GTSI Corp., B-292298; B-292298.2; B-292298.3, August 14, 2003

GTSI Corp., B-292298; B-292298.2; B-292298.3, August 14, 2003 TITLE: GTSI Corp., B-292298; B-292298.2; B-292298.3, August 14, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292298; B-292298.2; B-292298.3 DATE: August 14, 2003 ********************************************************************** GTSI Corp., B-292298; B-292298.2; B-292298.3, August 14, 2003 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: GTSI Corp. File: B-292298; B-292298.2; B-292298.3 Date: August 14, 2003 John J. Fausti, Esq., Monica C. Parchment, Esq., and Jennifer M. Morrison, Esq., John J. Fausti & Associates, for the protester. Kelley P. Doran, Esq., William A. Shook, Esq., and Michael D. Garson, Esq., Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, for Dell Marketing, L.P., an intervenor. James H. Haag, Esq., Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and Jerold D. Cohen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly accepted quotation that did not unambiguously indicate compliance with mandatory computer monitor viewing area requirement, but instead could reasonably be interpreted as indicating noncompliance, and then improperly modified the blanket purchasing agreement shortly after award to *correct* ambiguity, is denied where there is no basis for concluding that the agency's actions prejudiced protester; protester has not alleged, nor is there any basis for concluding, that it would have lowered its price sufficiently to displace awardee as the low-priced vendor. DECISION GTSI Corp. protests the Department of the Navy, Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command's (SPAWAR), award of a blanket purchasing agreement (BPA) to Dell Marketing, L.P., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00039-02-Q-0016, for computers, laptops and peripherals. GTSI asserts that Dell's quotation failed to comply with the specifications in the RFQ. We deny the protest. The RFQ contemplated award of a BPA for the procurement of commercial off‑the‑shelf computers, laptops and peripherals in support of shipboard command, control, communications, computers and intelligence networks. All items offered by a vendor were required to be on that vendor's General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. The required equipment characteristics, configurations and options were set forth in the RFQ's Section B Schedule (including attachment No. 1) and Statement of Objectives (SOO). The RFQ provided that award would be made to the responsible contractor whose proposal represented the best value to the government. Best value was to be determined based on price and four non-price evaluation factors, including (in descending order of importance): (1) satisfaction of technical requirements; (2) past performance; (3) logistics and support plan; and (4) small and disadvantaged business (SDB) participation. While the SOO provided that *[t]he identified specifications are to be met at a minimum, but may be exceeded,* SOO S: 2.1, the statement of evaluation factors in Section M provided, with respect to the factor for satisfaction of technical requirements, that *[t]he government will evaluate the extent to which the equipment proposed by the contractor meets or exceeds the requirements of Section B of the RFQ and in the SOO.* RFQ S: M.3. The non-price evaluation factors when combined were approximately equal in importance to price. Four vendors submitted six quotations. Dell's and GTSI's quotations were included in the competitive range. SPAWAR conducted discussions with Dell and GTSI in which the agency advised the vendors of a number of weaknesses, including instances in which their proposed equipment did not appear to meet the requirements set forth in the Section B Schedule and the SOO. SPAWAR then requested revised quotations. Based on its evaluation of final quotation revisions, SPAWAR determined that Dell's basic quotation offered the best value. (Dell submitted basic and alternate quotations.) Specifically, while Dell's and GTSI's revised quotations both received very good ratings under the evaluation factors for satisfaction of technical requirements and logistics and support plan, and both received acceptable ratings for SDB participation, Dell's past performance was rated excellent while GTSI's was only rated very good. SPAWAR concluded that Dell had a *slight edge* under the non‑price technical factors. Source Selection Advisory Council Report at 11. In addition, Dell's evaluated price ($60,733,475) was significantly ($[DELETED]) lower than GTSI's ($[DELETED]).