About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-274748.3 1 (1997-05-05)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptafra0001 and id is 1 raw text is: oComptroller General of the United States Washington, D.C. 20548 Decision Matter of: National Aeronautics and Space Administration-- Reconsideration and Modification of Remedy File: B-274748.3 Date: May 5, 1997 Andrew Mohr, Esq., Cohen & White, for the protester. Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., and Thomas W. Berndt, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Although Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, dealing with purchases of commercial products, permits requirements to be stated in broad functional or performance terms instead of in detailed specifications, it requires a contracting agency to describe its need for commercial items in sufficient detail for potential offerors of commercial items to know which commercial products or services to offer, such that a solicitation is flawed where it does not include sufficient information to allow commercial vendors to understand the agency's requirements. DECISION The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) requests reconsideration of our decision Access Logic. Inc., B-274748; B-274748.2, Jan. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD 36, in which we sustained the protest of Access Logic, Inc. against the award of a contract to EISI, Inc., under request for offers (RFO) No. 2-36632 (CDT), issued by NASA for a 360-degree rear projection display system which will be used to simulate the outside view from an air traffic control tower. NASA also requests that we modify our recommendation that NASA terminate the contract and resolicit with an appropriate statement of the agency's needs. We affirm the decision, but modify the recommendation. Among other items, the RFO specified projection systems and projection screens by brand name and indicated that equal products would be considered. Instead of the brand name projection system and screens, Access Logic proposed equal projectors and screens. Access Logic's proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable. Among other alleged flaws, NASA's evaluators concluded that Access Logic's offer did not meet solicitation requirements for mullions, or spacers between 902312