International Business Systems, Inc.

B-270632.2 Jun 12, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Correction of offeror's insertion of an improper quantity figure in request for proposal line items does not warrant reopening of discussions since matter is properly correctable through the clarification process. The RFP was issued as a competitive set-aside for small disadvantaged businesses under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. IBSI contends that the agency's corrective action is unwarranted (and therefore improper) because the agency's discussions with DNA were adequate. IBSI challenges the proposed corrective action on the ground that its prices have been disclosed to the other offerors in the agency's award letter. Offerors were directed to complete and submit five pricing tables set forth in section B of the solicitation. View Decision Matter of: International Business Systems, Inc. File: B-270632.2 Date: June 12, 1996 Correction of offeror's insertion of an improper quantity figure in request for proposal line items does not warrant reopening of discussions since matter is properly correctable through the clarification process. Attorneys DECISION International Business Systems, Inc. (IBSI) protests the agency's proposed action under request for proposals (RFP) No. 101-21-95, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the installation of a replacement telecommunications system at the VA Medical Center in Washington, D.C. The RFP was issued as a competitive set-aside for small disadvantaged businesses under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 637(a) (1994), and contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price requirements contract to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror for a base year with nine 1-year option periods. On November 22, 1995, the VA awarded a contract under the RFP to IBSI; however, in response to a protest filed at this Office by the second lowest-priced offeror--Dulles Networking Associates (DNA)--the VA determined that it had failed to conduct meaningful discussions with DNA, and as a result, proposes to reopen the competition with a new round of discussions and a second request for best and final offers (BAFO). In its protest, IBSI contends that the agency's corrective action is unwarranted (and therefore improper) because the agency's discussions with DNA were adequate. Alternatively, IBSI challenges the proposed corrective action on the ground that its prices have been disclosed to the other offerors in the agency's award letter, placing IBSI at a competitive disadvantage in any subsequent negotiations. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 8, 1995, required offerors to submit both technical and price proposals. For their price proposals, offerors were directed to complete and submit five pricing tables set forth in section B of the solicitation; in particular, "Table B-1 Equipment and Software Unit Price Schedule" required a unit price, a basic monthly maintenance (BMM) price, an installation price, and quantity estimates for the telephone system hardware (contract line item number (CLIN) 1001); the public address system hardware (CLIN 2001); the fiber optic cables necessary for the replacement telecommunications and public address system installation (CLIN 3001); and the copper cables necessary to perform the replacement system installation (CLIN 4001). Of significance to this protest, the RFP also required offerors to propose unit prices for an "Optional Cable Plant," which was identified as encompassing any additional distributional cable (fiber optic and/or copper) which might be required to connect newly constructed or renovated VAMC building areas to the base replacement installation performed under CLINs 1001 through 4001. Unlike the other replacement installation CLIN series, for CLIN 5001, the solicitation instructions advised that "[o]fferors shall provide pricing for all cabling on a per foot basis with a quantity of '0'." (Emphasis added.) The solicitation also required offerors to submit their pricing proposals in both hard copy and electronic media (computer disk) format. By the June 13 closing date, nine proposals were received. Shortly thereafter, the contracting officer began conducting a "validation" process of each offeror's pricing proposal; to accomplish this, the contracting officer ran each offeror's computer disk through a price evaluation program; for Table B-1, the program multiplied each CLIN item's total price (unit price + BMM price + installation price) by the estimated quantity figure to arrive at an evaluated price computation, which could be compared with each offeror's proposed price. However, when the contracting officer attempted to process DNA's computer disk, the VA program was unable to access the DNA software. Consequently, the contracting officer did not perform any "validation" analysis of DNA's initial price proposal.