SMS Data Products Group, Inc., B-280970.4, January 29, 1999

B-280970.4 Jan 29, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested the Army's cancellation of solicitation for compact disk servers, contending that that there was no ambiguity in the specifications of the solicitation and that recompetition would result in an improper auction. GAO held that the Army properly cancelled the solicitation, since the material solicitation requirements and the Army's written clarifications of those requirements were susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: SMS Data Products Group, Inc. File: B-280970.4 Date: January 29, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION SMS Data Products Group, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's decision to terminate SMS's purchase order under solicitation No. DAHA90-98-Q-0124, and to issue a revised request for quotations (RFQ). The Army's corrective action resulted from a protest by Netcon, Inc., a competitor, challenging SMS's ability to meet the RFQ specifications, which caused the Army to conclude that the specifications, as stated and interpreted through agency responses to vendor questions, were ambiguous. SMS contends that there was no ambiguity in the specifications and that recompetition will result in an improper auction. We deny the protest. The RFQ sought quotations for a quantity of compact disk servers to Army National Guard units. The RFQ advised prospective vendors that "only GSA quotes will be accepted" (RFQ at 1, block 20) referring to products on the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). Prior to the submission of quotations, a prospective vendor submitted the following question: "This contractor understands it is the government[']s intention to only accept quotes with part numbers currently on GSA schedule as of the Solicitation issue date." Solicitation Questions at Para. 1. The agency responded, "Correct. It is our intention to procure this requirement from GSA schedules." Id. NetCon interpreted this response to mean that only products on the FSS as of May 26, 1998, the RFQ issue date, could be proposed. Since SMS had proposed items that were not on the FSS until after that date, NetCon protested the issuance of a purchase order to SMS. According to NetCon, had it known that it was acceptable to propose items not yet on the FSS, it could have proposed a less expensive item in response to the RFQ. The RFQ also required that the "server must have full functionality on a Banyan Vines or a Microsoft NT 4.0 network operating system," that "[a]ll CD servers will be configured to work in either a Banyan Vines or Microsoft NT 4.0 environment," and that the contractor must provide installation documentation which would "provide for both Banyan Vines and Microsoft NT 4.0 networks." Statement of Work (SOW) at 4.1, 4.2, 4.3. Another vendor question referred to these three sections and asked: There are three different interpretations possible from this language: a) Each server must be capable of operating with both operating systems; b) The server must be capable of operating with either operating system and the Government will specify the operating system at time of order; or c) The offeror may select either environment as it sees fit. Which if any interpretation is correct? Please keep in mind when responding to this question, that it is more expensive to configure a system to work in both environments. Solicitation Questions at Para. 11. The agency responded that "[i]interpretation A is correct." Id. NetCon interpreted this response to mean that the servers must be capable of operating simultaneously on both systems. Consequently, it proposed a particular solution to meet this requirement. According to NetCon, had it not had to meet this requirement, it could have proposed a less expensive alternative. The Army originally defended its decision to issue a purchase order to SMS. In this regard, it explained that it intended for vendors to be able to quote on any product so long as it was on the FSS at the time the purchase order was issued. Likewise it intended the item to be capable of operating on both systems, but not necessarily simultaneously. After reviewing NetCon's comments on the report and a supplementary protest, the agency determined that the questioned requirements and its responses to vendor questions were ambiguous. In the Army's view, NetCon's interpretations were as reasonable as the agency's intended meanings. The Army advised our Office that it intended to take corrective action by canceling the RFQ and SMS's purchase order, and by issuing a new solicitation.