Core Systems

Case: B-411060 Agency: Department of Defense : Department of the Navy : Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Protester: Core Systems Date: 2015-04-30 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-411060 Apr 30, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Core Systems, of Poway, California, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. N66001-15-T-7320, issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command for ruggedized computer servers manufactured by Crystal Group, Inc., of Hiawatha, Iowa. The protester argues that the RFQ's brand-name requirement improperly restricts competition. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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: Core Systems File: B-411060 Date: April 30, 2015 Jorge I. Hernandez, Esq., Law Offices of Jorge I. Hernandez, for the protester. Brendan F. Ward, Esq., Scott E. Miller, Esq., and Ana F. Smith, Esq., Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, for the agency. Brent Burris, Esq., and Jennifer Westfall McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly restricted competition to specific brand and model of computer server is denied where agency reasonably determined that no other product could undergo required testing and approval process in sufficient time to meet agency’s needs. DECISION Core Systems, of Poway, California, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. N66001-15-T-7320, issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command for ruggedized computer servers manufactured by Crystal Group, Inc., of Hiawatha, Iowa. The protester argues that the RFQ’s brand-name requirement improperly restricts competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on January 13, 2015 as a small business set-aside, sought 45 Crystal model RS265G servers and 20 Crystal model RS375T servers for use in Navy submarines, with delivery to be made within 6-8 weeks of award.[1] RFQ at 1‑3. The RFQ was issued pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, and FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, and contemplates the issuance of a fixed-price purchase order to the firm submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quote. Id. at 1-2. The RFQ was accompanied by a J&A which provides that the agency requires the identified Crystal server models because they are an integral component of the Navy’s submarine local area network (SubLAN) program of record.[2] Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, J&A, at 1. As described in the J&A, the SubLAN is part of the agency’s common computing environment strategy, the purpose of which is to standardize the hardware and software used throughout the Navy’s submarine fleet, thereby simplifying the processes for logistics, troubleshooting, training, repairs, and upgrades. Id. The J&A further provides that “[t]he use of identical IT [information technology] components throughout the SubLAN system is essential to the Government’s requirements and thereby precludes the consideration of products manufactured by another company.” Id. The J&A explains that while the Crystal server models at issue have been procured and installed throughout much of the Navy’s submarine fleet, several submarines have yet to have the servers installed. Id. at 4-5. The J&A further provides that the servers are mission essential upgrades for these submarines, and are scheduled to be installed during 2015. Id. at 4. The J&A also notes that because the entire SubLAN system is nearing end-of-life, the Navy does not anticipate procuring these server models again, and instead will use full and open competition to procure the system that will replace the SubLAN.[3] Id. at 5. In addition to the agency’s standardization strategy, the J&A justifies limiting competition to the specified Crystal server models on the basis that no other servers can be tested and approved for use in the Navy’s submarine fleet in sufficient time to meet the agency’s 2015 installation schedule. Id. at 3-4. In this regard, the J&A notes that there are numerous environmental qualification tests (EQTs) that the Crystal servers have successfully undergone, and which any new server would be required to pass before it could be installed on a Navy submarine.[4] Id. at 2-3. Further, the J&A estimates that to test and approve an alternative server model would take approximately 18 months. Id. at 3. As such, the J&A concludes that no servers other than the already-approved Crystal servers can meet the agency’s needs. Id.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...