Spar Applied Systems--Declaration of Entitlement, B-276030.2,

B-276030.2 Sep 12, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Request for recommendation that costs of filing and pursuing protest be reimbursed is denied. Where protest that the terms of a solicitation were ambiguous was not clearly meritorious. The SIVCS will be installed on Navy aircraft carriers and used as a prototype for the next generation of Navy integrated interior voice. The RFP added that the purpose of the SOW is to articulate a statement of the problem the Navy is attempting to address and to define a set of parameters which define key operational needs. Within this context the Navy expects that offerors will propose alternative technological and business approaches that respond to the perception of the Navy's needs with imagination and innovation. View Decision Matter of: Spar Applied Systems--Declaration of Entitlement File: B-276030.2 Date: September 12, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Spar Applied Systems requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest against the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N65236-97-0301, issued by the Department of the Navy for a Scaled Integrated Voice Communications System (SIVCS). We deny the request. The RFP provided for the award of a contract for the design, fabrication, installation support, and test of a SIVCS. The SIVCS will be installed on Navy aircraft carriers and used as a prototype for the next generation of Navy integrated interior voice, video, and data communication systems. The RFP informed offerors that the statement of work (SOW) and an "attached specification . . . form the definition of the Navy's intent to procure a hardware set that addresses and improves the ever-growing problem of voice communication and information flow within and from a U.S. Navy attack carrier." The RFP added that the purpose of the SOW is to articulate a statement of the problem the Navy is attempting to address and to define a set of parameters which define key operational needs. The attached specification has been constructed to represent one possible approach that may satisfy those needs. Within this context the Navy expects that offerors will propose alternative technological and business approaches that respond to the perception of the Navy's needs with imagination and innovation. Multiple proposals from individual vendors are encouraged. The RFP included the "attached specification" not as an attachment, but as a 31-page section of the SOW. On December 12, the agency issued amendment No. 0001 to the RFP, which deleted the specification from the SOW and added it to the RFP as Exhibit A with the following notation: This specification is not a mandatory specification for this procurement. It is included for information only, as an example of one possible way to solve the problem. Portions of this specification are referred to by the [SOW]. On January 17, 1997, the agency issued amendment No. 0003 to the RFP, which, among other things, "recognized that different vendors may propose very different designs based on differing architectures, interface details, etc.," and established a "strawman" system "in order to provide a common basis for price comparison." Specifically, amendment No. 0003 requested that "[f]or purposes of price comparison only, offerors shall submit an itemized estimate for a total of three complete systems," and provided list of components that each system was to consist of. On January 20, the agency issued amendment No. 0004 to the RFP, which modified one aspect of the RFP's "strawman system," and one aspect of the evaluation scheme. Spar filed its protest against the terms of the RFP with our Office on January 23, 1 day prior to the January 24 closing date for receipt of initial proposals. In its protest Spar asserted: The fundamental problem with this procurement is that the Navy has created an internally inconsistent set of "rules" which offerors are to follow in responding to the RFP. Many provisions of the RFP indicate that the technical requirement is intended to be a performance/functional specification under which offerors have wide latitude to develop solutions.