International Data Products, Inc.; Commax Technologies, Inc.,

International Data Products, Inc.; Commax Technologies, Inc., BNUMBER: B-275480.2, B-275480.3, B-275480.4 DATE: April 3, 1997 TITLE: International Data Products, Inc.; Commax Technologies, Inc., B-275480.2, B-275480.3, B-275480.4, April 3, 1997 ********************************************************************** 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, Inc.; Commax Technologies, Inc. File: B-275480.2, B-275480.3, B-275480.4 Date:April 3, 1997 Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., and Jason I. Hewitt, Esq., Winston & Strawn, for International Data Products, Inc.; and Laura K. Kennedy, Esq., Grace Bateman, Esq., and G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for Commax Technologies, Inc., the protesters. William M. Rosen, Esq., and Kendrick C. Fong, Esq., Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, for Government Technology Services, Inc.; Patrick O' Keefe, Esq., Ian T. Graham, Esq., and Philip H. M. Beauregard, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for Sysorex Information Systems, Inc., the intervenors. Vera Meza, Esq., Richard C. McGinnis, Esq., and Arthur E. Lees, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST An offeror's global or blanket certification of compliance with the specifications is insufficient to establish compliance where the agency has reason to question the characteristics of the products being offered. DECISION International Data Products, Inc. (IDP) and Commax Technologies, Inc. protest the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command's (AMC) award of contracts to Sysorex Information Systems, Inc. and Government Technology Services, Inc. (GTSI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHC94-96-R-0003, for portable computer systems and related resources. The protesters primarily argue that the awardees' proposals failed to comply with various mandatory specification requirements. We deny the protests. The solicitation contemplated award of two firm, fixed-price, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts, with a contract period of 2 years, for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) portable computer systems, including generally a number of standard configurations and a number of high performance configurations.[1] Award was to be made to the two responsible offerors whose offers "represent the best overall value to the Government" under four criteria: (1) technical, (2) past performance, (3) cost, and (4) management. The technical factor--comprised of eight subfactors, including performance of the standard and high performance systems on the Winstone 32, Winbench 96, and Ziff-Davis BatteryMark benchmark tests and on the agency's ergonomics tests--was "significantly more important" than past performance, cost or management; past performance was "comparatively equal" to cost; and past performance and cost both were "more important" than management. Although the solicitation included detailed specifications, it did not require the submission of detailed technical proposals. Instead, it required that offerors: (1) furnish "commercial technical information sheets/brochures sufficient to identify the products being offered (e.g., specification sheets)," and identify the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the products; (2) furnish the results from unwitnessed benchmark tests; (3) furnish bid samples consisting of the core systems, but not the various required peripherals, for witnessed benchmark testing; (4) make oral presentations; and (5) complete a "global certification" stating that "the offeror meets all the requirements of the solicitation . . . except as noted below. . .," and agreeing that in the event that it should "fail to meet any requirements, the contractor shall, at no additional cost, make any changes necessary to the products or services to comply with the contract requirements." (In addition, offerors were required to submit price, past performance, and management information.) Eight proposals were received. Following discussions, oral presentations and benchmark testing, AMC requested best and final offers (BAFO) from five offerors, including IDP, Commax, Sysorex and GTSI. Based upon the evaluation of BAFOs, oral presentations and benchmark testing, AMC determined that the proposals of Sysorex and GTSI, which included signed global certifications of compliance with the specifications, represented the best value.