Rel-Tek Systems & Design, Inc.--Modification of Remedy, B-280463.7, July 1, 1999

B-280463.7 Jul 01, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm requested modification of a sustained protest against the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for accounting software, contending that DFAS' implementation of GAO's recommendation would not address its concerns. GAO had held that DFAS conduct discussions with all bidders in the competitive range, request best and final offers, and make award to the bidder offering the best value to the government. GAO held that DFAS' implementation of GAO's recommendation cured the procurement impropriety and prevented an auction among competitors. Accordingly, the request for modification was denied. View Decision Matter of: Rel-Tek Systems & Design, Inc.--Modification of Remedy File: B-280463.7 Date: July 1, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Rel-Tek Systems & Design, Inc. requests that our Office modify the corrective recommendations included in our decision in Rel-Tek Sys. & Design, Inc., B-280463.3, Nov. 25, 1998, 99-1 CPD Para. 2, in which we sustained Rel-Tek's protest of an award to Oracle Corporation under letter of interest (LOI) No. MDA-L-97-0005, issued by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for accounting software and related services. We sustained the protest because Oracle's proposal failed to unambiguously demonstrate compliance with certain LOI requirements regarding acceptance, warranty, and software performance. In that decision, we recommended that DFAS conduct discussions with all offerors whose proposals were in the competitive range at the time of award, request best and final offers (BAFO), and proceed with the source selection process. We further recommended that, if, after the selection process had concluded, another offeror's proposal was determined to offer the greatest value to the government under the terms of the LOI, Oracle's contract should be terminated, and award made to that offeror. /1/ DFAS limited its implementation of our corrective recommendations to the three solicitation requirements (regarding acceptance, warranty, and software performance provisions of the LOI) with which Oracle's proposal failed to unambiguously comply. Specifically, the agency reopened discussions, but limited them to these areas of the proposals, noting for Oracle that its proposal did not comply with these requirements. The agency reports that, since the remaining offerors' proposals had no identifiable deficiencies in these three areas, the agency did not raise discussion questions with these firms. /2/ The agency subsequently issued to each competitive range offeror a request for a new BAFO, instructing each offeror to limit any proposal revisions to these three technical areas (i.e., acceptance, warranty, and software performance) and their associated costs. Rel-Tek requests that we modify our corrective recommendations. Rel-Tek bases its request on the allegedly restrictive terms of the agency's request for new BAFOs, under which Rel-Tek asserts it will not receive effective relief. /3/ Rel-Tek contends that the terms of the recompetition are improper, since Rel-Tek is precluded from changing areas of its proposal that the firm desires to change in order to be more competitive. Essentially, Rel-Tek seeks a decision from our Office recommending recompetition on the basis of unrestricted discussions and BAFOs. /4/ The agency, on the other hand, asserts that it has adequately corrected the prior procurement impropriety by giving Oracle an opportunity to comply with the cited LOI requirements it did not meet prior to award, and allowing the remaining offerors a similar opportunity to revise these limited areas of their proposals, including cost proposal revisions related to these requirements. The agency asserts that the limitation imposed on the BAFO revisions is necessary here to prevent an improper auction, since the remaining competitors, who were debriefed after award, have learned not only their competitive standing and proposal evaluations, but also the awardee's substantially lower evaluated costs. Generally, offerors in response to discussions may revise any aspect of their proposals as they see fit--including portions of their proposals which were not the subject of discussions. System Planning Corp., B-244697.4, June 15, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 516 at 3-4. There may, however, be appropriate circumstances where an agency, in conducting discussions to implement a recommendation of our Office for corrective action, may reasonably decide to limit the revisions offerors may make to their proposals. Id. As a general matter, the details of implementing our recommendations for corrective action are within the sound discretion and judgment of the contracting agency. Serv-Air, Inc., B-258243.4, Mar. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 125 at 2-3.