BNUMBER:  B-272380
DATE:  September 16, 1996
TITLE:  Network Engineering, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Network Engineering, Inc.

File:     B-272380

Date:September 16, 1996

Milton C. Harper for the protester.
Larry Loughrey for Imaging Technology Corporation, an intervenor.
Susan Bernstein, Esq., and Robert S. Brock, Esq., Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, for the agency.
Christine Davis, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  In a procurement for computerized photographic identification card 
systems, the awardee's proposed card printer reasonably satisfied a 
requirement for upgradeable printer memory since it is possible to 
upgrade the printer's memory by replacing the printer's programmable 
read-only memory module.

2.  An agency reasonably accepted the awardee's general statement of 
compliance with a solicitation requirement, notwithstanding that the 
solicitation called for descriptive literature, since the agency also 
accepted a similar statement of compliance from the protester and thus 
treated both offerors equally. 

DECISION

Network Engineering, Inc. (NEI) protests the award of a contract for 
computerized photographic identification card systems to Imaging 
Technology Corporation (ITC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
EMW-96-RP-0019, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA).  The protester contends that the awardee's proposal was 
technically unacceptable because its proposed printer did not comply 
with the specifications.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, which was issued on April 22, 1996, sought proposals for 15 
computerized photographic identification card systems, including 
training, maintenance and warranty services, on a firm, fixed-price 
basis.  The card systems were to produce identification cards 
featuring, among other things, the employee's photograph, personal 
information, signature, and the FEMA seal.  Each card system was to 
include an image-capturing device such as a video camera; an 
IBM-compatible computer, 486 series or better; a DOS operating system, 
6.0 series or higher; a commercially available data base; all 
necessary cables, wiring, and equipment accessories; and a printer.

The RFP provided for award based upon the low-priced, technically 
acceptable proposal.  The statement of work (SOW) included 38 
requirements that the offered system must meet in order to be 
considered technically acceptable; the requirements included both 
design and performance specifications.  The RFP required offerors to 
submit descriptive literature demonstrating their system's compliance 
with the SOW requirements.

The RFP was issued after FEMA terminated a contract awarded to NEI 
after ITC successfully protested the award to our Office.  See Imaging 
Technology Corp., B-270124, Feb. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  68.

NEI, ITC, and three other firms submitted proposals in response to the 
RFP by the May 10, 1996, receipt date.  NEI's proposed card system 
included the ImageCard II Plus printer manufactured by DataCard 
Corporation.  ITC's proposed card system included the Persona II 
printer manufactured by Fargo Electronics, Inc.  FEMA included NEI's 
and ITC's proposals in the competitive range, conducted two rounds of 
discussions, and received best and final offers (BAFO).  Both NEI and 
ITC were found to have submitted technically acceptable BAFOs.  As 
NEI's price was $326,233.10 and ITC's price was $292,697.67, FEMA 
awarded the contract to ITC.

NEI contends that ITC's proposed printer does not meet three SOW 
requirements, and that FEMA therefore should have rejected ITC's 
proposal as technically unacceptable and awarded the contract to NEI.

NEI first protests that the printer proposed by ITC does not meet the 
SOW requirement that "[p]rinter memory must be field upgradeable."  In 
its proposal, ITC stated that,

     "The printer supplied with the system uses very little memory 
     installed in the printer, therefore there is no need or advantage 
     to adding any additional memory to the printer.  ITC has 
     configured the printers that will be supplied with the systems 
     with the maximum memory.  All card preparation is performed by 
     the host computer."

NEI interprets ITC's response as a concession that the memory in its 
printer is fixed and cannot be upgraded, either in the field or 
elsewhere.

The record, including testimony received at a hearing conducted by our 
Office, reflects that the Fargo Persona II printer proposed by ITC 
contains 512 kilobytes of random access memory (RAM).  ITC's 
representative testified that the printer's memory can be upgraded by 
replacing the printer's programmable read-only memory (PROM) module.  
Videotape transcript (V. Tr.) 10:40:45; 11:41:20.  This individual 
also testified that the new PROM could be installed "in the field" at 
the desired FEMA facility.  V. Tr. 10:40:45.  A Fargo representative 
confirmed in an affidavit that a new PROM would enhance the memory of 
the Persona II printer to 2 megabytes (MB) overall and that this 
memory upgrade could be accomplished in the field, although he did not 
state whether the net additional memory would be in the form of RAM, 
read-only memory (ROM), or some combination thereof.[1]  Although 
ITC's proposal did not mention the PROM upgrade ability and FEMA 
therefore lacked this information during the proposal evaluation, 
FEMA's Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) chairman testified that such 
an upgrade would satisfy the requirement that "[p]rinter memory must 
be field upgradeable."  V. Tr. 10:34:40.

The protester argues that the specification does not contemplate a 
PROM upgrade, as in ITC's proposed printer, but rather a single 
in-line memory module (SIMM) upgrade, as in NEI's proposed printer.  
According to testimony received from NEI's president, a SIMM is a 
standard commercial item containing RAM, which one can purchase 
off-the-shelf and install in any printer containing a SIMM socket.  V. 
Tr. 11:37:57.  One can upgrade the memory of NEI's proposed printer 
from 8 MB up to 32 MB of RAM by installing SIMMs into the printer's 
SIMM sockets.  V. Tr. 9:52:07.  In contrast, a PROM must be programmed 
to perform within a particular printer, inasmuch as a PROM replaces 
the printer's firmware or operating system.  V. Tr. 11:37:57.  Whether 
space can be set aside for RAM in a PROM depends upon how efficiently 
the PROM's code is written.  V. Tr. 11:40:06.  The protester presumes 
that the specification precludes a PROM approach because PROMs are not 
readily available commercial items, are manufactured through a 
complicated reprogramming process, and will not necessarily expand the 
printer's RAM, thus defeating the specification's alleged purpose of 
enhancing the printer's processing capability.

In our view, the specification is not nearly as precise as the 
protester would suggest.  The specification merely states that 
"[p]rinter memory must be field upgradeable."  The specification does 
not differentiate between RAM and ROM; does not state how much or what 
kind of memory the printer must initially possess or an upgrade must 
produce; does not state whether an upgrade must be accomplished via a 
SIMM or PROM module; and does not state any functional purpose for the 
upgrade requirement.  In the absence of a clearly stated requirement 
for a particular type of printer memory upgrade, we cannot object to 
FEMA's acceptance of the awardee's system with a printer that in fact 
had PROM upgrade ability.  See ECCO Corp., GSBCA No. 8202-P, 86-1 BCA 
18683, 1986 BPD  para.  2; see also SAIC Computer Sys., B-258431.2, Mar. 13, 
1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  156.  While ITC's proposal does not reasonably 
suggest that its printer possessed a memory upgrade ability, the 
protester suffered no prejudice as a result of FEMA's acceptance of 
ITC's proposal despite this deficiency because the proposed printer in 
fact satisfied this requirement, something that FEMA could and should 
have ascertained during proposal evaluation and discussions.

NEI also contends that ITC's proposed printer does not meet the SOW 
requirement that "[t]he printer must be upgradeable in the field to 
accommodate the addition of a magnetic stripe or smart card 
technology."[2]

ITC's product literature for the Persona II printer listed the 
magnetic stripe and the smart card chip encoding modules as options.  
ITC stated in its proposal that either option could be installed in 
the field.

The protester questions the accuracy of the awardee's product 
literature and proposal representations.  The protester has submitted 
Persona II descriptive literature, which describes the magnetic stripe 
and smart card encoding modules as "factory installed options."  Two 
Fargo sales representatives allegedly advised the protester that only 
factory installation was available.

ITC did not include in its proposal the descriptive literature relied 
upon by the protester, which characterizes the magnetic stripe and 
smart card encoding modules as "factory installed options."  Although 
the descriptive literature submitted with ITC's proposal is silent as 
to where these options could be installed, ITC stated in its proposal 
that installation in the field was available.  Considering the 
information available to it, FEMA reasonably concluded that the 
printer could be upgraded in the field.  While ITC's product 
literature was deficient in addressing the field-upgrade requirement, 
FEMA overlooked the same deficiency in NEI's product literature and 
allowed both offerors to meet the requirement through general 
statements of compliance.  Because FEMA treated both offerors equally, 
we cannot object to the acceptance of ITC's proposal in this respect.  
See Bridgeport Machs., Inc., B-265616, Dec. 6, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  249.  
Moreover, the record reflects that ITC's statement of compliance was, 
in fact, accurate because Fargo has authorized and trained ITC to 
upgrade its printers in the field.  The fact that Fargo's sales 
representatives and product literature did not disclose Fargo's 
relationship with ITC does not alter our conclusion in this regard.[3]

NEI claims that the Persona II printer does not satisfy the 
requirement that "[t]he printer must be capable of printing at least 
1,000 cards before any cleaning or maintenance is required."  NEI's 
proposed ImageCard II Plus printer satisfies this requirement through 
an automatic cleaning mechanism, which spares the user from having to 
clean or maintain the printer before 1,000 cards are printed.  Because 
the Persona II printer lacks an automatic cleaning mechanism, NEI 
alleges that the printer will require cleaning or maintenance well 
before 1,000 cards are printed.

The record reflects that the TEP chairman sought confirmation from a 
Department of Defense agency using a Fargo Persona-series printer that 
the printer could satisfy the "1,000-card" requirement without an 
automatic cleaning mechanism.  V. Tr. 10:26:56.  Through this source, 
the TEP chairman learned that, while Fargo Persona printers do not use 
automatic cleaning mechanisms, they can nevertheless print more than 
1,000 cards without cleaning or maintenance.  V. Tr. 10:25:10; 
10:26:56.[4]  Here too, we cannot object to FEMA's conclusion that 
ITC's proposed printer met the RFP cleaning and maintenance 
requirement.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States 

1. RAM is a type of memory into which the user can enter information 
and instructions ("write") and from which the user can call up data 
("read").  RAM is the computer's working memory, into which 
applications programs can be loaded and then executed.  ROM is a type 
of memory which is permanently programmed with frequently used 
instructions.  ROM does not allow the user to "write" or change the 
program.  Donald D. Spencer, Computer Dictionary at 321, 323, 336 (3rd 
ed. 1992).

2. Encoding an identification card with either a magnetic stripe or 
smart card data allows the card to be used for gaining access into a 
secured building.

3. The protester also claims that smart card technology does not exist 
for the Persona II printer, which allegedly should have rendered ITC's 
proposal technically unacceptable.  ITC's product literature stated 
that the smart card technology would be "available mid 1996 -- call 
for details."  Whether the smart card encoding module was commercially 
available when ITC submitted its proposal is irrelevant, since the 
printer could be found technically acceptable if it accommodated 
either smart card or magnetic stripe technology, and no dispute exists 
that the magnetic stripe encoding module was available.

4. ITC's vice president confirmed at the hearing that, based upon his 
experience, Fargo Persona printers can print up to 15,000 cards 
without cleaning or maintenance, assuming a clean office environment 
such as FEMA's facilities.  V. Tr. 11:31:08.