Handheld Systems, Inc., B-288036, August 10, 2001

B-288036 Aug 10, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Forest Service contract award for handheld field computers, contending that the awardee's computer did not meet several "critical" specifications, and its offered computer actually comes closer than the awardee's to complying with the specifications. GAO held that the Forest Service's test of offered handheld field computers were reasonable because they were consistent with the specifications and simulated actual field use. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Handheld Systems, Inc., B-288036, August 10, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Handheld Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Juniper Systems, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 20-01-046, issued by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for handheld field computers. We deny the protest. The agency issued the RFQ on April 11, 2001 as a commercial item acquisition. The RFQ included a list of specifications. Many of the specifications were labeled critical or essential, whereas others were labeled very desirable or desirable. The solicitation provided that award was to be made based on price and technical factors. The technical factors were warranty information, delivery time, and how well the proposed handheld field computers met the specifications. The agency received eight quotes by the May 1 due date. Five quotes, including Handheld's, were found not to have met the specifications. The three acceptable quotes all offered the same model handheld computer. The agency made award to Juniper Systems on May 7, because it submitted the lowest price of the acceptable quotes. On that same day, Handheld found out that its quote had not been selected and requested a debriefing. At the agency's request, Handheld sent a list of questions to the agency regarding the evaluation of its product and the award to Juniper. In response, Handheld was furnished a written debriefing letter responding to the questions. Upon receipt, Handheld verbally notified the agency on that date that one of its questions concerning the compliance of Juniper's offered product with certain specifications had not been answered, and that it would like to discuss this and other matters with the agency. On May 24, the agency sent Handheld another letter that explained why Juniper's product met the questioned specifications. In response, Handheld specifically requested a description of the battery testing procedures, including system settings, such as backlight setting and processor speed, that the agency used in testing the products offered in response to the RFQ. The agency provided the requested information in a June 6 letter. Upon receipt of this information, Handheld filed this protest in our Office on June 11. Handheld, while admitting that its offered computer does not comply with various specifications, contends that Juniper's computer did not meet several "critical" specifications, that is, the requirement that the operating system be Oracle Lite compatible, the minimum memory/storage requirements, and the battery operating life requirements pertaining to normal battery life and low temperature battery life. Handheld claims its offered computer actually comes closer than Juniper's to complying with the specifications. Some of Handheld's protest grounds are untimely. Specifically, Handheld knew of its bases for protest regarding whether Juniper's computer met the RFP specifications regarding operating system compatibility and memory/storage requirements, at the latest, when it received the May 24 agency letter explaining why Juniper met these specifications; it obtained no additional information concerning these protest bases after its receipt of this letter. Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests. Under these rules, a protest based on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for protest, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (2001). The fact that Handheld may not have been satisfied with all aspects of the debriefing it received, and that it continued to pursue certain questions with the Forest Service, did not extend the time for filing a bid protest. See Robert B. Hammett -- Recon., B-253720.2, B-253721.2, Aug. 3, 1993, 93-2 CPD Para. 76. Thus, the protest grounds regarding operating system compatibility and memory/storage requirements, raised more than 10 days after May 24, are dismissed as untimely. With regard to battery operating life requirements, Handheld contends that the battery test procedures unfairly favored the computer that Juniper quoted, and that the computer that Handheld quoted would have satisfied these requirements and Juniper's computer would not have, if proper tests had been conducted.