Protest Involving the Procurement of Dictating and Transcribing Equipment

A corporation protested procurement of office equipment by an agency under a Federal Supply Service contract. The protester claimed that: the agency failed to evaluate protester's "middle of the line" equipment which was comparable to the equipment ultimately procured; the equipment procured lacked certain essential features available on protester's model; and a higher Buy American Act differential should have been applied to the low-bid price. Purchase of the least costly equipment which satisfied legitimate needs determined by the agency was proper procurement practice. The protesting vendor should have advised the agency of its middle of the line equipment earlier in the procurement process. The higher differential is applied only where the low domestic offeror will substantially perform the contract in a labor surplus area. As the protester was not manufacturing in such an area at the time the purchase orders were issued, he is not entitled to have the higher differential applied to the competitor's price. Since the equipment offered met the agency's minimum needs and has been delivered and installed, award will not be disturbed. The protest is denied.