A firm protested the Panama Canal Commission's specifications under a solicitation for a tractor tugboat, contending that the specifications restricted competition since its tugboat engines could perform as well as, or better than, those required. GAO noted that: (1) the solicitation contained no provision that would permit an offerer to propose a tugboat with functionally equivalent engines; and (2) the Commission specified a particular engine to help maintain standardization for maintenance purposes. GAO held that: (1) the Commission had a legitimate need to standardize the equipment it used; (2) the protester failed to show that its alternatives would adequately meet the Commission's needs or that the specifications were unreasonable; and (3) the solicitation was competitive, since the Commission received seven offers. Accordingly, the protest was denied.
Skip to Highlights