B-198055, JUN 11, 1980

B-198055, JUN 11, 1980

DIGEST: AGENCY DETERMINATION TO REJECT LOW QUOTATION IS NOT UNREASONABLE WHERE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT OFFEROR DID NOT SUBMIT ADEQUATE TECHNICAL DATA TO DEMONSTRATE THAT PART OFFERED AS SUBSTITUTE FOR SPECIFIED PART WAS FUNCTIONALLY, PHYSICALLY, MECHANICALLY AND ELECTRICALLY INTERCHANGEABLE AS REQUIRED BY REQUEST FOR QUOTATION.

FIL-COIL COMPANY, INC.:

FIL-COIL COMPANY, INC. (FIL-COIL) PROTESTS THE PURCHASE OF 17 RADIO FREQUENCY FILTERS FROM STEWART-WARNER CORPORATION (STEWART) UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) DLA 900-80-T-6345 ISSUED BY THE DEFENSE ELECTRONICS SUPPLY CENTER (DESC), UNDER THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL PURCHASE PROCEDURES OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATION (DAR) SEC. 3-600 ET SEQ. (1976 ED.). FIL- COIL SUBMITTED THE LOW QUOTATION AT $326.50, BUT DESC PURCHASED THE FILTERS FROM STEWART AT $475.18 PER UNIT AFTER IT DETERMINED THAT THE FIL- COIL PART WAS TECHNICALLY UNACCEPTABLE. WE DENY THE PROTEST.

THE RADIO FREQUENCY FILTER IS AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR USED FOR IDENTIFYING AND CONTROLLING AIRCRAFT AT MILITARY AIRFIELDS. THE ONLY TECHNICAL DATA AVAILABLE FOR THIS ITEM WAS A 1971 ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION DRAWING. ZENITH WAS THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER FOR THE RADAR SYSTEM TRANSMITTER WHICH INCLUDES THE FILTER AS A COMPONENT. ZENITH LATER SOLD ITS PRODUCT LINE FOR THE RADAR SYSTEM TO STEWART, AND SUBSEQUENT PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE FROM STEWART UNDER THE SMALL PURCHASE PROCEDURES.

THE RFQ REQUESTED QUOTATIONS FOR STEWART PART NUMBER (P/N) 95G3253-1 1, BUT PERMITTED OFFERORS TO QUOTE ON PARTS WHICH WERE "FUNCTIONALLY, PHYSICALLY, MECHANICALLY AND ELECTRICALLY INTERCHANGEABLE" WITH THE STEWART PART. IN THE LATTER CASE, THE RFQ REQUIRED OFFERORS TO SUBMIT COMPLETE TECHNICAL DATA FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES. FIL-COIL OFFERED ITS P/N FC543 BUT DID NOT FURNISH ANY DATA WITH ITS QUOTATION TO ESTABLISH THAT ITS ITEM WAS EQUIVALENT TO THE STEWART UNIT. IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM DESC, FIL-COIL ALLEGEDLY PROVIDED A COPY OF SHEET 1 OF THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ZENITH DRAWING, REVISION H, DATED AUGUST 1972. ALTHOUGH DESC HAD PAGE 2 OF THIS DRAWING, DESC DETERMINED THAT THIS PARTIAL DATA WAS TOTALLY INADEQUATE TO ESTABLISH THAT FIL-COIL'S P/N FC543 WAS EQUIVALENT TO STEWART'S. FIL-COIL DISPUTES THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION IN THIS REGARD AND ASSERTS THAT IT SUBMITTED PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE ZENITH DRAWING, NOT ONLY PAGE 1 AS CLAIMED BY THE AGENCY. WE NEED NOT RESOLVE THIS ISSUE, HOWEVER, SINCE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT EVEN THE COMPLETE ZENITH DRAWING DID NOT ADEQUATELY SHOW THAT THE FIL-COIL PART IS "FUNCTIONALLY, PHYSICALLY, MECHANICALLY AND ELECTRICALLY INTERCHANGEABLE" WITH THE SPECIFIED PART.

IN THIS RESPECT THE PROTESTER CONCEDES THAT IT DID NOT SUBMIT INFORMATION TO DESC REGARDING EITHER THE ZENITH QUALITY ASSURANCE SPECIFICATION (WHICH WAS REFERENCED ON PAGE 1 OF THE ZENITH DRAWING IT SUBMITTED) OR INFORMATION INDICATING THAT THE CIRCUIT SCHEMATIC FOR ITS PART FC543 HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO QUALITY ASSURANCE INSPECTION APPROVAL UNDER NOTE 6.2 OF THE ZENITH DRAWING. WHILE THE PROTESTER CORRECTLY POINTS OUT THAT DESC NEVER REQUESTED THIS INFORMATION, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ZENITH DRAWING FIL-COIL SUBMITTED INDICATED THAT THEY WERE NECESSARY FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION. IN THIS CONNECTION, DESC REPORTS THAT THIS DATA WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT THIS KIND OF INFORMATION IS ESSENTIAL TO ENSURE A PROPERLY FUNCTIONING COMPONENT IN THE RADAR SYSTEM. THE PROTESTER DOES NOT DISPUTE THIS ASSERTION OR OFFER ANY EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE AGENCY'S POSITION.

GENERALLY, THE PROCURING AGENCY PRIMARILY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING DATA SUPPLIED AND ASCERTAINING IF IT PROVIDES SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DETERMINE THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE ITEM OFFERED, AMPERIF CORPORATION, B-193414, OCTOBER 1, 1979, 79-2 CPD 232, AND WE WILL NOT DISTURB THESE TECHNICAL DETERMINATIONS UNLESS THE PROTESTER SHOWS THEY ARE UNREASONABLE. SCHOTTEL OF AMERICA, INC., B-190322, FEBRUARY 15, 1978, 78-1 CPD 130.

IN OUR VIEW THE PROTESTER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE TECHNICAL DATA IT SUBMITTED DEMONSTRATED THAT ITS PART WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF STEWART'S, I.E., THAT IT WAS "COMPLETE" AS REQUIRED BY THE RFQ.

THE PROTEST IS DENIED.