B-167791, OCT. 31, 1969

B-167791, OCT. 31, 1969

SPECIFICATIONS--MINIMUM NEEDS REQUIREMENT--PURCHASE DESCRIPTION V. MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS WHERE INVITATION FOR BIDS WAS CANCELED FOR AMBIGUITY OF SPECIFICATIONS AND NEW INVITATION WAS ISSUED TO INCORPORATE REVISED DESCRIPTION, INITIAL LOW BIDDER'S PROTEST WAS DENIED SINCE BID WAS REJECTED BECAUSE EQUIPMENT FAILED TO EQUAL BRAND NAME SPECIFIED THEREIN. WHILE USE OF MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS IS MANDATORY FOR CERTAIN ITEMS COVERED BY THAT SPECIFICATION, SUCH USE IS NOT NECESSARY WHEN IT IS DETERMINED, AS HERE, THAT IT DOES NOT MEET ESSENTIAL NEEDS OF GOVERNMENT AND SINCE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION WAS AMENDED TO INCLUDE ALL MANUFACTURERS AND STATED ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS OF EQUIPMENT NEEDED BY AGENCY, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RESTRICTIVE AND DID NOT SPECIFY FEATURES PECULIAR TO PARTICULAR MAKE OF EQUIPMENT.

TO THE AMERICAN TOOL WORKS COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 22, 1969, WITH ENCLOSURES, PROTESTING THE ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL, ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS, IN CANCELING INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. DAAF01-69-B-0176 AND READVERTISING THE PROCUREMENT UNDER IFB NO. DAAF01-69-B-0807.

THE ARSENAL ISSUED SOLICITATION NO. DAAF01-69-B-0176 ON OCTOBER 25, 1968, TO 10 PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF SIX EACH: "LATHE, ENGINE, FLOOR MOUNTED: WITH FOUR WAY POWER RAPID TRAVERSE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE I; AMERICAN TOOL WORKS, INC. MODEL 25 INCH STYLE E. HEAVY DUTY LATHE; R.K. LEBLOND MACHINE TOOL CO., MODEL 2516 NF ENGINE LATHE; MONARCH MACHINE TOOL CO., MODEL 2516 SERIES 62 ENGINE LATHE, OR EQUAL. * * *" THE SOLICITATION SPECIFIED A BID OPENING DATE OF NOVEMBER 14, 1968. NOVEMBER 12, 1968, AMENDMENT 0001 WAS ISSUED INCREASING THE QUANTITY FROM 6 TO 10 AND EXTENDING THE BID OPENING DATE TO NOVEMBER 22, 1968.

IT IS REPORTED THAT AS A RESULT OF NUMEROUS QUERIES FROM THE BRAND NAME LATHE MANUFACTURERS REFERENCED IN THE SCHEDULE ADVISING OF CONFLICTS BETWEEN DISSIMILAR DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS, AMENDMENT 0002 DATED NOVEMBER 19, 1968, WAS ISSUED TO INCORPORATE A REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION, EXTEND THE BID OPENING DATE TO DECEMBER 13, 1968, AND CHANGE THE BRAND NAME OR EQUAL DESCRIPTION TO THE FOLLOWING: "LATHE, ENGINE, FLOOR MOUNTED: WITH FOUR WAY POWER RAPID TRAVERSE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE I; MONARCH MACHINE TOOL CO., MODEL 2516 SERIES 612 ENGINE LATHE, OR EQUAL, WITH EQUIPMENT LISTED BELOW IN QUANTITIES OF ONE EACH. * * * THE REQUIRED SWING OVER THE BID SHALL NOT BE OBTAINED BY THE USE OF RISER BLOCKS BENEATH THE HEADSTOCK AND TAILSTOCK ON A BASICALLY SMALLER MACHINE.' AS A RESULT OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE LATHE INDUSTRY CONCERNING MOTOR HORSEPOWER AND DUTY CYCLE, AMENDMENT 0003 DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1968, WAS ISSUED TO CLARIFY THE MOTOR REQUIREMENT BY CHANGING "MOTOR HORSEPOWER 25" TO READ "MOTOR HORSEPOWER AND DUTY CYCLE 20 CONTINUOUS DUTY.' ON NOVEMBER 29, 1968, AMENDMENT 0004 WAS ISSUED TO CORRECT AN ERRONEOUS "PORT OF LOADING" POINT FROM ,CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA" TO "CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.'

THE FOLLOWING THREE BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND OPENED ON DECEMBER 13, 1968:

BIDDER FOB DESTINATION FOB ORIGIN

------ --------------- ---------- THE LODGE AND SHIPLEY COMPANY NO BID $ 27,419 LUTHER AND PEDERSEN, INC. $ 26,180.70

25,922 MONARCH MACHINE TOOL COMPANY 265,254.00 * 262,600 * * THE CONTRACTING OFFICER CONSIDERED THIS TO BE AN OBVIOUS CLERICAL ERROR REPRESENTING THE PRICE FOR 10 UNITS RATHER THAN THE UNIT PRICE.

THE RECORD INDICATES THAT LODGE AND SHIPLEY BID ON ITS "2516 POWERTURN" LATHE AS AN EQUAL TO THE SPECIFIED BRAND NAME; THAT MONARCH BID ON THE SPECIFIED BRAND NAME; AND THAT YOUR DISTRIBUTOR, LUTHER AND PEDERSEN, BID ON YOUR FIRM'S MODEL 20D2 LATHE AS AN EQUAL TO THE SPECIFIED BRAND NAME. IT IS REPORTED THAT THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE THREE BIDS RESULTED IN A DETERMINATION THAT THE EQUIPMENT OFFERED BY MONARCH AND LODGE AND SHIPLEY WERE ACCEPTABLE BUT THAT THE EQUIPMENT OFFERED BY YOUR DISTRIBUTOR, LUTHER AND PEDERSEN, WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOLICITATION. THE EQUIPMENT OF YOUR FIRM, WHICH YOUR DISTRIBUTOR OFFERED, WAS FOUND TO BE UNACCEPTABLE IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS:

AMERICAN

DESCRIPTION MINIMUM REQUIREMENT MODEL 20D2

TOOL POST, TOOL SIZE 7/8 X 1-3/4 5/8 X 1-1/4 FOLLOW

REST CAPACITY, RANGE 1 TO 6

1/2 TO 4 FACE PLATE, SMALL DIAMETER 12 10 HEADSTOCK SPINDLE, SIZE OF

HOLE THROUGH CENTER 2-1/16 2 HEADSTOCK SPINDLE CENTER TAPER

PER USAS B5.10 NO. 5 NO. 4 TAILSTOCK SPINDLE CENTER TAPER

PER USAS B5.10 NO. 5 NO. 4

THEREAFTER, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED ON FEBRUARY 19, 1969, THAT SOLICITATION NO. -0176 SHOULD BE CANCELED AND THE REQUIREMENT RESOLICITED UNDER A NEW PURCHASE DESCRIPTION MORE CLEARLY SETTING FORTH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE BASIS FOR SUCH DETERMINATION WAS AS FOLLOWS: "DURING THE PROCESS OF SOLICITATION, FOUR (4) AMENDMENTS WERE ISSUED IN AN ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY AMBIGUITIES IN THE BRAND NAME OR EQUAL- PURCHASE DESCRIPTION. THE FINAL REQUIREMENT CALLED FOR A MONARCH MACHINE TOOL COMPANY MODEL 2516, SERIES 612 ENGINE LATHE WITH AN ADDITIONAL TABLE I SETTING FORTH REQUIREMENTS, CAPACITIES AND CAPABILITIES WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A MINIMUM. THIS APPARENTLY CONFUSED ALL BIDDERS AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THE GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS ARE. IN ADDITION, DURING THE PROCESS OF EVALUATION OF BIDS, PRON 9-FV013 WAS CANCELLED, REDUCING THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF ENGINE LATHES TO SEVEN (7).'

BY LETTERS DATED FEBRUARY 20, 1969, THE THREE BIDDERS WERE ADVISED THAT SOLICITATION NO. -0176 HAD BEEN CANCELED AND THAT IN THE EVENT THE PROCUREMENT WAS READVERTISED, EACH FIRM WOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BIDDING. SEE PARAGRAPH 2-404.1 (B) (I) OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) WHICH AUTHORIZES THE CANCELLATION OF INVITATIONS AFTER BID OPENING IF INADEQUATE OR AMBIGUOUS SPECIFICATIONS WERE CITED IN THE INVITATION.

ON JUNE 3, 1969, SOLICITATION NO. -0807 WAS ISSUED AND SENT TO 10 PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS REQUESTING BIDS -- TO BE OPENED JUNE 23, 1969 -- FOR FURNISHING SEVEN ENGINE LATHES WHICH WERE DESCRIBED IN THE SOLICITATION AS FOLLOWS: "LATHE, ENGINE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH T-AND-E PD 65 DATED 69 APR 08 AND ALL SPECIFICATIONS AS REFERENCED HEREIN.'

BY LETTER DATED JUNE 17, 1969, ADDRESSED TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, YOU PROTESTED AGAINST ANY AWARD BEING MADE UNDER IFB -0807 ON THE GROUND THAT AN EXISTING MILITARY SPECIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED IN THE SOLICITATION IN LIEU OF A PURCHASE DESCRIPTION WHICH YOU STATED CONTAINED FEATURES PECULIAR TO THE CLASS OF MACHINE MANUFACTURED BY MONARCH. DUE TO THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED TO EVALUATE AND ANSWER YOUR PROTEST, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ULTIMATELY EXTENDED THE DATE FOR OPENING OF BIDS TO AUGUST 21, 1969, BY ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS NOS. 0001, 0002, AND 0003.

THREE BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND OPENED ON AUGUST 21, 1969. THE PRICES QUOTED BY THESE BIDDERS WERE AS FOLLOWS:

BIDDER FOB DESTINATION FOB ORIGIN

------ --------------- ---------- LODGE AND SHIPLEY COMPANY

NO BID $30,574 LODGE AND SHIPLEY COMPANY NO BID 27,006 MONARCH MACHINE TOOL COMPANY $26,348 26,060

NO BID WAS RECEIVED FROM YOUR DISTRIBUTOR, LUTHER AND PEDERSEN. IT IS REPORTED THAT THE LOWER-PRICED MACHINE OFFERED BY LODGE AND SHIPLEY DID NOT MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOLICITATION. THE HIGHER BID SUBMITTED BY LODGE AND SHIPLEY AND THE BID SUBMITTED BY MONARCH HAVE BOTH BEEN DETERMINED TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE SOLICITATION. AN AWARD UNDER THE SUBJECT SOLICITATION IS BEING WITHHELD PENDING A DECISION ON YOUR PROTEST BY OUR OFFICE.

YOU STATE THAT YOUR DISTRIBUTOR, LUTHER AND PEDERSEN, WAS THE LOW BIDDER UNDER THE INITIAL SOLICITATION, IFB -0176; THAT YOU PRESUMED YOUR DISTRIBUTOR WOULD RECEIVE THE AWARD; AND THAT INSTEAD OF RECEIVING A NOTIFICATION OF AWARD, YOUR DISTRIBUTOR RECEIVED AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT ALL BIDS WERE BEING REJECTED AND THAT THE PROCUREMENT WOULD BE READVERTISED. AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, ALTHOUGH THE BID OF YOUR DISTRIBUTOR WAS THE LOWEST RECEIVED UNDER THE INITIAL SOLICITATION, IT WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT IT OFFERED WAS NOT EQUAL TO THE BRAND NAME SPECIFIED THEREIN.

YOU STATE THAT SOLICITATION NO. -0807 CONTAINS A TABLE OF REQUIREMENTS BASICALLY THE SAME AS SPECIFIED IN THE PREVIOUS SOLICITATION, NO. -0176, EXCEPT FOR THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT UNDER PARAGRAPH 3.4.1 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS THAT THE BED WIDTH OF THE LATHE BE NOT LESS THAN 19-1/2 INCHES. YOU ALLEGE THAT THIS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT AS TO THE BED WIDTH PRECLUDES YOUR FIRM FROM COMPETITIVE BIDDING BECAUSE THE MONARCH SERIES 612 SIZE 2516 LATHE IS THE ONLY LATHE OF THIS BED WIDTH IN THIS CLASS OF MACHINE. YOU CONTEND THAT THE PROCURING ACTIVITY HAS CIRCUMVENTED THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASPR 1-1202 BY USING A PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INSTEAD OF MANDATORY SPECIFICATION MIL-L 23251A DATED APRIL 7, 1967. YOU QUESTION THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF IFB -0807 REPRESENT THE MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE USER AGENCY. ALSO, YOU MAINTAIN THAT THE 19-1/2-INCH BED WIDTH AND THE 7/8-INCH BY 1-3/4-INCH TOOL SHANK SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS 3.4.1 AND 3.5.6 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE FEATURES WHICH ARE EXCLUSIVELY THOSE OF THE MONARCH SERIES 612, SIZE 2516 LATHE, AND THAT SUCH FEATURES ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER MACHINE TOOL MANUFACTURERS OF A COMPARABLE SIZE LATHE.

THE BASES FOR NOT USING THE MILITARY SPECIFICATION TO WHICH YOU REFER ARE SET FORTH IN A MEMORANDUM DATED JULY 30, 1969, FROM THE CHIEF, TOOL AND EQUIPMENT DIVISION, ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL, WHICH READS, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS: "1. THE QUESTIONS WHICH REQUIRE ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION IN REFERENCE TO SUBJECT SOLICITATION COVERING FSN 3416-449 7192 LATHE HAVE BEEN GIVEN CAREFUL REVIEW AND COMMENTS ARE SUBMITTED HEREWITH.'2. IN REFERENCE TO WHY AND WHAT AREAS IN SPECIFICATION MIL-L 23251A ARE INADEQUATE FOR PROCUREMENT, THE SPECIFICS ARE AS STATED HEREIN.

"A. THE CITED SPECIFICATION WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR THIS PROCUREMENT DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE TECHNICAL INADEQUACIES AND GENERAL UNCLEARNESS.

"B. AREAS OF DISCREPANCIES OF THE SPECIFICATION ARE:

"PARA. 1.2 CLASSIFICATION: THE DEFINITION OF CLASSIFICATION IS NOT SPECIFIED. IT APPEARS AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE BY THE SPECIFICATION WRITER TO UTILIZE A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION RECOGNIZED BY THE LATHE INDUSTRY. HOWEVER, NO DEFINITION WAS STATED IN THE SPECIFICATION, AND WITHOUT DEFINITION THE CLASSIFICATION IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. TO PROVIDE THE DEFINITION NEEDED WOULD REQUIRE EXTENSIVE CHANGES TO THE CITED SPECIFICATION. IT IS NOTED THAT THE LUTHER AND PEDERSEN BID, DATED DECEMBER 10, 1968, QUOTED AMERICAN TOOL WORKS NUMBER 20D2 WHICH IS A 2013- 16 STYLE D RAISED LATHE AND IS NOT THE 2516 LATHE AS CITED FOR TYPE I ENGINE LATHES IN THE SPECIFICATION.

"C. FURTHER IN THIS CLASSIFICATION AREA, THE ONLY CLEAR DEFINITION OF CLASSIFICATION IS IN EACH MANUFACTURER'S CATALOG WHEREIN CLEAR TECHNICAL PARAMETERS ARE DELINEATED COVERING, E.G., 2516 LATHES. THIS IS IN FACT THE SAME CATEGORY OF LATHES NOW DELINEATED IN THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION.

"D. PARAS. 3.4.3 HEADSTOCK SPINDLE, 3.4.6 HEADSTOCK GEARS AND SHAFTS, 3.4.9 CROSS SLIDE AND COMPOUND, 3.4.10 CARRIAGE FEEDS, 3.4.11 TAILSTOCK AND 3.7.1 CENTER AND CENTER SLEEVE CONTAIN RESTRICTIVE DESIGN MATERIAL HARDNESS REQUIREMENTS.

"E. TABLE I (PAGE 8 OF THE SPECIFICATION) CITES TECHNICAL INADEQUACIES AND UNCLEARNESS OF BOTH CLASSES 1 AND 2 UNDER SIZE 2516, E.G., DIA OF THRU HOLE 2 INCHES SHOULD BE 2-1/16 INCHES; HEADSTOCK CENTER SIZE ASA 4 SHOULD BE 5; TAIL STOCK CENTER SIZE ASA 4 SHOULD BE 5; FACE PLATE DIA SM 10 SHOULD BE 12; FOLLOW REST CAPACITY RANGE 1-5 SHOULD BE 1-6.'3. REFERENCE TO WHY THE 19-1/2 INCH MINIMUM BED WIDTH WAS SPECIFIED IN SUBJECT IFB WHILE THE PRECEDING IFB'S APPARENTLY DID NOT STATE IT, THE SPECIFICS ARE AS STATED HEREIN.

"A. THE TWO PREVIOUS IFB'S DID IN FACT SPECIFY THE SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER'S (BY NAME) 2516 LATHE.

"B. THE DESIGNATED 2516 LATHE OF EACH MANUFACTURER: AMERICAN, LODGE AND SHIPLEY, AND MONARCH HAS THE FOLLOWING BED WIDTHS RESPECTIVELY: 20 INCH, 21-1/4 INCH AND 19-1/2 INCH.

"C. THE PURPOSE OF THE 19-1/2 INCH MINIMUM BED WIDTH WAS INCLUDED IN PURCHASE DESCRIPTION T-AND-E PD-65 TO PROVIDE FURTHER DEFINITION OF THE LATHE REQUIREMENTS, MAINTAINING, OF COURSE, THE SAME CATEGORY OF BASE LINE REQUIREMENTS (2516 LATHE) FOR THE UNDERSTANDABILITY OF ALL BIDDERS WHILE STILL COMPLYING WITH THE BASIC UNCHANGED ARMY USER NEEDS.'

IT IS FURTHER REPORTED THAT THE MILITARY SPECIFICATION TO WHICH YOU REFER WAS NOT USED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO INSURE THAT THE EQUIPMENT FURNISHED WOULD MEET THE MINIMUM ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. RATHER, IT WAS DETERMINED TO USE A PURCHASE DESCRIPTION SETTING FORTH THE MINIMUM ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS RATHER THAN TO EXTENSIVELY MODIFY THE MILITARY SPECIFICATION. IN FURTHER REGARD TO THE USE OF THE CITED MILITARY SPECIFICATION, THE ARMY STATES THAT THE EQUIPMENT PREVIOUSLY OFFERED BY YOUR DISTRIBUTOR, AMERICAN TOOL WORKS, MODEL NO. 20D2 IS A "2013-16 STYLE D RAISED LATHE" AND NOT THE 2516 LATHE AS CITED FOR TYPE I ENGINE LATHES IN THE REFERRED-TO MILITARY SPECIFICATION. THE CITED EQUIPMENT WOULD THEREFORE UNDOUBTEDLY BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE BY THE ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL IF OFFERED PURSUANT TO MILITARY SPECIFICATION MIL-L-23251A DATED APRIL 7, 1967, SIZE MACHINE 2516 CLASS I. THE ARMY STATES THAT THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION USED IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RESTRICTIVE AND DID NOT SET FORTH MINOR DESIGN DETAILS OR SPECIFY FEATURES PECULIAR TO A PARTICULAR MAKE OF EQUIPMENT AS YOU ALLEGE. MOREOVER, THE ARMY ADVISES THAT THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION WAS WRITTEN TO INCLUDE ALL MANUFACTURERS WITHOUT USING ONE MANUFACTURER'S 2516 DESIGNATION BY PROVIDING CLEAR DEFINITION OF ITEM REQUIREMENTS. AS AN EXAMPLE, IT CITES THE FOLLOWING PURCHASE DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS AND THE CORRESPONDING RESPECTIVE CAPABILITIES OF THE THREE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS: PURCHASE DESCRIPTION LODGE AND REQUIREMENT AMERICAN SHIPLEY MONARCH

-------------------- -------- --------- ------- SPINDLE SPEEDS, NUMBER 24

2724 36 SPINDLE SPEEDS, RANGE (RPM):

LOW, NOT MORE THAN 18 18 18 12

HIGH, NOT LESS THAN 1,000 1,200 1,000 1,500

BED WIDTH, IN INCHES:

NOT LESS THAN 19-1/2 20 20-1/4 19-1/2

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT SEEMS THAT THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION STATED THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE EQUIPMENT NEEDED BY THE USING ACTIVITY AS REQUIRED BY ASPR 1-1206.1. THAT REGULATION PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART WITH RESPECT TO DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES TO BE PURCHASED UNDER COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURES:

"/A) A PURCHASE DESCRIPTION MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF A SPECIFICATION WHEN AUTHORIZED BY 1-1202 (B) AND, SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTION ON REPETITIVE USE IN 1-1202 (B) (VII), WHERE NO APPLICABLE SPECIFICATION EXISTS. A PURCHASE DESCRIPTION SHOULD SET FORTH THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ITEMS OR MATERIALS REQUIRED. PURCHASE DESCRIPTIONS SHALL NOT BE WRITTEN SO AS TO SPECIFY A PRODUCT, OR A PARTICULAR FEATURE OF A PRODUCT, PECULIAR TO ONE MANUFACTURER AND THEREBY PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION OF A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY ANOTHER COMPANY UNLESS IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE PARTICULAR FEATURE IS ESSENTIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT SIMILAR PRODUCTS OF OTHER COMPANIES LACKING THE PARTICULAR FEATURE WOULD NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ITEM. * * *"

WHILE ASPR 1-1202 (A) PROVIDES THAT COORDINATED MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS ARE MANDATORY FOR USE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN THE PROCUREMENT OF SUPPLIES COVERED BY THAT SPECIFICATION, SUBSECTION ,C" OF THAT REGULATION PROVIDES THAT SUCH SPECIFICATION NEED NOT BE USED WHEN IT IS DETERMINED, AS HERE, THAT THE SPECIFICATION DOES NOT MEET THE PARTICULAR OR ESSENTIAL NEEDS OF THE AGENCY. SEE 43 COMP. GEN. 680, 681 (1964) AND 44 ID. 27, 31 (1964).

YOU ASSERT THAT THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION IN IFB -0807 IS RESTRICTIVE. THIS ASSERTION MAY BE TRUE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION IN THE CITED IFB MAY HAVE PRECLUDED YOUR FIRM FROM SUBMITTING A RESPONSIVE BID THROUGH YOUR DISTRIBUTOR WITHOUT CHANGING YOUR COMMERCIAL OR STANDARD EQUIPMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION. IN THIS SENSE, OF COURSE, ALL SPECIFICATIONS ARE RESTRICTIVE SINCE THE REQUIREMENTS THEY NECESSARILY ESTABLISH, WHETHER REASONABLE OR NOT, PRECLUDE THE PURCHASE OF NONCONFORMING ITEMS. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE UNITED STATES PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MERELY BECAUSE IT IS OFFERED AT A LOWER PRICE, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT REFERENCE TO THE PARTICULAR NEEDS TO BE SERVED; NOR IS THE GOVERNMENT TO BE PLACED IN THE POSITION OF ALLOWING BIDDERS TO DICTATE SPECIFICATIONS WHICH WILL PERMIT ACCEPTANCE OF EQUIPMENT WHICH DOES NOT, IN THE CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCY, REASONABLY MEET THE AGENCY'S NEED. 36 COMP. GEN. 251, 252 (1956); B-152861, APRIL 10, 1964.

ON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT RECORD, WE FIND NO LEGAL BASES TO OBJECT TO THE ACTION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN CANCELING IFB NO. -0176 OR TO AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO MONARCH MACHINE TOOL COMPANY UNDER IFB NO. 0807, IF OTHERWISE PROPER. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.