Computer Associates International, Inc., B-292077.3, B-292077.4, B-292077.5, January 22, 2004

Computer Associates International, Inc., B-292077.3, B-292077.4, B-292077.5, January 22, 2004 TITLE: Computer Associates International, Inc., B-292077.3, B-292077.4, B-292077.5, January 22, 2004 BNUMBER: B-292077.3, B-292077.4, B-292077.5 DATE: January 22, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Computer Associates International, Inc. File: B-292077.3, B-292077.4, B-292077.5 Date: January 22, 2004 Claude P. Goddard, Jr., Esq., J. Michael Littlejohn, Esq., J. William Eshelman, Esq., and Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq., Wickwire Gavin, and James M. Black, Esq., Computer Associates International, Inc., for the protester. Marion T. Cordova, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Under a request for quotations issued in a competitive procurement under the Federal Supply Schedule, protest that the agency improperly made award based on a price discount that had expired by the terms of the vendor's quotation is denied as the vendor's submission was not an offer to which the standard for expired bids generally applies. 2. Protest that the evaluation method used by the agency for the evaluation of vendors' quotations was arbitrary is denied where the evaluation method used was reasonable. 3. Protest that the agency failed to evaluate vendors' quotations consistent with the stated evaluation criteria is denied where the record fails to show that the protester was competitively prejudiced by any such inconsistency. 4. Protest that the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations and selection decision were based upon the application of an unstated minimum requirement is denied where the record does not support protester's assertion. DECISION Computer Associates International, Inc. (CA) protests the issuance of a purchase order to Serena Software, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ-OPPM-3-1007VT, issued by the Office of Procurement and Property Management, Department of Agriculture (USDA), for quotations from Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) vendors for *change management' software. CA argues that the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations and the resulting award decision were improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, initially issued on December 13, 2002, requested quotations from three FSS vendors, including Serena and CA, for a change management software product, to include installation, configuration, training, and maintenance, for use at the USDA National Finance Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, and the National Information Technology Center, Kansas City, Missouri. The solicitation informed vendors of the various computer platforms and operating systems upon which the change management software would be installed, and advised that *[i]t is only essential that the functional requirements [of the proposed software] be satisfied in the same manner for each participating platform.' RFQ at 5. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price purchase order for a 3-year period of performance. The solicitation also set out three evaluation factors in descending order of importance--price, technical, and corporate experience and past performance--and stated that technical merit and corporate experience when combined were more important than price. Award was to be made to the responsible vendor whose quotation conformed to the solicitation and provided the overall *best value' to the government, based on consideration of all factors. The agency received quotations from the three vendors it solicited by the January 6, 2003, closing date. A technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated vendors' technical quotations as to the functional requirements set forth in the solicitation's statement of work (SOW) using a numeric rating system. Agency Report (AR), Tab N, TET Evaluation Report, Jan. 23, 2003. Following both the technical and price evaluation of quotations, the USDA determined that the quotation of the third vendor, Merant/ Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc., represented the best overall value. On March 13, following a debriefing by the agency, CA filed a protest with our Office, arguing that the USDA had improperly evaluated CA's technical and price quotations and that the agency had failed to follow the solicitation's stated source selection criteria in making its best-value determination. On April 8, the agency notified our Office of its intent to take corrective action in response to CA's protest.