Columbia Imaging, Inc., B-286772.2; B-287363, April 13, 2001

Columbia Imaging, Inc., B-286772.2; B-287363, April 13, 2001 TITLE: Columbia Imaging, Inc., B-286772.2; B-287363, April 13, 2001 BNUMBER: B-286772.2; B-287363 DATE: April 13, 2001 ********************************************************************** Columbia Imaging, Inc., B-286772.2; B-287363, April 13, 2001 Decision Matter of: Columbia Imaging, Inc. File: B-286772.2; B-287363 Date: April 13, 2001 John R. Holsey and Wayne M. Horsman for the protester. LTC Richard B. O'Keefe, Jr., Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In solicitations for maintenance of medical equipment, requirements that vendors' technicians have factory training on specific models to be maintained and telephone access to technical support for software, and that vendors furnish proof of license agreement for access to diagnostic software, are not unduly restrictive where requirements are reasonably aimed at ensuring that vendors possess the capability to maintain the identified equipment. DECISION Columbia Imaging, Inc. protests the specifications in amended request for quotations (RFQ) No. DADA15-00-T-0053 (RFQ 0053) and RFQ No. DADA15-01-T-0224 (RFQ 0224), issued by the Department of the Army for maintenance of medical diagnostic and treatment equipment. Columbia asserts that the requirements for factory training and access to diagnostic software unduly restrict competition. We deny the protests. Each RFQ contemplated the award of a requirements contract for a period of 1 base year, with 3 option years, for preventive maintenance and unlimited on-site emergency repair of medical equipment manufactured by Philips Medical Systems (PMS). RFQ 0053 concerns cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) equipment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. and RFQ 0224 concerns x-ray systems at DeWitt Army Community Hospital at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. With regard to RFQ 0053, both Columbia and PMS submitted quotes by the September 15, 2000 deadline. The agency conducted discussions with both vendors and each submitted a revised quote. After determining that Columbia's quote was technically unacceptable, the Army awarded a contract to PMS. Columbia challenged this award in a protest to our Office. The agency subsequently took corrective action, and we dismissed the protest as academic (B-286772, Nov. 20, 2000). The Army amended the statement of work (SOW) primarily to specify the model numbers of the equipment to be maintained. The agency then notified the vendors that it was reopening negotiations; in doing so, the Army specifically notified Columbia that its proposed personnel did not meet the factory training/experience requirement for the now specifically identified equipment, and requested that Columbia provide a copy of a licensing agreement with PMS regarding access to that firm's diagnostic software. After receipt of this notice, Columbia filed a protest with our Office challenging the RFQ amendments. During this same time frame, the Army issued RFQ 0224, which required vendors to offer software maintenance that included telephone access to technical support, and technicians with factory training and experience on PMS x-ray systems. Prior to the March 6, 2001 due date for quotes, Columbia filed a protest challenging these RFQ provisions. Columbia challenges the requirements in RFQ 0053 that technicians have factory training on the models of the machines to be maintained, and that the firm submit a license agreement with PMS to demonstrate that it will have access to necessary diagnostic software. [1] With regard to RFQ 0224, Columbia challenges that solicitation's similar requirements for telephone software support and factory software training and experience. Columbia asserts that PMS will not allow the protester's personnel access to its factory training or telephone software support and will not negotiate a software license with it. The determination of the government's needs and the best method of accommodating them is primarily the responsibility of the procuring agency, since its contracting officials are most familiar with the conditions under which supplies, equipment, and services have been employed in the past and will be utilized in the future. DGS Contract Servs., Inc., B-249845.2, Dec. 23, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 435 at 2. Where a protester challenges a specification as unduly restrictive, it is the agency's responsibility to establish that the specification is reasonably necessary to meet its needs. CardioMetrix, B-259736, Apr. 28, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 223 at 3. The adequacy of the agency's justification is ascertained through examining whether the agency's explanation is reasonable, that is, whether it can withstand logical scrutiny. Keeson, Inc.; Ingram Demolition, Inc., B-245625, B-245655, Jan. 24, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 108 at 4.