B-297959; B-297959.2, NCR Government Systems LLC, May 12, 2006

B-297959; B-297959.2, NCR Government Systems LLC, May 12, 2006 TITLE: B-297959; B-297959.2, NCR Government Systems LLC, May 12, 2006 BNUMBER: B-297959; B-297959.2 DATE: May 12, 2006 ************************************************************** B-297959; B-297959.2, NCR Government Systems LLC, May 12, 2006 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: NCR Government Systems LLC File: B-297959; B-297959.2 Date: May 12, 2006 E. Sanderson Hoe, Esq., Jason N. Workmaster, Esq., and Jeniffer M. De Jesus, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester. Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., Elizabeth W. Newsom, Esq., John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., and Peter J. Eyre, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for IBM Corporation, an intervenor. JoAnn W. Melesky, Esq., and William Mayers, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's acceptance of a late revision to awardee's proposal is denied where the agency reasonably accepted revision as a modification to an otherwise successful proposal. 2. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of compliance of awardee's proposed equipment with solicitation requirements is denied where awardee stated that equipment met requirements and its proposal provided no reason for agency to conclude otherwise. 3. Protest challenging agency's technical evaluation of proposals is denied where agency reasonably distinguished between offerors' proposals and protester was not otherwise prejudiced by the evaluation. DECISION NCR Government Systems LLC protests the award of a contract to IBM Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) HC1013-05-R-2006, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization for the Commissary Advanced Resale Transaction System (CARTS). The protester contends that the agency improperly accepted a late proposal revision from IBM, waived a material RFP requirement for equipment for IBM, unreasonably evaluated offerors' technical proposals, and made an improper best-value award determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency sought proposals for the CARTS program, which will provide the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) with its requirements for store sales operations. CARTS is intended to replace existing point-of-sale (POS) commissary systems with an updated commercial off-the-shelf system that includes sales hardware, associated software, technical refresh capabilities and maintenance. The CARTS solicitation requires provision of all personnel, supervision, management, training, materials and equipment for approximately 272 DeCA stores worldwide. The RFP anticipated award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price delivery orders with a base performance period of 5 years with five 1-year option periods. The RFP advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three non-price factors--technical, management, and present and past performance--each of which had several subfactors and elements within the subfactors. RFP at 60-63. The technical and management factors were of approximately equal weight, and were each more important than past and present performance, which was more important than cost/price. RFP at 57. Each evaluation subfactor and element was of approximately equal weight. Id. For purposes of the award determination, the RFP stated that the non-cost/price factors, when combined, were "significantly" more important than cost/price. Id. Award would be made to "the offeror whose proposal contains the combinations of factors offering the best overall value to the Government . . . [which] means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement." Id. Four offerors submitted proposals by the initial closing date, three of which were included in the competitive range. The agency conducted discussions with each competitive range offeror by providing written clarification and discussions questions.