BNUMBER:  B-274288.5 
DATE:  June 13, 1997
TITLE: Integration Technologies Group, Inc., B-274288.5, June 13,
1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Integration Technologies Group, Inc.

File:     B-274288.5

Date:June 13, 1997

David S. Cohen, Esq., and Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., Cohen & White, for 
the protester.
Terence Murphy, Esq., Patrick H. O'Donnell, Esq., and L. Allan 
Parrott, Esq., Kaufman & Canoles, for ONYX Engineering, Inc., an 
intervenor.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and Todd A. Anderson, Esq., Department of 
the Air Force, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where award without discussions was contemplated by solicitation and 
two technically acceptable proposals were received, agency properly 
rejected a third offeror's proposal as technically unacceptable, 
without seeking correction of an apparent error in third offeror's 
proposal because the error was substantive and could not be corrected 
without discussions.

DECISION

Integration Technologies Group, Inc. (ITG) protests the award of a 
contract to ONYX Engineering, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. F44650-96-R-0008, issued by the Department of the Air Force as a 
total small business set-aside.  ITG contends that the Air Force 
improperly failed to seek clarification of a clerical error in ITG's 
proposal.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued in May 1996, sought up to 99 computerized multimedia 
presentation systems to be used in formal training classrooms and main 
briefing rooms located at flight operations squadrons throughout the 
Air Force's Air Combat Command.  Award was originally made to Federal 
Services, Inc. in August 1996.  General Projection Systems and 
Ultimate Presentations Systems filed protests against the award.  In 
response to Ultimate's protest, the Air Force revised the solicitation 
and in December 1996 requested all offerors to submit revised 
proposals for evaluation.

The RFP advised offerors that the Air Force intended to evaluate the 
proposals and award the contract without discussions.  Accordingly, 
offerors were expected to submit initial offers containing the 
offeror's best terms from a technical and price standpoint.  Award was 
to be made to the responsible offeror submitting the technically 
acceptable proposal at the lowest reasonable price.   

The RFP contained a description of supplies/services which identified 
specific system characteristics.  Among these characteristics was the 
following:

     "The computer provided must [be able] to support CBT (Computer 
     Based Training Programs) . . . .  The Video Card, MPEG Card, and 
     operating systems must be compatible to drive software 
     requirements for the existing CBT . . . .  The computer must have 
     the specified MPEG card (Magic 24 Card) and the Stealth Video 
     Card in order for it to be compatible to run existing high 
     resolution Computer Based Training Programs (CBT)." [emphasis in 
     original].

The RFP also instructed offerors to provide a "technical description 
of the items being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance 
with the requirements of the solicitation."  If an offeror proposed an 
"equal" product, the RFP required that the proposal "must demonstrate 
the or equal meets system characteristics to include manufacturer and 
all component part numbers."  [emphasis in original].  The RFP also 
contained a matrix with a detailed listing of the required components 
which offerors were expected to fill-in and include with their 
proposals, the relevant part of which was as follows: 

      Component  Description             ManufacturerModel

      Video      Stealth 64 VRAM 3240/3400 V3.0Cirrus Logic

                 Offerors Proposed Equal Mfr:       

                 Part/Model Number:                 

      Video MemoryUpgrade Video to 2 MByte RAM      

                 Offerors Proposed Equal Mfr:       

                 Part/Model Number:                 

      MPEG       Magic 24 Card           Magic      

                 Offerors Proposed Equal Mfr:       

                 Part/Model Number:                 
ITG was one of 12 offerors to submit revised proposals by the January 
14, 1997, closing date.  Instead of filling out the agency-provided 
components matrix, ITG retyped the table as follows:

 COMPONENT    DESCRIPTION             MANUFACTURER/MODEL

 VIDEO        STEALTH 64 VRAM 3240/3400 V3.0DIAMOND 3240 

 VIDEO MEMORY UPGRADE VIDEO TO 2 MBYTES RAM

 MPEG         MAGIC 24 CARD           DIAMOND,
                                      MUP
In evaluating ITG's proposal, the agency noted that ITG had not 
proposed the specified Magic 24 MPEG card.  The Air Force was 
unfamiliar with the designation "Diamond, MUP" and surmised that ITG 
intended to propose "Diamond, MVP" which is an MPEG daughter card 
manufactured by Diamond for use with its video card.  ITG had proposed 
the "Diamond, MVP" MPEG card in combination with the Diamond 3240 in 
its initial proposal.  This mother-daughter, video-MPEG combination 
was not compatible with the required CBT programs and, prior to the 
December 1996 request for revised proposals, the Air Force had advised 
it that this component combination was technically unacceptable.  

ITG's proposal was one of five proposals evaluated as technically 
unacceptable.  Another five were considered susceptible of becoming 
acceptable through discussions.  The ONYX proposal was one of only two 
proposals evaluated as technically acceptable as submitted.  Since 
ONYX proposed the lower price, the contracting officer selected it for 
the award.  After receiving a debriefing, ITG filed this protest, 
alleging that it had made a clerical error which the agency should 
have allowed it to correct through clarification.  

Contracting officers are required to examine all proposals for minor 
informalities or irregularities and apparent clerical mistakes.  
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.607.  Where, as here, award 
without discussion is contemplated, the contracting officer is 
required to advise the offeror of the suspected mistake, request 
verification, and make the award if the offer is verified.  FAR  sec.  
15.607(c)(1).  If the offeror alleges a mistake, the contracting 
officer is to advise the offeror that it may withdraw the proposal or 
seek correction.  FAR  sec.  15.607(c)(2).  If the offeror requests 
permission to correct a mistake, the agency head may make a written 
determination permitting the correction, provided that both the 
existence of the mistake and the proposal actually intended are 
established by clear and convincing evidence from the solicitation and 
the proposal.  FAR  sec.  15.607(c)(3).  Verification, withdrawal, or 
correction is not considered discussion, but if correction of a 
mistake requires reference to documents, worksheets, or other data 
outside the solicitation and proposal in order to establish the 
existence of the mistake, the proposal intended, or both, the mistake 
may be corrected only through discussions.  FAR  sec.  15.607(c)(5). 

ITG contends that the reference to a "Diamond, MUP" for the MPEG card 
in its retyped components matrix was an obvious clerical error for 
which the Air Force was required to seek clarification from ITG.  
According to ITG, had the contracting officer advised it of the 
suspected mistake, ITG would have explained that "Diamond, MUP" had 
been typed on the wrong line and should have been typed on the video 
memory upgrade line.  In this regard, ITG claims that "MUP" stands for 
"memory upgrade."  While this would leave a blank space on the line 
for the MPEG card, ITG argues that its proposal otherwise made clear 
that it was offering the Magic 24 card.  In this regard, ITG's 
proposal elsewhere states that the "computer will incorporate the 
required MPEG Card and Stealth Video compatible cards to run existing 
programs" and refers to its retyped components matrix.  ITG argues 
that, since this correction would simply be a clarification and its 
proposed price is lower than ONYX's price, ITG would have received the 
award. 

The Air Force, however, identified a different clerical error from 
that claimed by the protester.  The Air Force believed the protester 
had simply typed in a "U" instead of a "V" in the designation 
"Diamond, MUP."  The Air Force reached this conclusion based on ITG's 
proposal of the "MVP" item in its original (1996) proposal and the Air 
Force's unfamiliarity with the designation "MUP."[1]  Thus, as 
submitted, ITG's proposal was technically unacceptable since it did 
not offer the required Magic 24 MPEG card or an acceptable substitute; 
the Diamond, MVP card is not compatible with the agency's computer 
programs.  Correcting the error as identified by the Air Force would 
require allowing ITG to propose a qualified component to replace the 
Diamond, MVP card.

While ITG claims a different error, we agree with the Air Force that 
either error has a substantive impact on the technical acceptability 
of ITG's proposal.  A substantive error can only be corrected through 
discussions, since discussions occur when an offeror is given an 
opportunity to revise or modify its proposal, or to provide 
information missing from a proposal that is essential for determining 
the acceptability of a proposal.  Aquidneck Sys. Int'l, Inc., 
B-257170.2, Sept. 30, 1994, 
94-2 CPD  para.  122 at 5; FAR  sec.  15.601.

To correct the error identified by ITG would require more than the 
clarification it has suggested.  Even after the "correction" outlined 
by ITG, its proposal would remain unacceptable since there would still 
be a blank space in its components matrix next to the MPEG card item, 
and without that blank filled in the proposal would remain technically 
unacceptable.  Contrary to ITG's argument, reading the balance of its 
proposal does not supply the necessary missing information.  

ITG argues that the appearance of the brand name "Magic 24" on its 
proposal represented an offer to furnish that item.  However, the RFP 
included a components matrix with the name of the required items, 
including the words "Magic 24 Card" typed in under the heading of 
"Description."  All ITG did was to retype that information on its own 
version of the form.  The fact that "Magic 24" is a brand name does 
not represent a binding proposal of that item.  Both the form included 
with the RFP and that typed by ITG clearly contemplated that the item 
actually being proposed would be in the column entitled "Model," and 
ITG's proposal, as "corrected," would be blank.  In this regard, ITG 
also typed in "Stealth 64," another brand name, yet it offered an 
"equal" product manufactured by Diamond.  Similarly, ITG's 1996 
proposal included a retyped components matrix which listed "Magic 24 
Card" under "Description," but listed "Diamond, MVP" as a proposed 
equal.  It is clear from these examples that ITG's retyping the words 
"Magic 24 Card" as part of its replacement component matrix, did not 
represent a proposal to furnish that item.   

Likewise, ITG's proposal statement that it would furnish the "required 
MPEG" card  does not represent a binding offer to supply the specified 
Magic 24 Card.  Where, as here, the RFP requires offerors to identify 
the components to be furnished, a blanket statement of compliance does 
not provide the agency with sufficient information to demonstrate that 
the proposal is technically acceptable.  IPEC Advanced Sys., B-232145, 
Oct. 20, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  380 at 3.  Here, there was nothing else in 
ITG's proposal to indicate that it intended to furnish the Magic 24 
Card.  ITG's assertion is also suspect in light of its original 
proposal.  There ITG made the same blanket statement regarding the 
"required card," yet clearly proposed a purportedly "equal" card which 
was, in fact, unacceptable.  Thus, ITG's use of this statement in its 
revised proposal provides no assurance of its intent to provide the 
specified item.  

Accordingly, correction of the error would have required a revision of 
its proposal beyond the simple clarification proposed by ITG; without 
the correction, ITG's proposal is unacceptable.  Had the agency 
allowed ITG to make a complete correction, it would have had to open 
discussions with all offerors whose proposals were in the competitive 
range.  Aquidneck Sys. Int'l, Inc., supra.  While FAR  sec.  15.607(c) 
calls for an agency to identify mistakes and notify offerors of their 
existence, nothing in this section requires an agency to allow an 
offeror to correct its mistake, where, as here, the proposal actually 
intended is not established by clear and convincing evidence from the 
RFP and the proposal submitted.  FAR  sec.  15.607(c)(3) and (4).[2]  An 
agency is not precluded from awarding on an initial proposal basis 
merely because an unacceptable lower offer could be made acceptable 
through discussions.  Detroit-Armor Corp., B-225422, Feb. 26, 1987, 
87-1 CPD  para.  224 at 3-4.  Since ITG's proposal was unacceptable as 
submitted, the Air Force properly awarded the contract to ONYX on the 
basis of initial proposals. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. The Air Force's lack of familiarity is understandable since Diamond 
Multimedia, Inc. does not manufacture a memory upgrade component 
designated as "MUP" and the term "MUP" is not a standard industry 
designation for "memory upgrade."  While ITG observes that the Air 
Force did not learn this information from Diamond until after the 
protest was filed, ITG has submitted nothing to indicate that the 
"MUP" designation was correct at the time it submitted its proposal.  

2. In light of the requirements of FAR  sec.  15.607, we believe that the 
better course of action for the contracting officer would have been to 
contact ITG to point out the suspected mistake.  However, as discussed 
above, had it done so, correction of ITG's mistake would have required 
discussions.  Since we find that the agency was not required to 
conduct discussions, ITG was not prejudiced.