DENIED: October 13, 1992 
                                                       
 
                             GSBCA 11964-P
 
                           THE CULVER GROUP,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
 
        Donald  B.  Culver  of  The  Culver  Group,  Hampstead,  MD,
   appearing for Protester.
 
        Sumara  M. Thompson-King,  Office  of the  General  Counsel,
   National Aeronautics  and Space  Administration, Washington,  DC,
   and  Donald Schiller,  Office of  Counsel, John F.  Kennedy Space
   Center, FL, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before  Board  Judges  LaBELLA, Acting  Chief  Judge,  NEILL, and
   DANIELS.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
        This  protest was  filed  by  The  Culver Group  (Culver  or
   protester) on August 10, 1992.   Culver's bid on a procurement by
   the  National  Aeronautics  and  Space  Administration (NASA)  of
   automatic data processing equipment  for its inventory management
   system at  Kennedy Space  Center was  rejected as  nonresponsive.
   Protester challenges this determination by NASA.  For the reasons
   set out in this opinion, we deny the protest.   
 
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
   The Invitation for Bids
 
        1.  On April 14, 1992, respondent issued invitation for bids
   (IFB)  number  10-0006-2  seeking  a  fixed  price  contract  for
   computer hardware and software to be compatible with the existing
   inventory management system at respondent's John F. Kennedy Space
   Center.   Protest File,  Exhibit 1 at  1-6 (Solicitation  IFB 10-
   0006-2).   The  solicitation is for  seven configurations  of bar
   code reader equipment (configurations A-G), spare hardware parts,
   and  one configuration  of software/documentation  (configuration
   H).  Each configuration is composed of a number of different bar-
   code-reading   products.[foot #] 1       Id.,    Attachment   J-1
   at  6-18.     The  solicitation  is  a  "Brand   Name  or  Equal"
   procurement.  Id. at 4.  
 
 
        2.  Under  the terms of the solicitation bidders are allowed
   to bid brand name products by certain manufacturers listed in the
   solicitation or  "equal"  products that  conform with  designated
   "salient characteristics."   Protest  File, Exhibit  1 at  52-53.
   Protester  chose to  bid "equal"  products for  a portion  of the
   solicitation requirements.  Compare brand name products listed at
   Protest  File, Exhibit  1 at  4 with  offered products  listed at
   Protest File, Exhibit 3 at 57-58 (unnumbered).
 
        3.  The  solicitation provides that a bidder choosing to bid
   "equal" products must clearly identify that the products bid meet
   fully the salient characteristics referenced in the solicitation.
   In part, the pertinent clause reads as follows:
 
        (b)  . . . Bids offering "equal" products . . . will be
        considered  for  award  if  the  products  are  clearly
        identified  in the  bids  and  are  determined  by  the
        Government to  meet fully  the salient  characteristics
        requirements referenced in the solicitation.
 
        . . . .
 
        (d)  (1)  If the offeror proposes to furnish an "equal"
        product, the brand  name, if any, of the  product to be
        furnished  shall be inserted  in the space  provided in
        the solicitation,  or that product  shall be  otherwise
        clearly identified in the bid.   The evaluation of bids
        and the  determination as  to equality  of the  product
        offered shall be  the responsibility of the  Government
        and  will  be  based on  information  furnished  by the
        offeror or identified  in its bid, as well  as on other
        information  reasonably  available to  the  contracting
        activity.
 
             (2)  CAUTION TO OFFERORS:   The contracting office
        is  not  responsible  for  locating   or  securing  any
        information not identified in  the bids and  reasonably
        available  to the contracting  office.  Accordingly, to
        insure that  sufficient information  is available,  the
        offeror  must  furnish  as  a   part  of  its  bid  all
        descriptive  material  necessary  for  the  contracting
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1   For  example, Configuration  A is  a  "Bar Code
   Reader with Wand,  Non-Portable," which includes one  each of the
   following: bar  code reader,  digital wand,  cables, power  pack,
   system manual for the bar code reader,  and user's manual for the
   digital wand.  Protest File, Exhibit 1, Attachment J-1 at 6-7.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        office  to (i)  determine whether  the  product offered
        meets the salient  characteristics requirements of  the
        solicitation  and  (ii)  establish  exactly  what   the
        offeror  proposes to  furnish  and what  the Government
        would be binding itself to purchase by making an award.
        . . .
 
             . . . .
 
             (4)  If   this   is  a   sealed-bid   acquisition,
        modifications  proposed after  bid  opening to  make  a
        product conform to  a brand name product  referenced in
        the solicitation will not be considered.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 52-53.
 
        4.  Article C-1 of  Section C of the  solicitation, entitled
   "Salient Characteristics," provides further guidance for  bidders
   choosing to bid equal products.  In part, this clause provides as
   follows:
 
             Salient   Characteristics   are   incorporated  by
        reference  as  identified  in  Attachment J-2,  Salient
        Characteristics[,]   and   are    applicable   to   the
        Configuration   Descriptions  .   .  .   identified  in
        Attachment J-1.
 
             NOTE:     Within the meaning of Section (d) of the
        Brand Name or Equal Clause which is set forth elsewhere
        herein,  offerors   must   furnish   with   their   bid
        descriptive  material that  clearly indicates  that the
        articles to  be delivered under  any resulting contract
        will  have  features  embodied  therein,  which,  as  a
        minimum, meet the  essential characteristics enumerated
        above.  FAILURE OF THE OFFEROR'S MATERIAL TO COVER EACH
        OF THE SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS MAY REQUIRE REJECTION OF
        THE  BID  (EXCEPT  WHEN  DESCRIPTIVE  MATERIAL  CAN  BE
        LOCATED WITHIN THE PROCURING ACTIVITY).
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 4.
 
        5.  Section I of the solicitation  incorporates by reference
   a contract  clause entitled  "Descriptive Literature (APR  1984)"
   which appears in 52.214-21 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations
   (FAR).  Protest File, Exhibit 1  at 24.  This provision reads  in
   part as follows:
 
             (c)  The failure of descriptive literature to show
        that the product  offered conforms to the  requirements
        of this solicitation will require rejection of the bid.
 
   48 CFR 52.214-21 (1991).
 
        6.  Article M-4 of  Section M of the  solicitation, entitled
   "Award  Criteria,"  provides that  the  government will  evaluate
   offers and  make award on the  basis of full  compliance with the
   salient characteristics set  forth in Section  C, Finding 4,  the
   Brand  Name  or  Equal  clause,  Finding  3,  and  the  provision
   governing  descriptive  literature,  Finding  5.    Protest File,
   Exhibit 1 at 56.
 
   The Laser Scanners
 
 
        7.  The  solicitation  contains  a  requirement  for   laser
   scanners.   Protest  File,  Exhibit  1 at  Attachment  J-1.   The
   solicitation contains  sixteen salient  characteristics that  the
   offered laser scanner  must meet or exceed.   Id., Attachment J-2
   at  2-3.   Protester's bid  discusses  individually each  salient
   characteristic.   It also  seeks to  verify compliance with  each
   characteristic with a reference  to either: "PSC's  [Photographic
   Sciences Corporation's]  Letter  of Certification  dated  May  6,
   1992" or "PSC's  5300 Series Product  Bulletin (089110M)."   Id.,
   Exhibit 3, Attachment B at 1-3.
 
        8.  For   the  purposes   of  this  protest,   only  salient
   characteristic   number   seven  is   relevant.     This  salient
   characteristic provides as follows:
 
        The  following  salient  characteristics  describe  the
        KIMS[foot #] 2   laser   scanner   .  .   .   .     The
        offered   items    shall   meet    or   exceed    these
        characteristics.
 
        Laser scanner.  The laser scanner shall:
 
             . . . .
 
             7.   Operate   within    a   range    of
                  environmental conditions: -7  to 37
                  C degree temperature and 25 to 95 %
                  relative humidity,
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 1, Attachment J-2 at 2.
 
        9.  Protester bid an equal product instead of the designated
   brand  name for  the laser  scanner requirement.    Protester bid
   PSC's  Model 5310  laser  scanner  (PN  CAB0106308).    Protester
   represents that this  product "meet[s] or exceed[s]"  the salient
   characteristics  listed for  the laser  scanner.   Protest  File,
   Exhibit  3, Attachment  B at 1.   Its bid  provides the following
   concerning salient characteristic number seven:
 
        7.   The  PSC 5310  will operate in  a temperature
             range of  0  to +50  C  degrees and  in  non-
             condensing relative humidity  ranging from 5-
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 2   The  acronym   KIMS  means   Kennedy  Inventory
   Management System.  Protest File, Exhibit 1, Attachment J-2 at 1.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
             95%.    These  ranges  exceed  the  specified
             operational environmental condition  of -7 to
             +37 C degrees temperature and 25-95% relative
             humidity.
 
        Refer to PSC's 5300 Series Product Bulletin (089110M).
 
   Id. at 2.
 
        10.  Protester's  bid  includes  a document  addressing  the
   laser  scanner's  specifications titled  "Specifications  for PSC
   5300 Series  Hand-Held Bar Code  Scanners."  For model  5310, the
   product  bulletin states the operating temperature to be "-18  to
   +50 C."    In the  lower  right  hand  corner of  this  bulletin,
   however, is number 099120M.  It is not numbered 089110M as stated
   in  protester's response to  salient characteristic number seven.
   Protest  File, Exhibit  3, Attachment  B at  5.   Bulletin number
   099120M also includes a provision stating that the specifications
   are subject to change.  Id.  
 
        11.  PSC's  Letter  of  Certification  dated  May  6,  1992,
   Finding 7, reads in part as follows:
 
        Photographic  Sciences Corporation  certifies that  the
        PSC Model 5310 Laser Scanner (PN 5310-1002) with the 8'
        coil cord  (PN CAB 0106308)  . . . compl[ies]  with the
        KIMS Laser Scanner Salient Characteristics listed . . .
        on  page 2  and  3  of Attachment  J-2  except for  the
        following:
 
             Note:   7  -  PSC  5310  will  operate  in  a
             temperature  range  of  0  degrees  to  +50 C
             degrees  and  in  a  non-condensing  relative
             humidity  ranging from  5-95%.   These ranges
             exceed     the     specified      operational
             environmental  condition  of  -7  to  +37   C
             degrees  temperature   and  25-95%   relative
             humidity.
 
        . . . .
 
        We concur with  their detailed review of  these salient
        characteristics  as  per  their  Bid  Response  Letter,
        Attachment B, page 1-3.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 3, Attachment B at 4.
   The Digital Wands
 
 
        12.  The solicitation contains a requirement for the digital
   wands used in configurations A, C, and E.   Protest File, Exhibit
   1, Attachment J-1 at 6-11.  Of the twelve salient characteristics
   for  the digital wands, only salient characteristic number twelve
   is relevant.  It reads as follows:
 
        Digital wand.  The digital wand shall:
 
             . . . .
 
             12.  Be   interchangeable  between   and
                  operate in Configurations 'A', 'C',
                  and 'E'.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 1, Attachment J-2 at 4.
 
        13.  Protester  bid   an  equal   product  instead   of  the
   designated  brand  name  for  the  digital wand.    In  order  to
   understand protester's bid concerning the ability of its wands to
   be  interchangeable  among configurations  A,  C,  and  E, it  is
   necessary to  know two  of  the products  bid  in each  of  those
   configurations.[foot #] 3  
        Configuration A:
             For the Bar Code Reader protester bid:
 
                  Welch  Allyn,  Inc.'s ST  2000  Bar
                  Code Reader No. 2000/W-1.
 
             For the Digital Wand protester bid:
 
                  Welch Allyn, Inc.'s ST 6100 Digital
                  Wand Scanner No. 6100B-2112J 
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 3, Attachment J-1 at 6.
 
        Configuration C:
             For the Bar Code Wedge protester bid:
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 3     We have  already  outlined  in note  one  the
   principal  components  of  configuration  A.    The  solicitation
   describes  configuration C as: a "Wedge with Wand, Non-Portable,"
   which  includes one  of each  of the  following: bar  code wedge,
   digital wand,  cable, system manual  for the bar code  wedge, and
   users  manual for  the digital  wand.   Protest File,  Exhibit 1,
   Attachment  J-1  at 8-9.    Configuration  E  is described  as  a
   "Transaction Manager with Digital Wand, Portable," which includes
   one  of  each  of the  following:  portable  transaction manager,
   digital wand, cable,  power pack, battery charger,  battery pack,
   portable   terminal  case,   system  manual   for  the   portable
   transaction manager,  users manual for  the portable  transaction
   manager, and user's manual for the digital wand.  Id., at 10-11.
                                                     ___
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
                  Welch  Allyn,  Inc.'s ST  2000  Bar
                  Code Wedge Reader No. 2000/C-1.
 
             For the Digital Wand protester bid:
 
                  Welch Allyn, Inc.'s ST 6100 Digital
                  Wand Scanner No. 6100/B-2112J.
 
   Id. at 8.
 
        Configuration E:
             For   the   Portable    Transaction   Manager
             protester bid:
 
                  Telxon     Corporation's    PTC-710
                  Portable Transaction Mgr.  No. 710-
                  165370/9031.
 
             For the Digital Wand protester bid:
 
                  Welch Allyn, Inc.'s ST 6100 Digital
                  Wand Scanner No. 922567 and Adapter
                  Cable for Scanners No. 42204228-02.
 
   Id. at 10.
 
        14.  Protester represents that the digital wands bid meet or
   exceed  all  the  salient  characteristics   and  are  completely
   interchangeable  among configurations A,  C, and E.   Protester's
   bid includes  the  following  concerning  salient  characteristic
   number twelve:
 
        12.  The ST 6100 can be  used with the ST 2000 bar
             code reader in  Configuration A, with  the ST
             2000 bar code PC wedge in Configuration C and
             with the PTC-710 portable transaction manager
             in Configuration  E.   An  adapter cable  (PN
             42204228-02) is provided to  enable use of ST
             6100  Wand (PN 922567) on the ST 2000 decoder
             in configuration A or C.
 
             Refer    to   Welch    Allyn's   Letter    of
             Certification dated May 11, 1992.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 3, Attachment C at 1-3.
   Rejection of Protester's Bid
 
 
        15.  Bids  were opened  on June  2.   Protester was  the low
   bidder.  Protest File, Exhibit 2.
 
        16.  On July  30, respondent's contracting  officer rejected
   protester's  bid  as  nonresponsive.    The  contracting  officer
   determined that two of the  products protester bid did not comply
   fully with  the salient characteristics as required by Article M-
   4,  Finding 6.   The  contracting  officer found  that the  laser
   scanner   did  not   meet   the  operating   temperature  salient
   characteristic, and  protester's bid  failed to  identify clearly
   that   the  offered  digital  wands  were  interchangeable  among
   configurations A, C, and E.  Protest File, Exhibit 4 at 2-3.
 
        17.  With  regard  to  the  laser  scanner, the  contracting
   officer  noted that  protester  included  in  its bid  a  product
   bulletin that identified the operating temperature of the offered
   laser scanner  as -18   to +50   C, but  that this  bulletin also
   included a provision stating that the specifications were subject
   to change.  The contracting officer went on to state that:
 
        the  offeror included a  "Letter of Certification" from
        Photographic  Sciences Corporation  (PSC) .  . .  which
        changes the printed Laser Scanner specifications to the
        extent that  the item, as changed, no  longer meets the
        salient characteristics.   Therefore,  it appears  that
        the  offeror has made a conscious determination to take
        exception     to     the     solicitation's     salient
        characteristics.  As  stated in Article L-5  BRAND NAME
        OR EQUAL the offer  must furnish descriptive literature
        necessary for the  CO to determine whether  the offered
        product   meets  the   requirements   of  the   salient
        characteristics. 
 
             . . . .
 
        In their certification of the items  bid to the Salient
        Characteristics, the  Culver Group  failed to  identify
        that   PSC  had   taken   exception   to  the   Salient
        Characteristics for  the operating  temperature of  the
        Laser Scanner.
 
             . . . .
 
        . .  .   Based upon the  information within  the Culver
        Group's bid the offered Laser Scanner is clearly not in
        full compliance with the salient characteristics.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 4 at 2-3.
 
        18.  With regard to  the requirement for digital  wands, the
   contracting officer stated, in part, as follows:
 
        . . .  The  Culver Group's certification to the Salient
        Characteristics for the Digital Wand failed  to clearly
        identify that  both models of  the Wands  they bid  are
        interchangeable between Configurations A, C, and E.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 4 at 3.
 
        19.  Following the rejection of  its bid, protester  secured
   another  letter  from  the  manufacturer  of  the  offered  laser
   scanner.  The  letter certifies that the  laser scanner protester
   bid, PSC's model  5310, operates at the  published specifications
   of -18 C to  +50 C, "which exceeds the NASA  Specification."  The
   letter  attributes the different temperature range (0 C to +50 C)
   included in  its May  6 certification  to confusion concerning  a
   prior solicitation and characterizes it as a typographical error.
   The letter maintains that the  May 6 certification letter was not
   intended to change the published specification.  PSC's letter  of
   August 6, 1992, attached to protester's brief.
 
 
                               Discussion
 
        The fundamental  issue presented  by this  protest is  clear
   enough.  Respondent has rejected protester's bid as nonresponsive
   for two basic reasons.  First, the laser scanner was found not to
   meet  the  operating  temperature  range  requirement.    Second,
   protester's bid was  found to be ambiguous as  to the requirement
   that the digital wands be interchangeable among configurations A,
   C, and E.  See Finding 16.  Protester has challenged the accuracy
   of both determinations.  We discuss them in turn.  
 
   The Laser Scanners
 
        The  solicitation  lists   a  salient  characteristic  which
   requires   any  offered  laser   scanner  to  operate   within  a
   temperature range of -7 to 37 degrees centigrade.  Finding 8.  In
   addressing this  requirement, protester  bid the  PSC Model  5310
   laser scanner but  stated that it would operate  in a temperature
   range of 0 to +50.  Finding 9.   Protester now contends that this
   was  an obvious  error which  becomes  readily apparent  when one
   refers to the descriptive literature contained in the bid.  
 
        It is indeed correct that the product bulletin provided with
   the bid states  that the operating temperature for  the PSC Model
   5310 is -18 to +50 degrees centigrade.  However, this descriptive
   literature is  not without its  own problems.  In  addressing the
   temperature  range requirement,  the  bid  references PSC's  5300
   Series Product Bulletin 089110M.  Finding 9.  The actual bulletin
   furnished with  the bid, however,  bears the number 099120M.   It
   also states that  the specifications it  contains are subject  to
   change.  Finding 10.  
 
        Protester  would have us  disregard these problems  with the
   descriptive literature.   It has now provided for  the record the
   product  bulletin  actually  referenced   in  the  original   bid
   (089110M).  It  has provided  two subsequent  bulletins as  well.
   They do indeed show that  the operating temperature for the laser
   scanner offered has not changed.  Protester's Submission of Sept.
   3.     The  reassurance  this  material  provides,  however,  was
   obviously  not  available  to  the  contracting  officer  at  bid
   opening.
 
 
        Neither can we dismiss the significance of the phrase in the
   product bulletin that  specifications are subject to  change.  It
   is true  that we  have held that  such statements  in descriptive
   literature normally will not render a bid nonresponsive where the
   bidder  elsewhere in its  bid clearly indicates  its intention to
   provide  an item  meeting the  Government's  requirements in  all
   respects.  E.g., Federal Services,  Inc. v. Department of Energy,
   GSBCA 11804-P, 1992  BPD   143 (May  27, 1992).  However,  we are
   not prepared to  disregard the possible  impact such a  statement
   might  have  on a  vendor's  bid  when,  as  in  this  case,  the
   descriptive literature actually referenced in the bid is not even
   included in the bid package itself.  
 
        Putting  aside,   however,  the  problems  inherent  in  the
   descriptive literature  actually  furnished by  protester on  the
   laser scanner, the contracting  officer, in examining protester's
   bid, was confronted with a problem of  even greater significance.
   Included  in the  bid was  a certification  letter from  PSC, the
   manufacturer of the  laser scanner, assuring respondent  that the
   scanner offered complied with the  salient characteristics listed
   in  the  solicitation  except  for  that  relating  to  operating
   temperature range.   Finding  11.   Clearly, this  representation
   from  the manufacturer of  the scanner extinguishes  once and for
   all --  for purposes of  NASA's review of protester's  bid -- any
   light which the product bulletin might have shed on the issue  of
   what the  low end of the operating temperature range was for this
   particular piece of equipment.   
 
        Protester urges  that the statement  made in the  letter was
   not intended as an  exception to the salient  characteristic, but
   rather was intended to show that the temperature  operating range
   of  its scanner was exceptionally broad and clearly exceeded that
   listed  in the  solicitation.   We  have two  problems with  this
   interpretation.  First,  the letter states that  the scanner will
   operate in  a temperature range  of 0 to +50  degrees centigrade.
   Second, PSC  expressly writes that it certifies  that the scanner
   complies  with   the  characteristic   listed  "except   for  the
   following:" and then  lists characteristic number 7,  which deals
   with the temperature range.  Findings 8, 11.  
 
        Protester contends  that PSC's  reference in  its letter  of
   certification  to  a  temperature  range  of  0  to  +50  degrees
   centigrade  was a  mistake.   With its  brief it has  submitted a
   letter dated  August 6, 1992, in  which PSC admits the  error and
   apologizes for it.   See Finding  19.  This  letter may serve  to
   illustrate   what  PSC  actually   intended  to  convey   in  its
   certification  letter.  However,  it also confirms  that, through
   error,  PSC  failed to  state  what  it  intended.   The  letter,
   therefore,  does  nothing  to convince  us  that  the contracting
   officer  acted incorrectly or improperly when he concluded, based
   on information  available  at  bid opening,    that  the  scanner
   offered  did not comply with the salient characteristic regarding
   the temperature operating range.[foot #] 4  
 
 
        In its  complaint,  protester states  that  the  conflicting
   statements  in its  bid regarding  temperature  range were  minor
   informalities which could have been easily remedied in accordance
   with FAR 14-405.  Protester states that this could have been done
   either by offering Culver an opportunity to cure the ambiguity or
   by waiving the apparent deficiency.  Complaint   9.  
 
        The  regulation   cited   by  protester   defines  a   minor
   informality or  irregularity as "one  that is merely a  matter of
   form and not of substance."   FAR 14-405.  Compliance of the  bid
   with  the  temperature  operating  range was  far  from  a  minor
   informality.  We are  dealing here with a  salient characteristic
   which, under  the terms  of the solicitation,  must be  fully met
   before  a bid  will even  be  considered for  award.   Finding 3.
   Based   on  the  information   available  at  bid   opening,  the
   contracting officer  concluded that Culver was  noncompliant with
   the  temperature  operating  range  requirement  for  the   laser
   scanner.    Finding  17.    We  find  nothing  improper  in  this
   determination.    It   was  entirely  reasonable  based   on  the
   information  available  at  the  time.    It  is  fundamental  to
   Government procurement that responsiveness  is determined at  the
   time of  bid opening.   Neither the  contracting officer  nor the
   bidder  is  free  to  modify   a  bid  after  opening.    Concept
   Automation, Inc. v. General Accounting Office, GSBCA 11688-P, 92-
   2 BCA   24,937, 1992 BPD   95.    
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 4  Protester also urges that the language regarding
   operating  temperature range in  the PSC letter  of certification
   should be disregarded  since the bid, in addressing  this salient
   characteristic, did not  refer to the letter of certification but
   only to  the PSC  product bulletin.   We  see no  reason why  the
   contracting officer should  not have read the bid as  a whole and
   considered  the letter  as  well.    It obviously  addresses  the
   characteristic in question.     
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   The Digital Wands
 
 
        The contracting  officer's  principal  difficulty  with  the
   digital  wands offered  by protester  was  that the  bid did  not
   clearly   identify  that   both   models   of   the   wand   were
   interchangeable among  the A, C,  and E configurations.   Finding
   18.  The solicitation was clear.  Any offered digital wand was to
   "[b]e interchangeable  between and operate in Configurations 'A',
   'C', and 'E.'"  Finding 12.  
 
        Protester's bid offered two  wands.  The first  (part number
   6100B-2112J) was  for use in configurations A and C.  Finding 13.
   The second (part  number 922567) was for configuration  E.  Along
   with  this second wand, protester  also offered an adapter cable.
   Id.  The bid explained that the cable was offered so as to permit
   use of  this second wand not only in  configuration E but also in
   conjunction  with  the decoders  (i.e.,  the bar  code  reader or
   wedge)  used  in configurations  A  or  C.   Finding  14.   This,
   however, gave rise  to a question in the mind  of the contracting
   officer.  If the second wand requires  an adapter cable before it
   can be used  with configurations A or  C, then is not  an adapter
   cable  also  required  before  the  first wand  can  be  used  in
   configuration  E?   Respondent's Opening  Brief  at 26.   In  the
   absence of  an answer to  that question, the  contracting officer
   concluded  that the bid  lacked the  requisite degree  of clarity
   regarding the requirement for interchangeability.  Finding 18.  
 
        Unfortunately,  the record  on  this  matter  is  less  than
   complete.  The contracting officer's notice to protester provides
   little detail.  See Finding  18.  The contracting officer himself
   observes    that   the    alleged    ambiguity   regarding    the
   interchangeability  of  the  wands  was  viewed  as  a  secondary
   consideration  once the bid  was determined nonresponsive  on the
   matter of the operating temperature range.  Protest File, Exhibit
   8 at 5.   In addition, protester, in briefing this matter, dwells
   on  the  fact  that the  adapter  cable  afforded  respondent the
   benefit       of       the      additional       feature       of
   "pecking."[foot #] 5          Little    clarification,   however,
   is offered  by protester on  the basic question whether  the wand
   offered for configurations A and C could be used in configuration
   E without an adapter cable.  
 
        Nevertheless,  given the information available to us, we are
   not convinced that the need for an adapter cable for the one wand
   would  necessarily require  one  for  the  other  type  of  wand.
   Furthermore, protester clearly  stated in its bid  that the wands
   offered  were interchangeable.    Finding  14.   The  lack of  an
   adapter  cable  for both  types  of  wand  may have  puzzled  the
   contracting officer and even given rise to some doubts.  However,
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 5   This feature  is said  to extend  battery life.
   See  Protester's  Opening Brief at 3 and  Protester's Reply Brief
   ___
   at 2. 
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   on the basis of the record before us, we cannot conclude that the
   offer  of one  adapter cable  alone was  enough to  conclude that
   protester's  bid on  its face  did not  meet the  requirement for
   interchangeability of the  wands offered.  We, therefore,  do not
   consider  the  contracting  officer's  concerns  in  this  regard
   sufficient  to constitute a valid independent basis for rejecting
   protester's bid.         
 
   Protester's Additional Allegations
 
 
        In its opening brief, protester also contends that the laser
   scanner  brand actually named  by respondent in  the solicitation
   has a temperature range  of 0 to 40 degrees centigrade as opposed
   to the  range of -7  to +37  degrees centigrade described  in the
   corresponding salient characteristics.  Protester further  argues
   that the scanner offered by the manufacturer of this brand failed
   to  meet the  salient characteristic  in  question.   Protester's
   Opening Brief  at 2.   Although it  has submitted  information to
   rebut  protester's allegation  that  the  manufacturer's bid  was
   nonresponsive,  respondent also  correctly points out  that these
   allegations, raised for the first time in protester's  brief, are
   untimely.   Respondent's  Opening Brief  at  21-22.   Any concern
   regarding  conflict  apparent  on the  face  of  the solicitation
   should have  been raised  prior to the  time established  for the
   submission  of bids.   Rule  5(b)(3)(i).   Any  challenge to  the
   responsiveness  of the manufacturer's bid should have been raised
   within ten days of bid opening.  Rule 5(b)(3)(ii).  
 
        A  more fundamental objection  to these late  allegations of
   protester,  however, is  that because  protester's  bid had  been
   properly  adjudged   to  be  nonresponsive  to   the  temperature
   operating range  requirement, protester  lacks the  status of  an
   interested party to pursue any additional allegations.  40 U.S.C.
     759(f)(1) &  (9)(B)  (1988);  United  States  v.  International
   Business Machines Corp., 892  F.2d 1006 (Fed. Cir. 1989).  We see
   no  need, therefore, to examine these allegations or respondent's
   reply to them.   
 
        Protester  refers us  to two  Board  decisions dealing  with
   responsive bids.   The first acknowledges that where  the product
   bid is an  existing one, it is permissible, if  necessary, for an
   agency  to obtain  additional data  regarding it.   Denco,  Inc.,
   GSBCA 9626,  89-1 BCA    21,287, 1988  BPD   238.    We  are also
   reminded by protester that we once observed that agencies  should
   not run their procurements "by rote checklists."  Wordplex, GSBCA
   8159,  86-1 BCA   18,554,  at 93,183, 1985  BPD   128,  at 6.  In
   both these cases, we concluded  that the position espoused by the
   agency  regarding the responsiveness  of the protester's  bid was
   unduly  rigid.   While  we  do  not  agree with  the  contracting
   officer's conclusion regarding  the digital wands, we are in full
   agreement with the conclusion he  reached on the more substantive
   matter of the operating temperature range requirement.  Protester
   has not convinced us that this  decision was excessively rigid or
   unreasonable.   On the contrary, it  appears, on the basis of the
   record  thus  constituted, to  be  a  well founded  and  balanced
   determination and, for that reason, we   deny this protest.    
 
 
 
                                Decision
 
        This  protest is  DENIED.   The Board's  order of  August 12
   suspending  respondent's  delegation   of  procurement  authority
   lapses in accordance with its terms.  
 
                                           ______________________
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
   _________________________               ______________________
   VINCENT A. LaBELLA                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
   Acting Chief Board Judge                Board Judge