Intelligent Decisions, Inc.

Intelligent Decisions, Inc. BNUMBER: B-274626; B-274626.2 DATE: December 23, 1996 TITLE: Intelligent Decisions, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Intelligent Decisions, Inc. File: B-274626; B-274626.2 Date:December 23, 1996 Daniel B. Abrahams, Esq., and Raymond Fioravanti, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. for the protester. Stephen T. Yelverton, Esq., for Win Laboratories, Ltd., an intervenor. James J. Roby, Esq., and John R. Caterini, Esq., Department of Justice and Roger D. Waldron, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Under request for quotations which sought prices for computer systems and related software listed on Federal Supply Schedule, agency properly selected the vendor that offered the best system configuration that meets the agency's needs at the lowest overall cost. 2. Where record shows that challenged agency discussions with vendor ultimately selected to provide the agency's computer needs were in the context of a Federal Supply Schedule buy, protest contending that such communications were improper is denied since the agency may properly obtain additional information in order to determine that it was selecting the vendor that meets the agency's needs at the lowest overall cost. DECISION Intelligent Decisions, Inc. (IDI) protests the actions of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in connection with request for quotations (RFQ) No. DOJ-SAS-Q-C089 for personal computers, related software and hardware. IDI contends that DOJ improperly awarded a contract to WIN Laboratories, Ltd. (WIN) under the simplified acquisition procedures in Part 13 of the FAR. IDI also argues that DOJ improperly accepted a revised quotation from WIN after the time set for receipt of quotations, failed to evaluate quotations on an equal basis because WIN was allowed to substitute a non-compliant motherboard, and held improper discussions with WIN to the detriment of other vendors. We deny the protests. In June 1996, DOJ identified a need for an estimated 2,000 to 4,000 personal computers to be used in its consolidated office network system, and the contracting officer concluded that she could fulfill the agency's computer needs through a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) buy. As a result, the contracting officer and other DOJ officials met with officials from the General Services Administration's (GSA) FSS office to seek guidance on making large purchases under the FSS. At that June 18 meeting, GSA officials indicated that since a large buy was anticipated, DOJ could request price reductions from the vendors' schedule prices and enter into a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with the FSS contractor that was selected to fulfill its needs.[1] Thereafter, DOJ's technical representative contacted 10 vendors (including WIN and IDI) holding Federal Supply Classification (FSC) group 70 schedule contracts encompassing various microcomputers and associated software. The technical representative states that he discussed the agency's need for an estimated quantity of 2,000 to 4,000 systems in several telephone conversations and face-to-face meetings with the vendors and requested that each vendor submit descriptive literature and price lists for various configurations of computer systems available from their schedule.[2] On August 8, the agency issued the RFQ to six vendors, including WIN and IDI. The RFQ stated that only quotations under GSA schedule contracts would be considered for 2,000 computer systems containing either Intel Pentium 133 processors or Intel Pentium 166 processors.