International Data Products, Corp.; I-NET, Inc.;

International Data Products, Corp.; I-NET, Inc.; BNUMBER: B-274654; B-274654.2; B-274654.3; B-274654.4; B-274654.5 DATE: December 26, 1996 TITLE: International Data Products, Corp.; I-NET, Inc.; and Dunn Computer Corp. ********************************************************************** 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:International Data Products, Corp.; I-NET, Inc.; and Dunn Computer Corp. File: B-274654; B-274654.2; B-274654.3; B-274654.4; B-274654.5 Date:December 26, 1996 Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Winston & Strawn, for International Data Products, Corp.; Richard J. Conway, Esq., and Robert J. Moss, Esq., Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, L.L.P., for I-Net, Inc.; and Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Fettman, Tolchin & Majors, P.C., for Dunn Computer Corp., the protesters. Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., Scott E. Pickens, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., and Jessica C. Abrahams, Esq., Miller & Chevalier, for Hughes Data Systems, the intervenor. Lisa J. Obayashi, Esq., and Alden F. Abbott, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency., for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protesters rated eighth and ninth in overall technical merit are interested parties for the purpose of pursuing a protest where both claim their proposals were improperly evaluated, both offered lower prices than the awardee, and the solicitation called for award to the offeror whose proposal was found most advantageous to the government. Under these circumstances, if their protests were sustained, either protester could be in line for award. 2. Contention that agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. 3. Where solicitation requires offerors to provide technical literature to demonstrate commerciality and compliance with specifications, a proposal's affirmative response to a solicitation requirement that is contradicted by the required technical data generally cannot be reasonably accepted by agency evaluators. 4. Contention that agency improperly made award on the basis of initial proposals is denied where the record shows that the solicitation clearly indicated the agency's intent to make award without discussions if possible, and that the evaluation reasonably determined that discussions were not needed to determine the proposal offering the best value to the government. 5. Claim that Federal Acquisition Regulation sec. 15.610(c) required the agency to give the protester an opportunity to comment on adverse reports of past performance is denied because the cited regulation has no application where the agency does not otherwise hold discussions. 6. Argument that the agency selection official failed to make an independent and properly documented selection decision is denied where the record shows that the selection official reasonably relied upon and adopted the findings set forth in a detailed best value analysis prepared by the evaluation panel. DECISION International Data Products, Corp.; I-NET, Inc.; and Dunn Computer Corp. protest the award of a contract to Hughes Data Systems pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 52-PAPT-5-00005, issued by the Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, for computer workstations. All three protesters challenge the agency's evaluation of their proposed workstations, and all argue that the agency's selection of Hughes' proposal over theirs was unreasonable. The protests are denied. BACKGROUND The RFP here anticipated award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for two levels of workstations (level 1 and level 2) comprised of commercially-available, off-the-shelf (and in current production), desktop microcomputers and peripherals for the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). RFP sec. C.2. In addition, the solicitation sought technical support services and a warranty. The contract period was for a base year and two 1-year option periods, and the agency reserved the right to make award based on initial proposals. Potential offerors were advised that the agency would evaluate proposals using four evaluation factors--technical, past performance, management and price--the first three of which would be scored using adjectival and numerical ratings. The price factor was not to be scored, but was to be evaluated by totaling the price for the base year and both options.