______________________________
 
                       DENIED:  December 16, 1993
                     ______________________________
 
 
 
                             GSBCA 12637-P
 
 
                          RMTC SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
               INTERNATIONAL DATA PRODUCTS, CORPORATION,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
        Jeff Stollman, President of RMTC Systems, Inc., Boulder, CO,
   appearing for Protester.  
 
        Col. Riggs L. Wilks, Jr.,  Maj. Charles R. Marvin, Jr., Maj.
   Karl M. Ellcessor, III,  and Capt. Gerald P. Kohns, Office of the
   Chief  Trial Attorney,  Department of  the  Army, Arlington,  VA,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
        D.  Oscar  Fuster,  Vice  President  of  International  Data
   Products,   Corporation,   Gaithersburg,    MD,   appearing   for
   Intervenor.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), HENDLEY, and HYATT.
 
   HYATT, Board Judge.
 
        RMTC Systems, Inc. has protested  the award of a contract by
   respondent, the  Department of the  Army, for the  acquisition of
   automatic data processing (ADP) peripherals to upgrade Unisys 386
   personal  computers.  The  contract was awarded  to International
   Data  Products,   Corporation   (IDP),  based   on   the   Army's
   determination  that  IDP  was the  low  cost,  responsive bidder.
   RMTC's protest takes issue with the Army's determination that its
   lower-priced bid was nonresponsive.  For the following reasons we
   deny the protest.
 
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
        1.   Invitation for  bids (IFB) number  DASG62-93-B-0017 was
   issued  by  the  U.S.  Army Space  Command  in  Colorado Springs,
   Colorado  on August  25, 1993.   The solicitation  sought various
   computer peripheral components, on  a brand name or equal  basis,
   for the purpose of upgrading Unisys 386 personal computers, model
   number  PW820-COP.   The cover  page  of the  IFB identified  the
   procurement as a one hundred percent small business set-aside and
   directed the attention of potential bidders to the "Brand Name or
   Equal" clause in Section L.  Protest File, Exhibit 3. 
 
   Relevant Solicitation Clauses
 
        2.  The  "Brand Name or Equal" clause in Section L stated as
   follows:
 
        (a)  If items in  this solicitation  are identified  as
        "brand name  or  equal," the  term  is intended  to  be
        descriptive not restrictive.  The "brand name or equal"
        [term]  is  used  to portray  the  characteristics  and
        levels of quality that will satisfy the  Government[']s
        needs.   The  salient physical,  functional, and  other
        characteristics which "equal" products must meet  [are]
        specified in the solicitation.
 
        (b)  To be  considered  for award,  offers  of  "equal"
        products,  including products  (other  than the  "brand
        name" item) of the brand name manufacturer, must --
 
             (1)   Meet  the salient physical,  functional, and
             other    characteristics    specified    in   this
             solicitation;
 
             (2)  Clearly identify the item by --
 
                  (i)  Brand name, if any; by --
 
                  (ii)  Make or model number;
 
             (3)  Include descriptive literature such  as cuts,
             illustrations, drawings,  or a clear  reference to
             previously   furnished    descriptive   data    or
             information available to  the Contracting Officer;
             and
 
             (4)  Clearly   describe   any   modifications  the
             Offeror  plans   to   make  it   conform  to   the
             solicitation requirements.   Mark  any descriptive
             literature to clearly show the modifications.
 
        (c)    The  Contracting Officer  will  evaluate "equal"
        products on the  basis of information furnished  by the
        Offeror  or  identified  in the  offer  and  reasonably
        available to the Contracting Officer.  The  Contracting
        Officer is not responsible for locating or securing any
        information   not  identified  in  the  offer  and  not
        reasonably available.  
 
        (d)   Unless the Offeror clearly indicates in the offer
        that the product  being offered is an  "equal" product,
        the  Contracting Officer  will  consider the  offer  as
        offering  a  brand  name   product  referenced  in  the
        solicitation.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 3 at L-2.
 
        3.  Section M states the following evaluation procedure:
 
        The  Government will award a contract to the responsive
        bidder  whose bid, conforming to the solicitation, will
        be the most advantageous to  the Government considering
        only price and price-related factors.  
 
   This paragraph also refers the reader to a provision in section L
   entitled "Contract Award  --  Commercial Items."  This  provision
   states:
 
             (a)  The   Government  will  evaluate   offers  in
        response to invitations for bid without discussions and
        will  award a contract to the responsible offeror whose
        offer,  conforming to  the solicitation,  will be  most
        advantageous to the  Government considering only  price
        and  the   price-related  factors   specified  in   the
        solicitation.
 
             . . . . 
 
             (d) The Government may accept any item or group of
        items of  an offer,  unless the  offeror qualifies  the
        offer  by  specific   limitations.    Unless  otherwise
        provided in the  schedule, offers may be  submitted for
        quantities less than  those specified.  The  Government
        reserves  the right to make an  award on any item for a
        quantity less  than  the quantity  offered, unless  the
        offeror specifies otherwise on the offer.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 3 at L-2, M-1.
 
        4.  The specifications establishing  salient characteristics
   for  the  items specified  by  brand  name  and part  number  are
   contained in Section C of the invitation:
 
             The offeror shall provide components in accordance
        with  the  "Brand  Name or  Equal"  criteria,  with the
 
        following   minimum  salient   characteristics.     All
        components must be 100 percent compatible with a Unisys
        386 personal computer, model number PW820-Cop.
 
             1)  3.5"/5.25" Dual Floppy Drive Combination.
 
             2)    Two  (2)  button   serial  mouse,  Microsoft
             compatible.
 
             3)    Orchid  Pro Designer  23  VGA  Crd, 1024x768
             resolution,  1MB RAM,  8  bit,  and  must  be  100
             percent compatible with ERDAS software version 7.5
             for VGA systems.
 
             4)  QuarterDeck QEMM 386 6.0.
 
             5)    21  inch   Multi-Sync  Color  Monitor,  non-
             interlaced with 1280 x 1024 resolution
 
             6)    1.3GB 3.5  inch 10ms  256KB Cache  SCSI hard
             drive.
 
             7)   ISA  compatible SCSI  Controller  to be  100%
             compatible with 1.3BGB 3.5 inch SCSI internal hard
             drive.
 
             8)  Universal Frame Kit for a 3.5 inch 1.3  GB internal
             SCSI hard  drive to fit  a 5.25 inch  bay for a  Unisys
             PW820-COP PC.
 
             9)  300 watt uninterruptible power supply.
 
             10)  Tecmar QT 250 ES 250MB External SCSI tape drive.
 
             11)   ISA  SCSI  Adapter.   Item  must  be 100  percent
             compatible with Tecmar  QT ES 250MB External  SCSI Tape
             Drive.
 
             12)   250  MB  .25 inch  tape  cassette.   Must  be 100
             percent  compatible with  Tecmar 250MB  QT ES  External
             SCSI Tape Drive.
 
             13)  SYSTOS Plus for DOS.
 
             14)  MS-DOS 6.0 Upgrade.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 3 at C-1 through C-2.
 
        5.  Correlating  to the specifications, section B of the IFB
   sets  forth fifteen contract  line item numbers  (CLINs), listing
   the desired  computer components by  brand name and  part number.
   Each CLIN includes  a space for the offeror to  list the specific
   item actually bid (whether the brand name or an "equal").  In the
   event an equal  was bid, a space  is provided for the  offeror to
   enter the manufacturer's name, model  number, and part number, as
   required  under  the   Brand  Name   or  Equal   Clause  of   the
   solicitation.   In addition, the IFB specifies quantities desired
   and a  unit designation for each CLIN, with  space to list a unit
   price and  an extended total price for  each CLIN.  Protest File,
   Exhibit 3.
 
   RMTC's Bid
 
 
        6.  RMTC's submission contained a  primary bid, with certain
   alternates and options.   The bid was accompanied  by explanatory
   "NOTES" contained in a cover  letter.  The various alternates and
   options were  commingled in  Section B with  RMTC's primary  bid,
   which the Army  surmised to be the items and  prices indicated in
   the spaces provided on the form.  Protest File, Exhibits 6, 8.
 
        7.  In its primary  bid, RMTC offered  the brand name  items
   for CLINs 0001, 0003, 0004, 0006,  0008, and 0009.  RMTC did  not
   specify any specific item in its primary bid for CLIN 0011, which
   sought an ISA SCSI adapter for the specified tape drive.  Rather,
   the bid indicates that this item  is included in CLIN 0007.   The
   Notes appended to RMTC's cover letter indicate that RMTC proposes
   the following items:  "11  ISA  host adapter for tape drive," and
   state the following about this item:
 
        Either tape  drive can  be run off  the same  SCSI host
        adapter already provided in CLIN 0007 for the hard disk
        drive.  A second host adapter is not required.
 
        In case a second host adapter is desired, RMTC offers a
        second Adaptec 1520 as a added cost option.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 6.  For CLIN 0011  in Section B of its bid,
   RMTC wrote  "ALTERNATE:   ADD'L SCSI ADAPTER"  and listed  a unit
   price  of $75.   No  descriptive literature  for this  adapter is
   included with  the bid, either  for CLIN  0007 or for  CLIN 0011,
   despite the fact that it is offered as an "equal" product in both
   CLINs.  
 
        8.  Protester's  bid offered items other than the brand name
   specified  for CLIN 0002 (mouse),  CLIN 0005 (monitor), CLIN 0007
   (SCSI hard drive controller), CLIN 0010 (250 MB SCSI tape drive),
   CLIN  0012 (tapes for SCSI tape drive), and CLIN 0013 (tape drive
   software).   Protest File, Exhibit 6.   No descriptive literature
   for any of these items accompanied RMTC's bid.  
 
        9.  In response to CLINs  0002 (MS serial mouse  version 2.0
   or equal) and 0005 (NEC  21" multi-sync color monitor, model 6FG)
   neither  the  bid  nor  the  notes submitted  by  RMTC  listed  a
   manufacturer or  model  number  for the  "equal"  product  to  be
   provided.   For CLIN 0002  RMTC offered an "MS  compatible mouse"
   and for CLIN 0005 RMTC offered an "RMTC 21" 1280 X 1024 NI."  The
   notes merely stated  that RMTC would  provide products which  met
   the specified salient characteristics.  Protest File, Exhibit 6.
 
         10.  With   respect   to   several  CLINs,   RMTC   offered
   "alternate" products.  In addition  to CLIN 0011 (see finding 9),
   under CLIN 0010, for its  "primary" bid, RMTC offered the Archive
   2150S as the "equal" to  the specified tape drive (Tecmar QT  250
   ES External  250MG SCSI tape drive).   In its notes, with respect
   to CLIN 0010, RMTC stated, however:
 
        The RMTC  external 250 MB SCSI tape  drive includes the
        following features:
 
             i.   tape capacity:  150/250 MB
             ii.  tape format: QIC,150 (same as Tecmar QT)
             iii. tape cartridge type:  DC6150/DC6250 QIC
             iv.  supported by SYSTOS Plus for DOS hardware
             (for interchangeability with tapes from Tecmar)
             v.   external chassis with SCSI port
             vi.  SCSI cable
 
        RMTC also offers  the Tecmar make and  model tape drive
        as an added cost alternate.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 6.
 
        11.  Under CLIN  0013, Section B of RMTC's  bid lists SYSTOS
   PLUS FOR DOS FOR RMTC TAPE DRIVE" as the offered product, despite
   the failure to list an "RMTC" tape drive anywhere else in Section
   B, or otherwise indicate any relation between the RMTC tape drive
   and the Archive 2150S tape drive offered in CLIN 0010.  Under the
   same  CLIN,  RMTC's bid  also contained  the entry:   "ALTERNATE:
   SYSTOS PLUS  FOR DOS TECHMAR [sic]  TAPE DRIVE."  In  contrast to
   other alternate entries  in RMTC's bid, there is  no price listed
   for the  Tecmar software, nor  do RMTC's notes indicate  that the
   products were  being offered  at the same  price.   RMTC did  not
   expressly offer  Systos Plus for  DOS for the Archive  2150S tape
   drive either in Section B of the bid or in the notes accompanying
   the bid.
 
        12.  Under CLIN  0012 (calling  for DC-6250  250MB tape  for
   Tecmar QT 250  ES external SCSI tape drive), Section B of the bid
   lists  "DYSAN  DY6250"   as  the  offered  product.     The  only
   description of this  product provided by RMTC is  in the bidder's
   notes, which stated  merely that "RMTC will  provide DC6250 style
   QIC cartridges that  are fully compatible with both  the RMTC and
   Tecmar tape drives."  Protest File, Exhibit 6.
 
   Evaluation and Contract Award
 
        13.    At  the  direction  of  the  contracting officer,  an
   information systems management specialist reviewed  the three low
   bidders'  submissions   for  responsiveness   to  the   technical
   requirements  of the solicitation.   He identified  the following
   areas in  which he concluded the RMTC bid  did not conform to the
   requirements of the solicitation:
 
        a.     RMTC  Systems   Incorporated  did  not   provide
        descriptive literature, just contractor's notes.
 
             . . .
 
             (2.)  Item # 2. No idea what manufacturer, make or
        model will be provided.   Offeror stated a mouse  would
        be provided.
 
             . . .
 
             (5.)  Item  # 5.  No manufacturer,  make, or model
        provided.
 
             . . .
 
             (7.)    Item  #  7.    Bid  Adaptec  Model   1520.
        Government requirement  was for an  Adaptec model 1540.
        The model 1520 is not equivalent:
 
                  (a)  The  1540 has bus mastering  capability,
        5MB/second  data transfer  rate,  supports disk  drives
        over 1 gigabyte, and  interrupts/addresses are software
        configured.
 
                  (b)    The  1520:    (i)  does  not  have bus
        mastering  capability;  (ii)  has  a  3MB/second   data
        transfer  rate;  (iii)  supports disk  drives  up  to 1
        gigabyte;  and,  (iv) interrupts/addresses  are  jumper
        configured.
 
             . . .
 
             (10.)  Item # 10.   Confusion on what's being bid.
        Contractor's  section   B  states   ARCHIVE  2150S   or
        alternate Techmar QT-250ES.  Contractor's letter states
        RMTC brand.
 
             (11.)  Item # 11.   Offeror advises that this item
        is  not  required   with  his  proposed  configuration,
        however, if we need it he will provide one, but doesn't
        state what "one" he will provide.
 
             (12.)   Item  # 12.    No descriptive  literature.
        Unable to determine equivalence.
 
             (13.)  Item # 13.  See comment on number 10.  Have
        no idea what he's bidding on.
 
             (14.)  Item # 14.  Unclear what he's bidding on.
 
   As a  result, the  specialist recommended award  to the  next low
   bidder, IDP,  which offered  all  brand name  products.   Protest
   File, Exhibit 8. 
 
        14.  The  award  to IDP  was  made  on September  30,  1993.
   Protest File, Exhibit 7.  In a  letter dated October 1, 1993, the
   contracting officer informed RMTC that its bid had  been rejected
   as nonresponsive because  "it failed to conform to  the essential
   requirements  of  the  solicitation" and  it  "failed  to provide
   adequate descriptive  literature for  all items  pursuant to  the
   requirements of  the  Brand Name  or Equal  provision."   Protest
   File, Exhibit 9.
 
                               Discussion
 
        The  Army's  principal  contention is  that  RMTC,  in those
   instances where it  did not offer the brand  name product, either
   did not identify the manufacturer or model number for those items
   or  did   not  provide   sufficient  information   to  permit   a
   determination that the product offered  was an "equal," or  both.
   The Army  argues that the  "notes" appended to RMTC's  bid, which
   did little more than parrot  the specifications, did not cure the
   lack  of descriptive  data.   In  several  instances, the  agency
   further urges, discrepancies between the bid as stated in Section
   B, when compared to RMTC's notes, resulted in ambiguity either as
   to the product offered or price.  Thus, the Army maintains, since
   the Government evaluator  was not able  to verify whether  RMTC's
   bid actually  complied with  the specifications  in all  material
   respects, the bid was properly rejected as nonresponsive.
     
        RMTC disagrees, asserting  that the technical  evaluator did
   not  need make and model information to determine responsiveness.
   In   addition,   RMTC   contends   that   the   ambiguities   and
   inconsistencies  asserted by the Army are  without merit and that
   its bid contained sufficient information, when construed in light
   of  "commonly  understood  industry  standards,"  to  support the
   conclusion that the bid was responsive.[foot #] 1
 
        The test of  responsiveness is not  "whether the offeror  is
   objectively capable  of meeting  the Government's  requirements,"
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1   This protest was submitted for decision  on the
   record.    Rule   11.    The  Board's  order   scheduling  record
   submissions  provided  that evidentiary  submissions  were to  be
   exchanged one week prior to the briefs.  Protester, in submitting
   its brief,  included  an affidavit  and a  letter concerning  the
   Microsoft mouse.   The  Army moved to  strike these  materials as
   untimely   submitted.      Protester  responded   that   it   had
   misunderstood the significance of the Board's order providing for
   a prior  exchange of  evidentiary materials,  and indicated  that
   certain information had not been available earlier.  In addition,
   protester noted that  the Army had been alerted  to the substance
   of these materials.  Although the Army's motion is well-taken, we
   conclude that the error appears to  have been made in good  faith
   and the materials submitted are  such that respondent will not be
   prejudiced  by their  inclusion as  part  of the  record in  this
   protest.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   but rather "whether it has  represented in its offer that  it can
   and will do so."   Memopro Inc., GSBCA 8264-P, 86-1 BCA   18,702,
   1986 BPD   6.  This test imposes an affirmative obligation on the
   bidder   to  demonstrate   equivalency;  blanket   statements  of
   compliance are inadequate:
 
 
        To be responsive to a brand name or equal solicitation,
        bids  offering  equal  products  must  conform  to  the
        salient  characteristics of  the  brand name  equipment
        listed  in the solicitation.  Tri Tool, Inc., B-233153,
        Jan. 25,  1989, 89-1  CPD   84.   A bidder  must submit
        with  its  bid  sufficient  descriptive  literature  to
        establish  that  its offered  equal  product is  either
        identical  or equal to the  brand name product.  Astro-
        Med, Inc., B-233695.2,  June 12, 1989, 89-1  CPD   552.
        If  the solicitation or  other information available to
        the contracting activity does  not show compliance with
        the  solicitation   requirements,  the   bid  must   be
        rejected.   HEDCO, Hughes Electronic Devices  Corp., B-
        221332,  Apr. 7,  1986,  86-1  CPD    339.    Moreover,
        blanket statements of compliance or the bidder's belief
        that its  product is  functionally equal  to the  brand
        name product are not enough; rather, the protester must
        affirmatively  demonstrate  the  equivalency.    AZTEK,
        Inc., B-229897, Mar. 25, 1988, 88-1 CPD   308.  
 
   BRS & Associates, Inc., B-236883, 89-2 CPD   539 (Dec. 11, 1989),
   at 2.
 
   In this case,  with respect to several of the  "equal" items bid,
   RMTC simply  did not  provide enough  information to  demonstrate
   that the item was functionally equivalent to the name brand.  See
   RMTC Systems,  Inc., GSBCA 11450-P,  92-1 BCA   24,592,  1991 BPD
     315.
 
   The Microsoft Compatible Serial Mouse
 
        RMTC  did  not  provide  any  brand   name,  make  or  model
   information,  or descriptive  literature  regarding its  proposed
   mouse.    In  Section  B,  for CLIN  0002,  RMTC  offered  an "MS
   compatible mouse."  In its  notes, protester stated solely that a
   "Microsoft  compatible serial  mouse with  at  least two  buttons
   would be  provided."  Finding  9.   At  the same time,  the Brand
   Name  or Equal  Clause required that  bidders clearly  identify a
   proposed "equal" item by brand name, if any, and by make or model
   number,  and   supply  descriptive  literature.     Although  the
   requirement  for   brand  name  information  is   qualified,  the
   requirement   for  make  or  model  information  and  descriptive
   literature is not.  Finding 2.  
 
        The absence of any information  informing the Army as to the
   actual  mouse that  would be  supplied  prevented an  independent
   determination of  RMTC's proposed product's  compliance with  the
   salient  characteristics.   It  was not  sufficient  for RMTC  to
   promise to provide a mouse  that met the salient characteristics.
   RMTC  Systems, 92-1  BCA at  122,703, 1991  BPD   315,  at  7 (by
   offering  an "Intel  compatible" processor  in  response to  name
   brand  or  equal  solicitation calling  for  Intel  processor and
   providing no  detail of  what processor  would be supplied,  RMTC
   "t[ook]  . . . exception to a solicitation requirement").  As the
   Board  has  previously explained,  the Government  must determine
   whether  a bidder's  offer  complies  with  specifications  in  a
   solicitation:
 
 
        The need for verification derives from the fact that an
        offer  of an  item by  reference  to a  make and  model
        delimits   the  bidder's   performance  obligation   to
        furnishing  the specific item offered.  In other words,
        it is  the Government's  burden to  determine from  the
        literature  furnished with the  bid whether or  not the
        item    is     consistent    with     the    functional
        specifications. . . . 
 
   Rocky Mountain Trading  Co., GSBCA 8941-P,  87-2 BCA   19,841  at
   100,414, 1987  BPD   81, at  5-6; see  also Smith-Midland  Corp.,
   B-252394.2,  93-2 CPD   50  (Jul. 23, 1993)  (procuring agency is
   responsible for  evaluating the  required descriptive  literature
   submitted  by offerors  of  equal items  and  ascertaining if  it
   provides sufficient information to determine whether the  offered
   items are in  fact equal to the  brand name products).   The Army
   properly concluded that this item as bid was nonresponsive.
 
   The Multi-Sync Color Monitor
 
        CLIN  0005 called for  a "NEC 21"  multi-sync color monitor,
   model 6FG."   Findings 4, 9.  RMTC responded in Section B that it
   would provide an "RMTC 21" 1280 X 1024" monitor.  In its notes it
   stated that  the monitor  provided would  feature the  resolution
   required in the  specifications.  Finding 9.   As in the  case of
   the  mouse, protester offered  no specific model  or manufacturer
   information  or descriptive literature.  Protester argues, in its
   brief and  evidentiary submissions,  that information  such as  a
   manufacturer's  name  and  model  number  is  not  material to  a
   determination of whether functional specifications are met.
 
        This  argument is  no more  persuasive  in the  case of  the
   monitor  than  it was  with  respect  to  the mouse.    Protester
   vigorously  argues that this  information should not  be required
   because the  manufacturer of  the monitors  it purchases  through
   distributors is often unknown.   This is beside  the point.   The
   information is required by the clause.  Moreover, protester could
   have, but did not, submit descriptive literature.  In the absence
   of any information  that would permit the contracting  officer to
   reach an informed conclusion that the product offered was "equal"
   to the specified  brand name item, respondent's  rejection of the
   bid was  proper.  RMTC  Systems, Inc. v. Defense  Mapping Agency,
   GSBCA 12636-P (Dec. 16, 1993).
   The Hard Disk Drive Adapter
 
 
        RMTC also claims that the Army erred in determining that the
   product  proposed under  CLIN 0007,  the  Adaptec 1520  hard disk
   drive adapter,  was not  "equal" to  the Adaptec 1540  controller
   specified in that  CLIN.  The Army counters  that the contracting
   officer,  relying on  information  provided  by  RMTC  and  other
   information reasonably available, was unable to determine whether
   the Adaptec 1520 met the salient specification.   
 
        CLIN 0007 calls for an "Adaptec SCSI Controller, Model 1540,
   GTSI P/N 899-278,  or equal."  Section C of the IFB, which listed
   the  minimum salient characteristics, required an "ISA Compatible
   SCSI Controller  to be 100%  compatible with 1.3GB 3.5  inch SCSI
   internal  hard drive."  (emphasis  added).    In  response,  RMTC
   offered  an "Adaptec 1520."  No descriptive literature concerning
   this  product was provided by RMTC, but in its notes RMTC vaguely
   suggested that this  adapter was "capable of supporting . . . the
   offered  Conner internal  hard  disk  drive .  .  . ."  (emphasis
   added).[foot #] 2
 
        The  Brand Name  or Equal  Clause  requires the  contracting
   officer to "evaluate 'equal' products on the basis of information
   furnished  by  the  offeror  or   identified  in  the  offer  and
   reasonably available  to the  Contracting Officer."   The  Clause
   does not require the contracting officer to "locat[e] or secur[e]
   any  information not  identified  in  the  offer  and  reasonably
   available."   Finding 2.
 
        Applying  the  information  available  to  him,  the  Army's
   technical evaluator concluded that the 1520 was not equivalent to
   the 1540:  
 
        (a)  The 1540  has  bus  mastering  capability;  has  a
             3MB/second     data     transfer      rate     and
             interrupts/addresses are software configured.
 
        (b)  The  1520:    (i)  does  not  have  bus  mastering
             capability; (ii)  has a  3MB/second data  transfer
             rate; (iii) supports disk drives up to 1 gigabyte;
             and,   (iv)   interrupts/addresses    are   jumper
             configured.
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 2   RMTC's  departure from the precise  language of
   Section C's  requirement is notable  for two reasons.   First, in
   response  to nearly  every  other CLIN,  RMTC exactly  mimics the
   language of the salient characteristics.  Thus, its failure to do
   so  here  appears   to  be  significant.    Second,  "capable  of
   supporting"  is   not   necessarily  the   equivalent  of   "100%
   compatibility."   Quite possibly  a device  could be  "capable of
   supporting" another and yet  not be 100% compatible with it.   At
   the least, "capable of supporting" is unclear and ambiguous.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   Finding 13. 
 
 
        We conclude that the Army properly determined, on  the basis
   of the information it had, that the Adaptec  1520 was not "equal"
   to the  Adaptec 1540 for purposes of  this procurement.  This was
   based on  the Army's  conclusion, undisputed  by any  information
   provided with RMTC's bid, that RMTC's offered  product could only
   support   1GB  of   the  1.3   GB   hard  disk   drive.[foot #] 3
   Although RMTC  elucidates in its  brief that the Adaptec  1520 it
   offered  is bundled  with software  that enables  the product  to
   support disk drives  that are larger than one  gigabyte, there is
   no  reference  to  this  software in  its  bid  or  in the  notes
   provided.[foot #] 4     Again,  it   is   immaterial  that   RMTC
   can show,  in this protest, that  the product would have  met the
   Government's  specification.  RMTC  did not meet  its affirmative
   obligation  to supply  the information  necessary  to enable  the
   Government to determine  that this was the case.   The Government
   need not risk "acceptance of specifically named products which do
   not  meet its  specifications."   Rocky  Mountain  Trading Co.  -
   Systems Division, GSBCA 10163-P,  90-1 BCA   22,281,  at 111,922,
   1989 BPD   276,  at 7; see Discount Machinery  & Equipment, Inc.,
   B-252889, 93-2 CPD   59 (Jul. 27, 1993) (bid of equal items under
   brand  name or  equal IFB  is nonresponsive  where bid  failed to
   include sufficient  descriptive literature  to demonstrate  equal
   items   complied   with   salient   characteristics   listed   in
   solicitation). 
 
        Although the Army has raised other, less significant, points
   concerning this bid,  based on the deficiencies  discussed above,
   we conclude  that the Army properly  rejected RMTC's bid.   It is
   not,  therefore, necessary to  address whether the  various other
   issues addressed  by the technical  evaluator similarly justified
   the Army's decision to reject this bid.   
 
                                Decision
 
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 3    We  note  that  specifications  such  as  data
   transfer   rate,  bus  mastering  capability,  and  the  software
   configurability  of   interrupts/addresses   do   not   bear   on
   responsiveness because the Army did not list  these properties as
   minimum salient characteristics.
 
        [foot #] 4   Although RMTC points us to literature, included
   in  Exhibit 8  of the  Protest File,  that describes  the Adaptec
   product and  the particular software  that enables it  to support
   larger disk drives, this literature appears to have been obtained
   by the Army on October 15, 1993, two days after the filing of the
   protest.  As  such, it does not  establish that the Army  had any
   basis to determine during the conduct of the procurement that the
   item as  bid by RMTC  was functionally equivalent to  the Adaptec
   1540.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        The  protest  is  DENIED.   The  suspension  of  the  Army's
   delegation of procurement authority lapses by its terms.
 
                                      _____________________________
                                      CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
   _____________________________      _____________________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS                 JAMES W. HENDLEY
   Board Judge                        Board Judge