B-137691, AUG. 15, 1960
Highlights
OUR COMMENTS WERE REQUESTED ON PROPOSED REVISIONS OF SECTION 1-1.307-4 AND 1-1.307-6 OF THE FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE USE OF BRAND NAME OR EQUAL PURCHASE DESCRIPTIONS. THE PROPOSED REVISIONS WOULD ELIMINATE THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT THAT THE BIDDER PROVIDE DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF COMPONENTS WHERE THE END ITEMS BEING PROCURED ARE DESCRIBED BY SPECIFICATIONS WHICH CONTAIN BRAND NAME OR EQUAL DESCRIPTIONS OF COMPONENT ITEMS. AS WE HAVE INDICATED MANY TIMES IN THE PAST. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE USE OF BRAND NAME OR EQUAL PURCHASE DESCRIPTIONS EXCEPT IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE DESCRIPTIONS ON SOME OTHER BASIS WOULD BE IMPRACTICABLE. IT HAS BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT BRAND NAME OR EQUAL DESCRIPTIONS ARE SOMETIMES EMPLOYED BECAUSE OF A RELUCTANCE ON THE PART OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY TO ESTABLISH ITS PRECISE REQUIREMENTS RATHER THAN BECAUSE OF ANY REAL DIFFICULTY PRESENTED IN DEVELOPMENT OF DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS.
B-137691, AUG. 15, 1960
TO HONORABLE FRANKLIN FLOETE, ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:
BY LETTER OF JUNE 24, 1960, FROM THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR PROCUREMENT POLICY, FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE, OUR COMMENTS WERE REQUESTED ON PROPOSED REVISIONS OF SECTION 1-1.307-4 AND 1-1.307-6 OF THE FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE USE OF BRAND NAME OR EQUAL PURCHASE DESCRIPTIONS.
THE PROPOSED REVISIONS WOULD ELIMINATE THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT THAT THE BIDDER PROVIDE DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF COMPONENTS WHERE THE END ITEMS BEING PROCURED ARE DESCRIBED BY SPECIFICATIONS WHICH CONTAIN BRAND NAME OR EQUAL DESCRIPTIONS OF COMPONENT ITEMS. THERE WOULD ALSO BE ELIMINATED THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS THAT "OR EQUAL" PRODUCTS BE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL AND THAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NAME BRAND AND THE ITEM OFFERED BY THE BIDDER BE STATED IN DETAIL IN THE BID.
AS WE HAVE INDICATED MANY TIMES IN THE PAST, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE USE OF BRAND NAME OR EQUAL PURCHASE DESCRIPTIONS EXCEPT IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE DESCRIPTIONS ON SOME OTHER BASIS WOULD BE IMPRACTICABLE. IT HAS BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT BRAND NAME OR EQUAL DESCRIPTIONS ARE SOMETIMES EMPLOYED BECAUSE OF A RELUCTANCE ON THE PART OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY TO ESTABLISH ITS PRECISE REQUIREMENTS RATHER THAN BECAUSE OF ANY REAL DIFFICULTY PRESENTED IN DEVELOPMENT OF DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS.
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES. WE DO NOT BELIEVE,HOWEVER, THAT THEY WILL ELIMINATE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE OBJECTIONS GENERATED BY THE USE OF BRAND NAME OR EQUAL PURCHASE DESCRIPTIONS.
WE WISH ALSO TO REPEAT A RECOMMENDATION PRESENTED IN OUR LETTER, B 137691, JANUARY 2, 1959, TO THE EFFECT THAT WHEN A BRAND NAME OR EQUAL DESCRIPTION IS EMPLOYED, THE PARTICULAR FEATURES OF THE NAMED BRAND OR BRANDS REQUIRED TO MEET THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS SHOULD BE SPELLED OUT IN THE INVITATION. WE NOTE THAT SUCH REQUIREMENT, IF ADOPTED BY YOU, WOULD NOT BE UNIQUE IN GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS. SEE IN THIS CONNECTION, ASPR 1-1206 (C) (1).