How do you write legal and viable portable x-ray Technical Specifications?
John Howell
Owner/President SVS Countermeasures Training/ Director of Counter IED Technologies IBDOCIED/Counter IED Threat Detection (SME)
Last week I watched a county in the USA pay $22,000.00 more for an x-ray system because they wrote technical specifications for a specific vendor. They even ended up paying more for that system than what they would have paid on GSA Advantage by several thousand dollars. That county purchased a tiny 10X12 for $60,000.00 and as a comparison, the city of Atlanta purchased a 14x17 sized portable x-ray system for over $13,000.00 less. The reason Atlanta so much paid less is that they wrote very good technical specifications and did not try and sole source.
When you write specifications for procurement of a portable x-ray system and you write it for a specific vendor none of the other vendors will submit a bid. In the case of this county, only one other vendor submitted and that county got taken to the cleaners on price. Atlanta was "Smart" and did not write sole source specifications so all of the different vendors could submit and they got a really good price. In fact, all of them did put in a price except the vendor in the above scenario. That vendor KNEW that they could not compete on price and did not even submit a bid to Atlanta. So what ended up happening is that county in Florida paid a massive amount more for a tiny portable x-ray system. They could have paid much less but when you write bad technical specifications you are going to get your clock cleaned.
The city or county contracts staff are typically clueless about what the Bomb guys write as technical specifications and have no idea that you have submitted very "vendor-specific" technical specifications (you are trying to sole source). When you get forced to defend them you can just walk in a say "whatever" and the county contracts will typically believe you. That is why you see so many solicitations at the state and local level that are 100% sole souring to a specific vendor the contracts staff do not know that is what the bomb guys are trying to do. That is also why USA bomb squads are paying much more for a system because they do not allow for competitive bidding. Outside of a place like Atlanta that did it "SMART" most of you are paying between $10,000.00 to over $20,000.00 more for a system vs what your counterparts overseas are paying for the same systems.
I just saw another solicitation in the USA come out and as you can expect it made a "decent" try to sole-source the system. They used specifications that were written for a specific vendor and most people would not catch it. However, my wife is not "most" people and I sent the below to the contracting staff and asked some very interesting questions about the technical specifications. She comes from a heavy contracting background as an LEO and knows what is legal and what is not. On the Federal level what this city wrote would NEVER make it past a Federal Contracting Officer. On the state and county level unless they get questioned or sued most of you have been able to get away with these sole-sourced technical specifications.
Take a look at the questions she sent to the contracting officer about the technical specifications for their portable x-ray system. Now, these guys honestly tried to hide what they were doing and how they were trying to make it so only a specific vendor could win. However, they made a ton of mistakes as you will see, and anybody who knows the market would be able to figure out what they are trying to do.
This is what she sent that's city Contracts POC who will, in turn, send this to the person who wrote it and try and get some answers. Good luck with that.....
We also have some questions about the technician specifications in your solicitation:
1. It requires that the system pass the ANSI 42.55 standard which we have done and have lab testing to certify that we can meet and exceed all of the requirements listed in the ANSI 42.55. The National Bomb Squad Commanders association requires that conformity assessment can be done in several different levels from a self-assessment to 3rd party lab testing. At what level based on the below requirements will you be determining if a system passes the ANSI 42.55 requirements?
This is one that most bomb guys in the USA will reference as a requirement but actually do not even have a copy of the standard. If you are going to use it you have to provide a method that you plan to grade each vendor. The interagency conformity assessment document you also need to know because that is how you determine if a vendor actually passes and it has several different levels of passing the ANSI 42.55. If 3 vendors submit and each has a different level and you pick the vendor that has the system you "want" but others had higher levels of conformity you are in for some trouble if they were priced lower. If you try and lie and tell your contracts they did not pass the ANSI 42.55 you are in for a world of hurt. You need to know these requirements and make sure you do not get yourself into trouble because you "think" nobody is going to question your decision.
2. You list a very specific size for the x-ray generator and you specifically referencing a specific manufacturer and model? If yes what is the manufacture and model for the system plus why are the size requirements so very specific?
The person that wrote this was all over the place with this and in different parts of the technical requirements, they flat out copy and pasted from Goldens website. Not once did they give a reason why this requirement was mission-specific and this is where you get into trouble. Always avoid trying to name specific manufacture or model because that is a clear sign of trying to sole source. Golden is not the only game in town and there are other x-ray generator products that are actually "better" than a Golden pulsed system. What was really odd about this is the measurements they gave do not match any Golden and are bigger than an XRS4 (which is HUGE). What they were "trying" to do was detail how much room they have for the entire system in the backpack. This was a very poor technical specification and it made no sense.
3. You list very specific specifications that seem to be trying to reference an image quality requirement. You list 1024 X 1316 pixels at 144 dpi or better which does not make much sense. It actually looks like a cut and paste from a specific vendor's website. The overall image quality of an x-ray is determined by the x-ray generator's focal spot size and the detector panels' micron level and is measured in line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm). A system can have numbers that do not match your specifications but have a much better lp/mm score. Your specifications seem to be sole-sourcing and not relevant to trying to get a system with a high-quality lp/mm resolution. The focal spot size of a golden x-ray is very poor at 3 mm where other portable x-rays have a much better focal spot size of .5 mm or better. An x-ray generator with a better focal spot size will score higher on the same detector panel vs something like a golden. That is why your technical specification does not make any sense and seems you have a very specific vendor in mind that you are trying to sole source. Can you please better explain what lp/mm you want in your x-ray image and not use specifications that appear to be an effort at sole sourcing? Also please note that the pixel size you listed "Exceeds" the minimum requirement in the ANSI 42.55 so does this negate that section of the ANSI 42.55?
This one is pretty bad and they again cut and paste from a vendor's website that they are wanting to buy. This HUGE problem with this is they are "trying" to make a technical specification about getting a specific image quality. The pixel and dpi for a CR system are meaningless because your image quality is determined by the x-ray generator's focal spot size, the CR plate micron, and more importantly the level at which the reader can scan the plate. If they knew any of this they would know what they wrote is a crappy level in lp/mm resolution (well below 2.0) and is about the worst on the market. Almost any other system on the market would provide a much better image quality vs what they referenced and their specifications make zero sense.
3. You list a size that the detector panel cannot exceed 8.5” x 11.5” x 1”. You also state that it "Must be small and lightweight so that it is portable in a Tactical 2nd Line Kit". The 2nd line tactical tool kit comes in several different pack sizes to which all exceed your size requirement for the panel.
- RATS PACK 20"X12"X 5.5"
- Crewcab Pack 20.5"x21"x13"
Why are you limiting the size of the panel when it is obvious that you "could" fit a larger sized panel in the 2nd line tactical tool kit as this seems to be your "justification" for such a limited size. If a larger size will fit into the 2nd line packs will you accept it as an acceptable alternative? Again it seems you have a very specific make and model for the system and you are trying to use very specific technical specifications to sole source.
This is another one where they try and use a specific size but really do not explain "why". When you read everything they wrote it become obvious that they cut and paste from the vendor's website the exact size of the panel of the system they want. Now they will have to potentially lie to the contracts staff and say something like "yea, only that size will fit". so anybody can get one of these 2nd line kits and verify the available open space. Specific size specifications are always a clear indicator of trying to sole source and in this case very easy to identify the specific vendor. this was such an odd size too that was really easy to figure it out and identify the make and model of the system. Not smart.....:)
4. You call out a very specific size for the x-ray generator at 14"x 7.5" x 18 which is larger than even an XRS3 Golden generator (14" x 4" x 5") but 1 in smaller vs an XRS4 at (19" x 5" x 7"). However you specifically ask for a 150 kV output for the generator and only the XR150 and XR200 meet that specification and later you verbatim use the XR150 radiation output specification listed on Goldens website. Is that size reference actually the amount of room you have in the 2nd line kit for the portable system? If this is true why such a limitation on the panel size as that ties back into this specification and seems to be another effort to sole source.
I am not even sure what the hell they were trying to do here and the entire thing makes zero sense. The only thing that made any sense was they wanted 150kV which is a semi-viable requirement. However "why" do you want 150 kv and be prepared to answer that. There are lower Kv x-ray generators that can outperform a golden in penetration and focal spot size. If you want 150kV explain why and give examples like "ability to penetrate some specific level". They also used a ton of specifications that are totally meaningless for taking an x-ray about pulse counts and other stuff. This again is more cut and paste from a specific vendor's website and can be traced back to them.
5.You have a technical reference that requires a 12 in distance test measurement for the level of radiation that is significantly more stringent vs what is required in the ANSI 42.55 (1 meter). Does this much more stringent requirement negate the requirement in the ANSI 42.55? This is obviously a cut and paste from the Golden engineering website (see below image) as it perfectly matches what is in their technical data sheet for the XR150. Are you trying to sole source an XR150 with this specification that only matches that product? Also, why are you exceeding the testing requirements listed in the ANSI 42.55? Does this new requirement negate that portion of the testing in the ANSI 42.55?
This one was just pure dumb and they cut and pasted directly from Goldens website. They even contradicted what the ANSI 42.55 requires for mR count and how it is to be tested. It is obvious they do not have a clue what is in the ANSI 42.55 and now they have basically opened a can of worms they have to try and explain. 1st they are probably going to have to get a copy of the ANSI 42.55 and try and figure out what they screwed up. Do not reference something if you are not 100% familiar with that reference. The ANSI 42.55 is a horrible standard for portable x-ray and honestly sucks but that is the standard that the USA PSBT requires. If you add a technical specification that is "different" than what is required in the ANSI 42.55 you look dumb and open the door for hard questions about what you are trying to do.
6. You ask for a "Computerized Radiography Reader" which translates that you want a CR portable x-ray system and not a Digital Radiography (DR) x-ray system. Are you only accepting bids for Computed Radiography (CR) portable x-ray systems and will a Digital Radiography system be acceptable?
This one they messed up and cut and pasted a reference that says the systems must be a CR and now they have to try and defend why a DR would not be acceptable. In fact, a DR system blows away any CR system on the market as far as image quality and lp/mm so why will you only accept a CR? In some cases, you "could" justify a CR as you want to use it to create mosaics but with this tiny panel, you do not have a snowball's chance in hell using that justification. So the contract people will ask the person that wrote this "will you accept a DR system" and now you have to say yes or no and give a reason. In this case, you have no good reason other than you are trying to make it so only a specific vendor can win the bid.
7. Your requirement for a "Computerized Radiography Reader" specifically calls out a make and model of the CPU interface which is very strange. All of the portable x-ray vendors use many different models of CPU's and most even give the end-user an option of what type of system they want "Laptop, Tablet, Rugged laptop, etc.". You do say "or equivalent" but you give no real specifications about "what" an equivalent means. Also, the Acer A500 model is no longer manufactured by the Chinese company "Acer" and now only sells the A515 model. Also, there is only one portable x-ray manufacture that sells a very low-cost Acer tablet with their x-ray and that is NEXRAY. As you can see in the below image they use an Acer tablet and that image seems to be exactly what you are trying to sole source in this solicitation with your specifications. Your specifications match perfectly for a NEXRAY FPX system and we would like to verify if that is what you are trying to purchase and your specifications are specifically written for.
This one goes into the top 10 of stupid things I have seen on USA portable x-ray technical specifications. ACER is like the dollar store brand of tablet and the model they referenced is not even in production anymore. Plus you totally gave away which vendor you are trying to buy as the only vendor that uses an ACER laptop is above. This is another example of a meaningless technical specification that is 100% you trying to sole source. Always avoid these specific makes and models of computers in your write-up. If you want MILSPEC ask for that as that makes sense. You can also say I want a laptop, tablet, or rugged tablet because all vendors have options on what type of CPU you might want.
8. Unfortunately if you are trying to purchase a NEXRAY FPX Nano system it does not pass the ANSI 42.55 standard that you have already stated is a requirement. The ANSI 42.55 REQUIRES that a system must be able to pass the "organic detection" part of the evaluation and computed radiography (CR) systems cannot determine materials type as they are a single energy system measurement only. Pseudocolor is NOT a viable organic detection method and cannot be used to pass the ANSI 42.55 standard. I am guessing that maybe your SME does not know this and if you really want the NEXRAY Nano you will need to drop the ANSI 42.55 requirement or specifically omit that part of the "organic testing" required by the ANSI 42.55.
Yes, CR systems cannot pass the ANSI 42.55 organic detection requirement because they can only do single energy measurements. The way it is currently written is complete crap and the test is a joke but the reality is that the ANSI 42.55 specifically requires that the system be able to identify an organic material. These CR vendors will try and say they pass by using pseudo color but that is a complete lie. If you put a 1.5 mm piece of aluminum (inorganic material) next to the test in the ANSI 42.55 it will turn the exact same color as the organic material which means it fails. Shame on you guys who wrote this test as it is 100% crap and is honestly very dangerous to the bomb community (you know who you are).
9. If this is being purchased with DHS grant money the system "MUST" pass the ANSI 42.55 and no CR system nor a DR system that cannot do a dual-energy scan can pass the "organic" detection requirement. If that is the case and this is Federally funded you will not be able to buy a NEXRAY nano because it cannot pass the ANSI 42.55.
The above response to a USA bomb squad in a city that is looking for a portable x-ray really shows you how badly these technical specifications were written. They tried to make it where only one vendor could apply and the rest would be disqualified by many of their very lame technical requirements. It is also very obvious that whoever wrote these requirements has never actually read the ANSI 42.55. That is understandable because most USA bomb guys do not even have a copy of it. If you are going to reference the ANSI 42.55 you had better know it and have a copy of it.
The fact that the systems they want cannot do "organic detection" opens a huge can of worms for them "if" this is grant money because you have to pass all of the requirements in the ANSI 42.55. CR systems cannot do "organic detection" so none of them can pass that part of the test. The problem is the national bomb squad commanders have no clue what "organic detection" actually is and the ANSI 42.55 test is a very poor test to validate if a system can actually detect an organic material.
So when you write technical specifications like this you open the door for somebody who is an SME to pick them apart. The 1st step is informing your contract staff that you are blatantly trying to sole-source as they did in the above. The next step is to see if they change the specifications and make them more open. If they do not change them you hire an attorney in that city or county and force the issue. You also need to reach out to the states contracting oversight agency and even their OIG.
Sole souring is not smart and all of these systems on the market are good systems and provide very good imaging capability. You trying to buy a specific brand when they are all basically the same are you being stubborn. You will just end up paying way more and potentially get yourself in trouble with your internal affairs. I mean it is pretty easy to pull up the guy who wrote the specification e-mails and see if they have been in direct contact with the vendor they are trying to sole source to. You might even find that the vendor sent them the very specifications they used in their solicitation. You do not want to go down that road so do what the City of Atlanta did and write logical and intelligent technical specifications that creates an open and competitive bidding process.