Matter of: National Mailing Systems File: B-250950.2 Date: February 12, 1993

Matter of: National Mailing Systems File: B-250950.2 Date: February 12, 1993

PROCUREMENT Special Procurement Methods/Categories Federal supply schedule Purchases Cost/technical tradeoffs Technical superiority PROCUREMENT Special Procurement Methods/Categories Federal supply schedule Purchases Justification Minimum needs standards Agency properly purchased higher-priced mailing equipment on Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), instead of protester's less expensive FSS equipment, where the agency reasonably determined that the protester's equipment did not meet its minimum needs.

Attorneys

DECISION National Mailing Systems (NMS) protests the National Endowment for the Arts' (NEA) issuance of delivery order No. C92-347, for mailing equipment, to Pitney Bowes, Inc. NMS asserts that NEA improperly issued the order to Pitney Bowes notwithstanding the availability of lower-priced equipment through NMS.

We deny the protest.

NEA issued the delivery order on September 23, 1992, against General Services Administration multiple-award FSS contract No. GS-00F-7166A. NEA is a mandatory user of the schedule. The order encompassed Pitney Bowes' Model 6110 Mail Machine, at a net price of $4,984, and related equipment, including a stacker and a scale. In all, the order totaled $10,364.

NMS objects to the award on the ground that similar mailing equipment, manufactured by Ascom-Hasler Mailing Systems, Inc. (AHM), and listed on the FSS, was available at a lower price through NMS, an AHM distributor. The agency responds that, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 8.405-1, "[o]rdering from multiple-award schedules," before placing the order, it obtained technical and price information concerning the mailing equipment produced by manufacturers listed on the FSS, including Pitney Bowes and AHM. In the case of AHM, the agency specifically requested and received from NMS a 14-page description of its AHM products and prices. Based on that information and similar information submitted by Pitney Bowes, NEA determined that AHM'S lower-priced product did not meet its minimum needs, which included the capability of handling 210 envelopes per minute, and envelopes up to 11 x 17 inches in size.

Determinations of the agency's minimum needs and of which products meet those needs are properly the agency's responsibility; government procurement officials, who are familiar with the conditions under which supplies and equipment have been and will be used, are generally in the best position to make these determinations. Systematics, Inc., B-222559, July 24, 1986, 86-2 CPD Para. 105. Our Office will only examine the agency's determinations to ensure that they had a reasonable basis. American Body Armor & Equip., Inc., B-238860, July 3, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 4.

We find that the agency's decision to order Pitney Bowes' equipment was reasonable. Our review of the product and price literature submitted by NMS confirms that the AHM products which were priced lower than Pitney Bowes' were not capable of handling 11 x 17-inch envelopes. Although NMS asserts that "the system we recommended will . . . easily accommodate letters of the aforementioned 11' x 17' size," the protester has provided no evidence to support that assertion, and we find none in the record. In this regard, the product description for AHM Model 335AS4, HSO Series, priced at $4,683.50 ($300 less than the Pitney Bowes model that NEA purchased), specifically states that an oversized extended feed table permits automatic feeding of envelopes and flats up to 9 x 12 inches in size--not the 11 x 17 inches the agency required. The protester does not argue that NEA does not require this size capability, or that Pitney Bowes' system does not possess it. Likewise, other than a general statement that NMS could have met the government's needs, the protester has not shown that its AHM equipment possesses the capability to handle 11 x 17-inch envelopes. We therefore find no basis for questioning the agency's determination that Pitney Bowes' system meets the government's minimum needs and NMS' does not.

The protest is denied.