CourtSmart Digital Systems, Inc., B-292995.2; B-292995.3, February 13, 2004

CourtSmart Digital Systems, Inc., B-292995.2; B-292995.3, February 13, 2004 TITLE: CourtSmart Digital Systems, Inc., B-292995.2; B-292995.3, February 13, 2004 BNUMBER: B-292995.2; B-292995.3 DATE: February 13, 2004 ********************************************************************** CourtSmart Digital Systems, Inc., B-292995.2; B-292995.3, February 13, 2004 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: CourtSmart Digital Systems, Inc. File: B-292995.2; B-292995.3 Date: February 13, 2004 James H. Roberts, III, Esq., Van Scoyoc Kelly, for the protester. Jeffrey B. Krashin, Esq., Thompson & Waldron, and William E. Casselman, II, Esq., for York Telecom Corporation, the intervenor. Seth Binstock, Esq., Social Security Administration, and Thedlus L. Thompson, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agencies. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Issuance of order that included non-Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) item under a competition among FSS vendors was improper. 2. Awardee*s quotation under a competition among Federal Supply Schedule vendors was unacceptable where it was not compliant with the solicitation provision requiring compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires electronic and information technology that will allow individuals with disabilities the same access as persons who are not individuals with disabilities. 3. In a competition among Federal Supply Schedule vendors, quotations were not evaluated on an equitable basis with respect to an experience requirement. 4. Agency*s determination that protester*s software for portable digital recording system proposed in a competition under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) was unacceptable is not supported by the record. DECISION CourtSmart Digital Systems, Inc. protests the issuance of an order to York Telecom Corporation under a request for quotations (RFQ) issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for a portable digital recording system under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). We sustain the protest. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed-priced order for products and services under the selected vendor*s FSS contract. The RFQ included a detailed statement of work (SOW) stating that the agency*s requirement was for *a single, stand-alone, portable recording system.* The agency intends to purchase 1,470 of these systems to be used on a nationwide basis to record hearings and appeals related to applications for SSA disability benefits. Each system is to be installed on and/or used with a laptop computer, a sound card and video teleconference equipment that SSA will provide as government-furnished equipment. The system must include the commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) recording software and the hardware necessary to allow audio generated at hearings to be recorded. The successful vendor will be required to install all of the systems within a period of 18 months at SSA locations throughout the continental United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and to provide support and maintenance services. RFQ, SOW, at 1-2; attach. 1. The RFQ included a technical questionnaire and price charts, and identified a website, www.itic.org/policy/508/Sec508.html, for obtaining a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT), which vendors were to complete and return as part of their quotations. The VPAT is used to show the compliance of the vendor*s proposed system with the accessibility standards for individuals with disabilities imposed by section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. S: 794d (2000), and its implementing regulations.[1] The RFQ required each vendor to quote items that were either on the vendor*s FSS contract or would be on that contract prior to award. If items were not on a vendor*s contract at the time a quotation was submitted, the quotation had to identify such items as *open market* items, and state whether and when the vendor expected the items to be added to the vendor*s FSS contract. Open market items added to a vendor*s FSS contract prior to award would be acceptable. The RFQ also stated the following: [T]he government will not consider award based on competing part of the requirement separately.