9501LC ACON brand name projection systems, or equal, and Optawave projection screens, or equal.[1] Although the RFO specified brand name or equal items, it did not include the standard "brand name or equal" clause which alerts offerors to include information in their offers sufficient to establish the equality of the products they are offering to the listed brand name. The RFO included a "Projection Display System Requirements Document," which apparently constituted the agency's salient characteristics, and included required specifications for the projectors and screens. That document also stated that the contractor is to provide all necessary design, engineering, installation labor, projector adjustments, project management, documentation, screens, equipment and materials, to furnish a complete and operational projection display system. Six proposals were submitted. Instead of the brand name projection system, Access Logic proposed as an equal a BarcoGraphics 1209 rear projection display system; the firm also proposed Dia-Nippon ProScreen 180 degree viewing cone screens as equal to the brand name screens. Access Logic's proposal, which was priced at $665,901, was rejected as technically unacceptable for reasons which we will address in detail below. Award was made to EISI at a price of $773,168, as the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that NASA improperly found Access Logic's offer unacceptable for failing to meet requirements not set forth in the RFO. Once offerors are informed of the criteria against which proposals will be evaluated, the agency must adhere to them. Grey Advertising, Inc., 55 Comp. Gen. 1111 (1976), 76-1 CPD para. 325. In a brand name or equal acquisition, the contracting agency has an obligation to inform offerors of the characteristics that are essential to the government's needs and a product offered as an "equal" one need not meet unstated features of the brand name product. Tri Tool, Inc., B-265649.2, Jan. 22, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 14.