Sales Resources Consultants, Inc., B-284943; B-284943.2, June 9, 2000

Sales Resources Consultants, Inc., B-284943; B-284943.2, June 9, 2000 TITLE: Sales Resources Consultants, Inc., B-284943; B-284943.2, June 9, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284943; B-284943.2 DATE: June 9, 2000 ********************************************************************** Sales Resources Consultants, Inc., B-284943; B-284943.2, June 9, 2000 Decision Matter of: Sales Resources Consultants, Inc. File: B-284943; B-284943.2 Date: June 9, 2000 Peter A. Cerick, Esq., for the protester. Willliam M. Rosen, Esq., for Intellisys Technology Corporation, an intervenor. David A. Ingold, Esq., Internal Revenue Service, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In deciding whether to place an order for brand name software under a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, agency is not required to first consider the unsolicited offer of an alternate software product from a vendor that does not have an FSS contract. 2. A protester that does not have a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract is not an interested party to challenge an agency's determination as to its minimum needs and its decision to conduct a limited competition among FSS vendors for a particular brand name software. DECISION Sales Resources Consultants, Inc. (SRC) protests the issuance of an order to Beyond.com and Intellisys Technology Corporation (ITC) by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program for electronic delivery of various Microsoft Corporation software. SRC, which does not have an FSS contract, complains that the IRS refused to consider SRC's unsolicited offer to provide Lotus SmartSuite software [1] to satisfy the agency's needs for office applications software. We dismiss the protest. In 1998, the IRS decided to standardize its workstation software to provide for service-wide compatibility, system management interfaces, and cost savings. To this end, IRS's chief information officer (CIO) issued a memorandum designating two levels (mandatory and controlled) of commercial off-the-shelf software that may be purchased by the IRS. [2] See Agency Report, Tab 6, CIO Memorandum 1 (Dec. 14, 1998). The CIO directed that only the listed standard software, which included various Microsoft Corporation software products, could be purchased by the agency. Id. at 2. In March 1999, consistent with the 1998 directive of the CIO, the IRS determined that it would seek to competitively acquire Microsoft Windows NT operating system and Microsoft Office application software under the FSS program. See Agency Report, Tab 7, Brand Name or Equal Justification (Mar. 1, 1999) (justifying restriction to Microsoft operating system and office application software on the basis of compatibility and costs). In March 1999, the IRS requested reductions in pricing for the Microsoft Corporation software from four FSS vendors, including ITC, with which the IRS had entered blanket purchase agreements (BPA). [3] Agency Report, Tab 8, Request for price reduction. ITC entered into a teaming arrangement with Beyond.com, another FSS software vendor, to respond to the IRS's price reduction request, [4] and on April 26 ITC/Beyond.com provided a price reduction quote to the IRS. Agency Report, Tab 9, ITC/Beyond.com quote. On April 29, Beyond.com's FSS contract was modified to include the software sought by the IRS. Supplemental Contracting Officer's Statement at 2; Supplemental Agency Report, exh. 2, Mod. 1 to Beyond.com's FSS Contract. On May 13, after evaluation of the vendors' responses to the agency's price reduction request, the IRS decided to accept the ITC/Beyond.com teaming arrangement and modified ITC's BPA accordingly. Agency Report, Tab 10, Selection of Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Vendor; Supplemental Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. Two delivery orders have been issued under the ITC/Beyond.com FSS teaming arrangement. Agency Report, Tab 2, Jan. 4, 2000 Order, and Tab 11, June 3, 1999 Order. SRC protests the issuance of the second order for electronic delivery of Microsoft office applications software. SRC variously complains that the IRS has no reasonable basis to restrict its acquisition of office applications software to Microsoft products; that the IRS did not timely or adequately justify its restriction of the acquisition to Microsoft software; that the issuance of the order was "in reality" an unpublicized, sole-source award; and that the IRS did not comply with FSS program "requirements" in selecting the ITC/Beyond.com FSS teaming arrangement to receive delivery orders. We disagree with SRC that the IRS's use of a limited competition under the FSS program to satisfy its software needs violates the full and open competition requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 41 U.S.C. sect. 253(a)(1) (1994), as implemented by FAR part 6.