Protest Allegations Involve Product Acceptability and Determination of Government's Minimum Needs

B-194763,B-195072: Aug 16, 1979

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

Tyco protested the procurement item description (PID) in a Defense Logistics Agency request for proposals. The PID identified a vibrator part manufactured by Midland Ross. Also, there was a clause in the request for proposals requiring firms offering to supply another manufacturer's part to show that the substitute part was either identical to or interchangeable with the part identified in the PID. Tyco contended that it had in the past supplied an acceptable vibrator which should have been identified in the PID as acceptable without further substantiation. In addition, Tyco stated that the vibrator manufactured by Midland Ross is a solid state device while the Government's identification number used in the PID refers to a reed-type vibrator. GAO agreed with Tyco to the extent that a solid state vibrator should not be procured by reference to a control number that identifies only reed-type vibrators. Nevertheless, it was held that Tyco was not predjudiced by such inconsistency, since the record indicated that the involved agency considers the Midland Ross part to be interchangeable with a reed-type vibrator and the solicitation provided for acceptance of parts shown to be interchangeable. Tyco's protest also questioned the Government's minimum needs as required in the request for proposals. GAO responded by stating that the determination of the Government's minimum needs is a responsibility of the contracting agency and these decisions will not be questioned unless clearly shown to be unreasonable. In addition, Tyco contended that personnel at the procuring activity improperly used and disclosed Tyco's trade secrets and proprietary drawings in violation of certain criminal statutes and standards of conduct. This contention was not considered since allegations of imprpoper conduct by procuring officials should be referred to the Justice Department.

Mar 22, 2018

Mar 20, 2018

Mar 19, 2018

  • Ampcus, Inc.
    We deny the protest.
  • AMAR Health IT, LLC
    We dismiss the protest because our Office does not have jurisdiction to entertain protests of task orders issued under civilian agency multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts that are valued at less than $10 million.
  • Centurum, Inc.--Costs
    We grant the request.

Mar 15, 2018

  • ORBIS Sibro, Inc.
    We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part.

Mar 14, 2018

Mar 13, 2018

  • Interoperability Clearinghouse
    We dismiss the protest because the protester, a not-for-profit entity, is not an interested party to challenge this sole-source award to an Alaska Native Corporation under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program.

Looking for more? Browse all our products here