Card Technology Corporation
Case: B-275385
Agency: General Services Administration
Protester: Card Technology Corporation
Date: 1997-02-18
Denied
Card Technology Corporation
BNUMBER: B-275385; B-275385.2
DATE: February 18, 1997
TITLE: Card Technology Corporation
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Card Technology Corporation
File: B-275385; B-275385.2
Date:February 18, 1997
Michael A. Hordell, Esq., and Laura L. Hoffman, Esq., Gadsby & Hannah,
for the protester.
David S. Cohen, Esq., Cohen & White, for DataCard Corporation, an
intervenor.
Jeanne A. Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the
agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Award of purchase order for printers to Federal Supply Service (FSS)
vendor without providing protester an opportunity to compete was
proper where agency determined that only one printer was compatible
with the system with which it was to operate, and protester does not
submit any evidence showing that it offers a compatible printer listed
on the FSS.
DECISION
Card Technology Corporation protests the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) issuance of purchase order Nos. A64026 and 101-C67065 to
DataCard Corporation for Image Card II color printers under its
General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)
contract. Card Technology also challenges the award to DataCard under
its FSS contract pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No.
101-18-96, for a Veterans Identification Card (VIC) system.
We deny the protests.
On August 13, 1996, the VA issued the RFQ to three FSS vendors capable
of providing the VIC system. The RFQ set forth minimum and maximum
quantities, as well as the agency's current known requirements for
readers, reader/writers, and plastic cards. Two offerors--DataCard
and Card Technology--submitted quotations, and the agency made award
to DataCard based on its low price ($7,187,947.60 versus $8,688,260.70
for Card Technology). Subsequently, the VA identified a need for
color printers, pop-up keyboards, and service and support to modify
DataCard supplied software and to reinstall and relocate DataCard
equipment at certain VA facilities, and issued the two purchase orders
to DataCard for these requirements.
Card Technology maintains that it was improper for the VA to purchase
Image Card II color printers from DataCard under its FSS contract
without providing Card Technology an opportunity to compete for the
requirement.
The FSS program managed by GSA provides agencies with a simplified
process for obtaining commonly used supplies and services at prices
associated with volume buying. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec.
8.401(a). When placing an order under a schedule contract, the
procuring agency is not required to seek further competition,
synopsize the solicitation or award, or to determine separately fair
and reasonable pricing, since the planning, solicitation, and award
phases of the FSS comply with FAR requirements. FAR sec. 8.404(a). When
ordering from the FSS, the determination of the agency's minimum needs
and which product meets those needs is the agency's responsibility;
the agency may consider such factors as special features of one item
not provided by comparable items which are required for effective
program performance. FAR sec. 8.404(b)(2)(ii)(A). We will only review
this determination for reasonableness. Design Contempo, Inc.,
B-270483, Mar. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 146.
The VA states that it purchased the Image Card II printers under
DataCard's FSS contract because it required a printer that was
compatible with the DataCard VIC system it had purchased (under the
RFQ), and it was not aware that any other printer would interface with
the DataCard system. More specifically, the agency's project manager
for the VIC project states that,
"[b]ased on our review of the technical manuals, our experience
with the hardware and software, and routine discussions with
DataCard during installation and set-up of their equipment, it
appears that the interface between the QuickWorks workstation and
the printers/embossers is non-standard and proprietary to
DataCard. Though the software runs on a standard personal
computer and connects via a standard cable, the actual data being
sent over that cable is formatted in such a way that only Data
Card printers understand its meaning. To the best of my
knowledge, there are no other printers available that conform to
this special interface."[1]
The protester does not dispute that the agency's minimum need is for a
color printer that is compatible with the DataCard VIC system; it
asserts only that it can provide a compatible printer.
Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...