SOG Specialty Knives, Inc., B-281877, April 12, 1999

B-281877 Apr 12, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Where an invitation for bids required adequate descriptive literature to determine whether the offered items conform to the technical requirements and bidders were advised that failure to do so would result in rejection of their bids. Protester's bid offering equivalent items was properly rejected as nonresponsive where the descriptive information furnished with the bid did not show that the offered items were equal to the brand name items solicited. GSA rejected SOG's bid because the descriptive literature it submitted did not establish that SOG 's offered tools were equal to the brand name. Only three of which are at issue here. The tool must have a non-glare satin finish and a plier head that shall retract and slide into the handle. View Decision Matter of: SOG Specialty Knives, Inc. File: B-281877 Date: April 12, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION SOG Specialty Knives, Inc. (SOG) protests the rejection of its bid as nonresponsive under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 6FES-G3-980158-S, issued by the General Services Administration on a brand name or equal basis, for multi-purpose pocket survival knives (tools). GSA rejected SOG's bid because the descriptive literature it submitted did not establish that SOG 's offered tools were equal to the brand name. We deny the protest. The IFB contemplated award on an item by item basis for eight different tools, only three of which are at issue here--item numbers 3, 4, and 5, described as Fiskars/Gerber part numbers 07500G, 07505G, and 07520G, or equal. IFB, Item Purchase Description (IPD) at 2-7. As relevant here, the IFB required that for item numbers 3 and 4, the tool must have a non-glare satin finish and a plier head that shall retract and slide into the handle. Item number 5 required the same salient characteristics as item number 3 except that the tool was required to have a black oxide finish. IFB, IPD at 3-4. Bidders offering other than brand name items were required to submit with their bids adequate descriptive literature for the agency to determine the equality of their offered items and the items had to meet each of the listed characteristics set forth in the IPD. Bidders were also advised that failure to submit the required descriptive literature would result in the rejection of the bid as nonresponsive. IFB Sec. B.1, at 7. Fourteen bids were received by the November 17, 1998 bid opening date. Agency Report, exh. 14, Abstract of Offers. As relevant to this protest, SOG offered equivalent tools for item numbers 3, 4, and 5 (SOG part numbers S60-GSA-N, S60-GSA-L, and B60-GSA-N) and included certain descriptive literature with its bid. /1/ The descriptive literature took the form of a short letter and seven pages of drawings of the items with limited information typed/printed on each of the seven pages (one page addressed two items not protested). Agency Report, exh. 13, SOG Descriptive Literature. After completing a technical review of SOG's offered items, GSA's supply specialist advised the contracting officer that the offered products for item numbers 3, 4, and 5 were not equal to the brand name model because the tools do not have a retractable plier head as required by the solicitation. In addition, for item numbers 3 and 4, the supply specialist reported that, based on the protester's limited descriptive literature, he was unable to determine whether the protester's offered product complied with the non-glare satin finish requirement. Agency Report, exh. 16, Technical Evaluation Report, Dec. 14, 1998, at 1st and 2nd unnumbered pages. Thus, the contracting officer rejected the protester's bid as nonresponsive because its descriptive literature failed to show that the offered items--SOG part numbers S60-GSA-N, S60-GSA-L, and B60-GSA-N--satisfied the salient characteristics in the IFB. This protest followed. SOG challenges the agency's determination that the tools bid for item numbers 3, 4, and 5 were not equal to the brand name, essentially contending that the offered products satisfied the salient characteristics at issue. Protester's Comments at 2nd and 3rd unnumbered pages. From our review of the record, including the IFB, the bid, and the descriptive information provided with the bid, we find that the agency reasonably determined that SOG's bid for items 3, 4, and 5 was not responsive to the solicitation. To be responsive under a brand name or equal IFB, bids offering equal products must conform to the salient characteristics of the brand name equipment listed in the solicitation. A bidder must submit, with its bid, sufficient descriptive literature to permit the contracting agency to assess whether the equal product meets all the salient characteristics specified in the IFB. Advanced Med. Sys., Inc., B-258945, Feb. 13, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 67 at 2.