Pitney Bowes, Inc.

B-413876.2 Feb 13, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Pitney Bowes, Inc., of Washington, DC, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. TIRMS-16-R-00016, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for the procurement of mail inserter/folder machines. Pitney argues that the technical specifications set out in the solicitation are unduly restrictive of competition. We sustain the protest. We sustain the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Pitney Bowes, Inc. File:  B-413876.2 Date:  February 13, 2017 William A. Shook, Esq., The Law Offices of William A. Shook PLLC, for the protester. David K. Barnes, Esq., and Holly H. Styles, Esq., Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, for the agency. K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging technical specifications as unduly restrictive of competition is sustained where the record fails to show that the specifications are reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s needs. DECISION Pitney Bowes, Inc., of Washington, DC, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. TIRMS-16-R-00016, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for the procurement of mail inserter/folder machines.  Pitney argues that the technical specifications set out in the solicitation are unduly restrictive of competition. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued via the General Services Administration’s (GSA) e-Buy system on November 3, 2016,[1]  and contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis.[2]  The solicitation sought quotations for four PS200 folder/inserters with four 500 sheet capacity sheet feeders, and four PS200 high capacity feeders, or equivalent machines, to replace existing equipment used for document processing and mailing at the IRS’s National Distribution Center (NDC) in Bloomington, Illinois.  CO Statement at 1.  According to the solicitation, the NDC is one of the IRS facilities that processes and mails high volume turnaround letters including Affordable Care Act compliance and earned income tax credit letters.  RFQ at 3. The RFQ includes contract line item numbers (CLIN) that refer to the PS200 folder/inserter and certain PS200 components.  RFQ at B-1.  The statement of work (SOW), however, lists a number of specific requirements for the folder/inserters, which is consistent with the agency’s assertion that it intended the acquisition to be a procurement for the brand name PS200 equipment or an equivalent product that could meet the specifications in the SOW.  SOW at 2; CO Statement at 1.  The specifications include, as relevant here:  (1) “[a] high capacity sheet feeder with a capacity of up to 1,000 per feeder with the capability of loading on the fly”; (2) “[a] feeder swap capability for up to 10 sheet feeders per machine”; and (3) “[o]ne envelope feeder to handle all types of envelopes from letters to flats.”[3]  RFQ at 4. This protest was filed with our Office on November 7, prior to the closing of the solicitation.  The agency has indicated that the protester was among the vendors who submitted quotations.  DISCUSSION Pitney challenges specifications in the SOW requiring high capacity sheet feeders that are capable of being loaded on the fly, folders/inserters that have a feeder swap capability for up to 10 sheet feeders per machine, and folders/inserters that have an envelope feeder capable of handling all types of envelopes from letters to flats.  According to the protester, the requirements are unduly restrictive of competition and amount to a de facto sole source requirement.[4]  Based on the record, we are unable to conclude that the specifications included in the RFQ are necessary to meet the agency’s needs. 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.  Columbia Imaging, Inc., B-286772.2, B-287363, Apr. 13, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 78 at 2.  To the extent a protester challenges a specification as unduly restrictive, that is, challenges both the restrictive nature of the requirement as well as the agency’s need for the restriction, the procuring agency has the responsibility of establishing that the specification is reasonably necessary to meet its needs.  Smith and Nephew, Inc., B-410453, Jan.