International Data Systems, Inc., B-277385, October 8, 1997

B-277385 Oct 08, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights These discussions were not meaningful where the agency failed to advise the protester of its concern regarding the protester's proposed noncompliant delivery schedule which. While it was readily correctable. BACKGROUND The agency issued a combined Commerce Business Daily synopsis and solicitation for personal computers which was published on March 21. As a result of which seven proposals were "determined to meet or exceed [the agency's] minimum specifications in all critical elements. " and were included in the competitive range. While ACT failed to acknowledge the one amendment that was issued in connection with this solicitation. Whereupon the agency determined that it was in the best interests of the government to continue with performance. View Decision Matter of: International Data Systems, Inc. File: B-277385 Date: October 8, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION International Data Systems, Inc. (IDS) protests the award of a contract to Applied Computer Technology (ACT) by the Department of the Interior under request for proposals (RFP) No. 143868-RFP97-12097. IDS primarily objects that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued a combined Commerce Business Daily synopsis and solicitation for personal computers which was published on March 21, 1997. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for 6 months. The RFP provided that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, taking into consideration price, conformance with technical specifications, and past performance, with technical considerations being more important than price. The solicitation stated that the agency reserved the right to award the contract to other than the lowest-price offeror and provided that the agency "intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except communications conducted for the purpose of minor clarification)." The agency issued one amendment on March 28. The agency received 42 offers by the April 17 due date. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal, as a result of which seven proposals were "determined to meet or exceed [the agency's] minimum specifications in all critical elements, but each had not addressed some minor issues," and were included in the competitive range. The agency sent each of the seven competitive range offerors a written request for clarifications, requiring each offeror to submit the additional requested information in the form of a best and final offer (BAFO). The TEP then ranked the seven BAFOs, weighing technical merit and past performance each at 40 percent, and price at 20 percent. This evaluation resulted in the IDS proposal being ranked first, with ACT's proposal ranked second. ACT proposed as an alternate a Pentium II processor, in addition to the Pentium Pro specified in the solicitation. [1] The contracting officer then reviewed the IDS proposal in greater detail and noticed that IDS offered a 30- to 45-day delivery schedule, rather than the 15-day delivery period required by the solicitation. The contracting officer stated that she had earlier rejected other proposals that failed to meet the 15-day delivery requirement; she therefore felt compelled to similarly find the IDS proposal ineligible for award based on noncompliance with the required delivery schedule. Moreover, believing that she had up to that point merely obtained clarifications and had not conducted discussions, she decided not to advise IDS about the problem with its proposed delivery schedule, in order to avoid holding discussions, which she feared would delay the procurement. The agency found that ACT's proposal represented the best value to the government and awarded the contract to that firm on June 19. In ACT's contract, the agency added a line item that did not appear in the original solicitation for the Pentium II systems that ACT offered in its proposal. While ACT failed to acknowledge the one amendment that was issued in connection with this solicitation, the agency waived this omission as a minor informality. IDS protested to our Office, whereupon the agency determined that it was in the best interests of the government to continue with performance, notwithstanding the pendency of the protest. See 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(d)(3)(C)(i)(I) (1994). DISCUSSION IDS asserts that the agency's failure to advise it of the agency's concerns regarding the IDS delivery schedule constituted a failure to conduct meaningful discussions and that, had the matter been brought to its attention, the firm could have easily corrected what it describes as a typographical error regarding the delivery schedule.