Computer Associates International, Inc.--Reconsideration, B-292077.6, May 5, 2004

B-292077.6 May 05, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Computer Associates International, Inc. (CA) requests reconsideration of our decision in Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., B-292077.3 et al., Jan. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD 6 ____, denying CA's protest of 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. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision B-292077.6, Computer Associates International, Inc.--Reconsideration, May 5, 2004 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: File: Date: DECISION We deny the request for reconsideration. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must show that our prior decision contains errors of either fact or law, or must present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. 21.14(a) (2004). Here, CA argues that our decision erred in several respects. Principally, CA challenges our decision for upholding the agency's determination to make an offer to Serena at a price that had expired by the terms of Serena's quotation. According to CA, we also improperly held that the agency did not violate any law or regulation when it revised its point rating system after having received the vendors' technical quotations. Last, CA disagrees with our conclusion that CA had abandoned two of its protest grounds. The solicitation as issued on December 12, 2002 explained that USDA was seeking information; any quotations submitted in response were not offers; the agency would conduct a price/technical tradeoff; and USDA would make an offer to the firm whose quotation represented the –best value— to the government. On May 16, 2003, USDA amended the RFQ and sought revised price quotations from the vendors. In response, Serena significantly reduced its price and, as part of its revised price quotation, stated: –This offer is valid through June 31 [sic], 2003.— Serena's Revised Price Quotation, at 1. Based on the reduced price in Serena's revised price quotation, USDA determined that Serena's quotation represented the best value to the government. The agency, however, did not make Serena an offer until after our Office issued a September decision denying a protest filed by CA challenging the terms of the solicitation and the May 16 amendment. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., B-292077.2, Sept. 4, 2003, 2003 CPD 157. When the agency made the September 5 offer, it was at the reduced price identified in Serena's revised price quotation. CA argued that USDA could not properly have made an offer to Serena at the price identified in the firm's revised price quotation because that price had expired by its own terms. We rejected this argument, holding that the agency's decision neither violated a procurement statute or regulation nor otherwise was unreasonable, since Serena's quotation was not an actual offer, and the vendor thus was under no obligation to accept the agency's September 5 offer, regardless of any –expiration— date set forth in Serena's revised price quotation. In its request for reconsideration, CA contends that our holding on this issue was in error. CA maintains that it was unreasonable for the agency to have concluded that Serena's quotation represented the –best value— in September because Serena's reduced price was –unavailable— at that time, and Serena's undiscounted price was $6 million more than CA's price. To conclude otherwise, according to CA, –ignores the reality that Serena's discount explicitly expired by its own terms as of June 30th,— renders the quotation process meaningless and undermines the integrity of that process –because the Government can simply ignore the unequivocal words of the vendor and make an award . . . on terms different than those the vendor provided.— Request for Reconsideration at 3-4. CA further maintains that the offer to Serena at an –expired— price provided Serena with an unfair competitive advantage. Id. at 8. It is true, as CA notes, that when an agency chooses to employ competitive procedures similar to those used in a FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement, in the context of an RFQ, and a protest is filed challenging the outcome of the competition, we will review the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation of the vendor's submissions was fair, reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. KMR, LLC, B-292860, Dec. 22, 2003, 2003 CPD 233 at 4 (citing COMARK Fed. Sys., B'278343, B'278343.2, Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD 34 at 4-5).