COMARK Federal Systems, B-278343; B-278343.2, January 20,

COMARK Federal Systems, B-278343; B-278343.2, January 20, BNUMBER: B-278343; B-278343.2 DATE: January 20, 1998 TITLE: COMARK Federal Systems, B-278343; B-278343.2, January 20, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:COMARK Federal Systems File: B-278343; B-278343.2 Date:January 20, 1998 Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, for the protester. Keith L. Baker, Esq., and Jeffrey E. Weinstein, Esq., Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, for Sytel, Inc., an intervenor. Kenneth E. Patton, Esq., and Ada E. Bosque, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Andrew T. Pogany, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Under request for quotations which asked vendors to identify a configuration of computer systems and related hardware and services on Federal Supply Schedule, where agency intended to conduct a technical evaluation and cost/technical trade-off, agency improperly failed to advise vendors of the basis for selection. DECISION COMARK Federal Systems protests the issuance of a delivery order to Sytel, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 0008, issued by the Health Care Financing Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, for computer desktop workstations. COMARK principally argues that the agency improperly failed to advise vendors of the agency's actual needs and evaluated quotations in a manner that was inconsistent with the solicitation. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND In June 1997, the agency announced that it would issue multiple blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) covering a variety of computer hardware, software, associated equipment and services pursuant to the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). The agency tentatively identified six vendors to receive for review BPA "packages," which included, among other things, a sample personal computer specification, a document entitled "BPA Evaluation Requirements Criteria," and the agency's terms and conditions for future delivery orders to be issued under the BPA. The BPA package required the submission of a demonstration workstation to undergo a benchmark test and specified that the proposed unit have a hard drive capable of storing 1 gigabyte (GB) of data. In July, question and answer sessions were conducted and based on these sessions, as well as past performance evaluations, the agency selected four vendors, including COMARK and Sytel, to receive BPAs. On August 6, the agency revised the BPA specifications to require a hard drive capable of storing a minimum of 2 GB of data. Benchmark demonstrations were performed by the agency from mid-August through mid-September. As relevant here, COMARK's "Plus Data" unit, which it proposed to meet the BPA specifications, successfully passed the benchmark demonstration, as did two models from Sytel and two from another vendor, BTG, Inc. These three firms signed and accepted the BPAs on September 4. On September 18, the agency issued RFQ No. 0008 to the three firms via electronic mail. The RFQ called for a quantity of 1,950 desktop workstations and specifically stated that it was being issued "under [the agency's] BPA." The BPA, in turn, specified that it was issued "[p]ursuant to GSA Federal Supply Contract[s]." The RFQ contained numerous specifications, some of which were followed by the parenthetical designation "(minimum)." Among the latter, the RFQ included a requirement for a "2 GB Hard Disk (minimum)." The RFQ also required a 3-year on-site warranty for all items. The RFQ did not contain any evaluation criteria. From September 23 through September 29, the agency received quotes, which were rated on a 1,000-point system with eight categories, including system design, features, performance, and price (which accounted for [deleted] percent of the total score). COMARK submitted two quotes; the chart below reflects its lower-priced quote. The evaluation results contained a pricing error that significantly reduced COMARK's rating; we show below the total scores and prices, as the agency has corrected them in its post-protest calculations. The total evaluated points includes both technical and price factors--that is, the scores reflect a combination of technical merit and price in a composite rating.