Severn Companies, Inc., B-275717.2, April 28, 1997

B-275717.2 Apr 28, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Federal Supply Schedule contract for direct access computer storage device is denied where protester's response to request for pricing (RFPr) indicated noncompliance with RFPr's specifications. That the RFPr was ambiguous. Or other agency contracts to which DITCO is an authorized ordering activity. The specifications required that the solution "[p]rovide channel interfaces between the disk subsystem and the host computer or computers to which it is attached.". The specifications provided that: "Support for 32 channels per box is required for growth. The channel configuration required at initial delivery is 8 parallel channels. The parties agree that the parallel and ESCON channels will work with the MVS operating system. View Decision Matter of: Severn Companies, Inc. File: B-275717.2 Date: April 28, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Severn Companies, Inc. protests the action of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization (DITCO), in terminating for the convenience of the government the delivery order (DCA200-97-F-0991) issued to Severn against its General Services Administration (GSA), Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract under a request for pricing (RFPr) for a direct access storage device (DASD) system for the DISA Continuity of Operations and Test Facility (DCTF) at Slidell, Louisiana (DCTF-Slidell). DISA terminated the delivery order after concluding, in response to a protest filed by LA Systems, that the RFPr was ambiguous. We deny the protest. The RFPr, as amended, requested pricing for items available on GSA schedules, existing indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts, or other agency contracts to which DITCO is an authorized ordering activity. Specifically, the RFPr required offerors to quote a price for one terabyte (TB) of redundant array of inexpensive disk (RAID) storage to support IBM multiple virtual storage (MVS) operating system computers and one TB of RAID to support UNIX operating system computers, in either "a single box or multiple box solution." The specifications required that the solution "[p]rovide channel interfaces between the disk subsystem and the host computer or computers to which it is attached." In this regard, the specifications provided that: "Support for 32 channels per box is required for growth. The channel configuration required at initial delivery is 8 parallel channels, 8 ESCON and 8 SCSI." The parties agree that the parallel and ESCON channels will work with the MVS operating system, while the SCSI channels will work with the UNIX operating system; thus, 16 channels were required at initial delivery for the MVS operating system and 8 channels for the UNIX operating system. Offerors were required to furnish pricing, delivery and contract administration data, but not technical literature or a technical proposal. DISA received four responses that it considered acceptable, including Severn's and LA Systems's. Upon learning that DISA had issued a delivery order to Severn as the low, technically acceptable respondent, LA Systems protested to our Office that Severn's response was technically unacceptable. Subsequently, on January 8, 1997, DISA terminated Severn's delivery order on the basis that the specifications were ambiguous in that the meaning of certain terms--such as box, subsystem, system and architecture--was unclear, and in that "the exact number and configuration of the channels required for MVS and UNIX portions of the DASD are still unclear." DISA intends to resolicit its DASD requirement under revised specifications. Severn denies that the specifications were ambiguous and maintains that its solution complied with the specifications as reasonably interpreted. Severn concludes that its delivery order should be reinstated. Our Office generally will not review an agency's decision to terminate a contract for the convenience of the government; such decisions are a matter of contract administration which is not within our bid protest function. However, we will review such a termination, where, as here, it is based upon an agency determination that the initial contract award was improper. Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corp., B-219988.3, Dec. 16, 1985, 85-2 CPD Para. 667 at 2. [1] Whether or not the solicitation contained ambiguities, termination of Severn's delivery order was proper since Severn's response to the RFPr reasonably indicated noncompliance with the clear specification requirement to support 32 channels.