Cross Match Technologies, Inc., B-293024.3; B-293024.4, June 25, 2004

Cross Match Technologies, Inc., B-293024.3; B-293024.4, June 25, 2004 TITLE: Cross Match Technologies, Inc., B-293024.3; B-293024.4, June 25, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293024.3; B-293024.4 DATE: June 25, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Cross Match Technologies, Inc. File: B-293024.3; B-293024.4 Date: June 25, 2004 Richard P. Rector, Esq., Carl L. Vacketta, Esq., and David E. Fletcher, Esq., Piper Rudnick, for the protester. Anne B. Perry, Esq., and Jonathan S. Aronie, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, for Identix Incorporated, an intervenor. Mark A. Allen, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Although it was improper for an agency to incorporate into awarded blanket purchase agreement additional, noncompeted items from vendor's General Services Administration schedule contract, where pricing for noncompeted items exceeded pricing limitation established in solicitation provision, and incorporation of noncompeted items was therefore inconsistent with agency obligation to evaluate vendors on an equal basis and in a manner such that the total cost to the government can be meaningfully assessed, nevertheless, protest in this regard is denied where protester was not prejudiced by the agency's improper action. DECISION Cross Match Technologies, Inc. protests the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) issuance of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Identix Incorporated, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. COW-3-Q-0047, for live-scan electronic fingerprint scanning systems. The BPA was issued to Identix under its General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. Cross Match challenges the technical and price evaluations. We deny the protest. The RFQ indicated that the live scan systems being acquired were "to be used predominantly at domestic ASCs and other domestic BCIS sites to replace existing Livea**Scan technology as it becomes worn or outdated." Statement of Work (SOW) SA 4.0. The RFQ further indicated, however, that "[i]n 2004, BCIS anticipates expanding the ASC Program to worldwide operations at sites on up to five continents," with the overseas ASC program "allow[ing] biometric capture for background checks prior to an applicant entering the U.S.A." Id.[1] Award was to be made to the vendor whose quotation was determined to represent the "best value" to the government based on two evaluation factors: (1)A demonstrated technical capability, the evaluation of which would be based on the vendor's technical proposal and a live test demonstration of its equipment; and (2) price. The RFQ provided that "[t]he primary method of evaluating each technical factor in the SOW is specified in the Technical Evaluation Checklist," that is, a checklist of 93A requirements, each denoted as either "critical" or not. RFQ S 4.5.1. Any quotation receiving lower than a satisfactory rating for one or more critical factors was to be deemed overall unsatisfactory for demonstrated technical capability and ineligible for award. As for price, the RFQ required vendors to identify each category of quoted product/services to the applicable GSA schedule items, furnish the GSA price, show the quoted discount from the GSA price and the resulting BPA price, and furnish copies of the GSA schedule contracts. In this regard, vendors were warned that "DHS may choose not to enter into a [BPA] with Offerors whose prices are not competitive or which offer no pricing discounts on items or services available at an undiscounted price on the GSA Schedule. Pricing proposed must be at or below the GSA Schedule price." RFQ S 4.6. In addition, the RFQ cautioned that "[p]roposals which are . . . unrealistically low in . . . price will be deemed to show an inherent lack of technical competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the BPA requirements." RFQ S 4.6. The RFQ provided that "the Government is more concerned with obtaining performance capability superiority rather than the lowest overall price." RFQ SA 4.2. Initial quotations were received from five vendors by the September 11, 2003 closing time. Four of the vendors, including Cross Match, quoted only a desktop live scan system, that is, a system in which the fingerprint scanner unit is attached to a desktop computer. The fifth vendor, Identix, quoted both a desktop live scan system and a booking station system, that is, a system in which the fingerprint scanner unit and the desktop computer are enclosed in a cabinet and which is designed to be used in a fixed location.