BNUMBER: B-261349; B-261349.2
DATE: September 18, 1995
TITLE: Freedom Graphics, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Freedom Graphics, Inc.
File: B-261349; B-261349.2
Date: September 18, 1995
Frederic G. Antoun, Jr., Esq., for the protester.
Kerry L. Miller, Esq., Government Printing Office, for the agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest against Social Security Administration's requirement for
specified print resolution for notices is denied where agency shows it
needs notices that can be read by visually impaired and aged
recipients of social security benefits and lower resolution
requirements would make notices more difficult to read.
DECISION
Freedom Graphics, Inc. protests the terms of invitation for bids (IFB)
No. 393-168, issued by the Government Printing Office (GPO) for
production of letter notices for the Social Security Administration
(SSA). The protester contends that the solicitation requirements are
unduly restrictive of competition.
We deny the protest.
On April 25, 1995, the agency issued the solicitation for a
fixed-price contract for two-sided printing of 7 million multipage
notices consisting of three forms, ranging from two to eight pages
(one to four leaves). The specifications, in pertinent part, required
laser printing, with a minimum resolution of 300 X 300 dots per square
inch (dpi),[1] as well as gathering, folding, inserting, and mailing
the forms. Shortly prior to the scheduled bid opening on May 10,
1995, Freedom Graphics filed its initial protest with our Office
challenging the specifications here; the protest was amended after the
contracting officer postponed bid opening.
Freedom Graphics generally contends that few contractors have
facilities capable of meeting the agency's quantity and delivery
requirements using a resolution of 300 dpi, which requires an imaging
device that feeds one sheet at a time. Specifically, the protester
claims that its ink jet equipment, offering a resolution of 240 dpi,
can meet the agency's requirements for printing such notices,
which--in the protester's view--do not require the specified
resolution.[2]
Where a protester alleges that a requirement is unduly restrictive, we
review the record to determine whether the requirement has been
justified as necessary to satisfy the agency's minimum needs. RMS
Indus., B-247233; B-247234, May 1, 1992, 92-1 CPD 412. For the
reasons set forth below, we conclude that the SSA has reasonably
articulated a need for higher resolution of its notices.
The SSA explains that it produces the forms here to notify social
security recipients of changes in their entitlements, and that many of
the notice recipients are unable to read printed matter most of the
population would have no difficulty reading, because of impaired
vision and advanced age. The SSA has developed standards for its
notices using focus groups and public feedback, and has adopted 300
dpi as the minimum acceptable resolution for these notices. Although
the SSA agrees with the protester that a lower resolution may be
acceptable for certain uses (such as "fill-ins" where a recipient
fills in blank areas on a form), the agency notes that 300 dpi is also
the industry standard.
Our review of the record shows that the protester has offered no
evidence that the agency has unreasonably concluded that its target
audience, including many older persons with impaired vision, needs the
higher resolution required here. In addition, our own examination of
the samples submitted by the protester shows a distinct difference in
quality between the protester's 240 dpi ink jet printer and the 300
dpi laser printer. Apart from the 240-dpi resolution, the agency
asserts that the use of an ink-jet imager would create further
problems--such as letter edges that are not as sharp, spatter and
wicking (absorption of ink), and a tendency to bleed and display an
image on the reverse side. Since a contractor must print the forms
here on both sides, we find nothing unreasonable about the agency's
concern that printing the notices with an ink-jet imager may not
produce a form that can be easily read by the notice's intended
audience.
The protester also complains that the SSA resolution requirement is
antiquated because it dates from 1987, when it claims there was no ink
jet printer capable of printing 240 dpi; further, the protester
contends that with proper quality control and maintenance, there is no
appreciable difference between the two resolutions. The record,
however, shows that magnified samples submitted by the protester, in
connection with the protest, exhibit a blurred and jagged text,
lighter type, and diminished legibility. Although the protester
concedes that these defects appear when the text is magnified, it
contends that the samples should be viewed at their intended size. We
note simply that older persons with impaired vision may, in fact,
resort to magnifying lenses to assist in reading the text of these
notices, and we believe the agency may validly point to the difference
in quality as a basis for requiring the sharper resolution.
The protest is denied.
/s/ Ronald Berger
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel
1. Hereinafter, rather than refer to 300 X 300 dpi, our decision will
refer to 300 dpi.
2. For the record, we note that the protester also challenges a
statement made by the GPO's contracting officer shortly before bid
opening, wherein the contracting officer stated that SSA's requirement
for 300-dpi resolution was based on a problem with scanning bar codes
at the lower resolution. The protester argued that it has produced
many bar-coded products at 240 dpi without problem. The agency
report, however, does not rely upon this need, and there is no
evidence apart from the contracting officer's oral statement that a
problem with scanning bar codes formed the basis for the solicitation
requirement. Since we find that the SSA had other valid reasons for
the requirement, apart from any need to ensure the proper scanning of
bar codes, we need not address the protester's argument in this
regard.