B-167180, AUG. 11, 1969

B-167180, AUG. 11, 1969

BID PROTEST - TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS DECISION TO AGAC-DERRITRON, INCORPORATED, DENYING PROTEST AGAINST TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC DEVICES FOR NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER AND LIMITATION OF PROCUREMENT TO SOLE SOURCE. SPECIFICATIONS WHICH REQUIRED CERTAIN TECHNICAL MEASURING DEVICES DETERMINED TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE EQUIPMENT ARE HELD TO BE PROPER SINCE DETERMINATIONS OF ACTUAL NEEDS AND DRAFTING OF SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE PROPERLY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROCURING AGENCY. SINCE RECORD INDICATES PROTESTANT HAS CAPACITY TO MEET SPECIFICATIONS, ALLEGATION OF RESTRICTIVENESS MUST BE DENIED.

TO AGAC-DERRITRON INCORPORATED:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 5, 1969, WITH ENCLOSURES, PROTESTING THAT THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR AN AUTOMATIC SPECTRAL EQUALIZER/ANALYZER AS SET OUT IN REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. N00189-69 R0079 ISSUED BY THE NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, ARE UNDULY RESTRICTIVE AND LIMIT THE PROCUREMENT TO A SOLE SOURCE, LING ELECTRONICS.

THE RECORD CONTAINS CONSIDERABLE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN YOUR FIRM AND THE NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER REGARDING THE SPECIFICATIONS WHICH INDICATES THAT YOUR MAIN OBJECTIONS CENTERED ON THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO RANDOM NOISE SOURCES AND METERS TO MONITOR ACCELERATION SPECTRAL DENSITY. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT, AS A RESULT OF YOUR CONFERENCE WITH NAVY REPRESENTATIVES ON JUNE 4, 1969, THE REMAINING POINT OF DISAGREEMENT IS THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT THAT ACCELERATION SPECTRAL DENSITY BE MEASURED BY INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL METERS INSTEAD OF THROUGH THE USE OF AN OSCILLOSCOPE PRESENTATION AS OFFERED IN YOUR PROPOSAL.

IN ITS LETTER TO YOU OF MARCH 28, 1969, THE NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER STATED:

"VARIOUS TYPES OF ELECTRONIC READ-OUT DEVICES AND CIRCUITS WERE INVESTIGATED AND COMPARED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL TEST SPECIFICATIONS FOR AIM-9B, AIM-9D, AIM-9C, AIM-7C, AIM-7D AND AIM 7E AIR- TO-AIR MISSILES. IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT METERS PRESENT INSTANTANEOUS READOUTS, THUS MINIMIZING OPERATOR PARTICIPATION AND TIME AS COMPARED TO OSCILLOSCOPE PRESENTATIONS, WHICH HAVE TO BE ADJUSTED FOR EACH CHANNEL MONITORED. FURTHERMORE, THIS REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED ADJUSTMENTS LESSENS THE POSSIBILITY (OF) OPERATOR ERROR THEREBY MAKING METERS SUPERIOR FOR THE INTENDED APPLICATION. IN THE INTEREST OF MINIMUM LABOR COSTS AND EQUIPMENT, IT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED THAT METERS AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 2.1.5 SATISFY THE NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE INTENDED MONITORING OPERATION.' ALTHOUGH, YOU HAVE TAKEN ISSUE WITH THE ABOVE CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE METER REQUIREMENTS, THE MATTER HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND RE-REVIEWED BY THE NAVY TECHNICAL PERSONNEL, AND IT IS REPORTED:

"THERE IS NO MISCONCEPTION ON OUR PART REGARDING SCOPE VERSUS METER READOUT. SCOPE READOUTS ARE PROPER FOR ANALOG MONITORING OR WHERE WAVE FORMS OF NONSINUSOIDAL PATTERNS ARE TO BE STUDIED. WHERE THE APPLICATION IS A SPECIFIC MEASUREMENT OF A VOLTAGE THAT IS THE ELECTRICAL EQUIVALENT OF AN ENERGY LEVEL THE METER READOUT IS NOT ONLY THE MOST ACCURATE, BUT IS THE EASIEST SYSTEM TO CALIBRATE.'

IN TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS SUCH AS THIS INVOLVING DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS AND OFFERORS AS TO WHAT WILL SATISFY THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS, WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD IN A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS THAT DETERMINATIONS AS TO THE ACTUAL NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE DRAFTING OF SPECIFICATIONS TO SECURE THOSE NEEDS, ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROCURING AGENCY INVOLVED AND SUCH SPECIFICATIONS MAY NOT BE DICTATED OVER AGENCY OBJECTIONS BY PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS. FURTHER, WHERE THE DETERMINATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS REQUIRES THE EXPERT JUDGMENT OF TECHNICAL PERSONNEL WE WILL NOT QUESTION THE TECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCY UNLESS THERE IS A CLEAR SHOWING OF FRAUD OR ABUSE OF AUTHORITY OR ARBITRARY ACTION, NONE OF WHICH IS EVIDENCED HERE.

ACCORDINGLY, SINCE THE NAVY TECHNICIANS IN A PROPER DISCHARGE OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES HAVE DETERMINED THAT METERS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR THE INTENDED USE OF THE EQUIPMENT, WE SEE NO VALID BASIS FOR OBJECTING TO SUCH SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

REGARDING YOUR CONTENTION THAT ONLY LING ELECTRONICS CAN PROVIDE EQUIPMENT MEETING THE SPECIFICATIONS, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF YOUR FIRM WERE UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE STATED AT THE JUNE 4 CONFERENCE THAT AGAC-DERRITRON HAS THE CAPACITY TO BUILD AN ANALYZER OR ADAPT ITS PRESENT MODEL SO AS TO PROVIDE A MODEL WHICH MEETS THE GOVERNMENT'S SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. IT IS FURTHER INDICATED THAT YOUR FIRM HAS PREVIOUSLY MANUFACTURED A SYSTEM WHICH USED METERS TO MONITOR SPECTRAL DENSITY, AND LITERATURE ON SUCH EQUIPMENT WAS SUBMITTED WITH YOUR PROPOSAL OF NOVEMBER 12, 1968.