Matter of:National Aeronautics and Space Administration--

B-274748.3 May 05, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights " such that a solicitation is flawed where it does not include sufficient information to allow commercial vendors to understand the agency's requirements. Issued by NASA for a 360-degree rear projection display system which will be used to simulate the outside view from an air traffic control tower. Access Logic's proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable. NASA first argues that our decision was based on a factual error since we erroneously concluded that NASA evaluated proposals and defended the protest as if it concerned a brand name or equal solicitation. NASA states it was always the agency's position that the solicitation was for commercial items and argues that we erroneously applied standards concerning brand name or equal solicitations. View Decision Matter of: National Aeronautics and Space Administration-- Reconsideration and Modification of Remedy File: B-274748.3 Date: May 5, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) requests reconsideration of our decision Access Logic, Inc., B-274748; B-274748.2, Jan. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 36, in which we sustained the protest of Access Logic, Inc. against the award of a contract to EISI, Inc., under request for offers (RFO) No. 2-36632 (CDT), issued by NASA for a 360-degree rear projection display system which will be used to simulate the outside view from an air traffic control tower. NASA also requests that we modify our recommendation that NASA terminate the contract and resolicit with an appropriate statement of the agency's needs. We affirm the decision, but modify the recommendation. Among other items, the RFO specified projection systems and projection screens by brand name and indicated that equal products would be considered. Instead of the brand name projection system and screens, Access Logic proposed "equal" projectors and screens. Access Logic's proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable. Among other alleged flaws, NASA's evaluators concluded that Access Logic's offer did not meet solicitation requirements for mullions, or spacers between the projection screens, and requirements for "gain" and "half gain angle" of the projection screens. We sustained the protest because we concluded that NASA improperly found Access Logic's offer unacceptable for failing to meet requirements not set forth in the RFO. NASA first argues that our decision was based on a factual error since we erroneously concluded that NASA evaluated proposals and defended the protest as if it concerned a brand name or equal solicitation. According to NASA, it did not evaluate proposals or defend the protest as if the solicitation called for brand name or equal items. Rather than a brand name or equal solicitation, NASA states it was always the agency's position that the solicitation was for commercial items and argues that we erroneously applied standards concerning brand name or equal solicitations, instead of the standards set forth in Part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), "Acquisition of Commercial Items." According to NASA, our decision also was based on errors of law because, instead of relying solely upon the standards set forth in Part 12 of the FAR, we erroneously relied on standards set forth in Part 15 of the FAR concerning the acquisition of noncommercial items. The record provides no support for NASA's current position. In the first reference in the decision to the acquisition having been conducted on a "brand name or equal" basis, we stated that "the RFO specified the Electrohome Marquee 9501LC ACON brand name projection systems, or equal, and Optawave projection screens, or equal." Then, in a footnote, we stated: "The RFO in fact only stated that "or equal" offers would be considered for the projectors, and not the screens. Nonetheless, the solicitation included detailed technical requirements for the screens--suggesting that a brand name or equal method also was intended for the screens. More importantly, in its evaluation of proposals and its defense of this protest, NASA has treated the solicitation as a brand name or equal solicitation for both the projectors and the screens. Under these circumstances, we have reviewed the evaluation as if the RFO permitted offers of equal products for both items." NASA specifically complains about this footnote.