BNUMBER:  B-275055; B-275055.2
DATE:  January 21, 1997
TITLE:  Cincom Systems, Inc.

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Cincom Systems, Inc.

File:     B-275055; B-275055.2

Date:January 21, 1997

Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Winston & 
Strawn, for the protester.
Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Shlomo D. Katz, Esq., Epstein Becker & 
Green, for Western Data Systems, an intervenor.
Johnny L. Litman III, Esq., and P.E. Zanfagna, Jr., Esq., U.S. Marine 
Corps, 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

1.  Protest that agency improperly conducted a cost realism analysis 
under solicitation providing for fixed-price contract is denied where 
solicitation provided for price realism analysis and cost of 
implementation analysis as part of the best value determination.  
Agency reasonably added costs of additional software necessary to 
utilize offeror's proposal based on agency's evaluation of information 
in offeror's proposal. 

2.  In making its award determination, agency reasonably concluded 
that awardee's proposal, though technically equivalent to protester's 
proposal, provided more benefits and was less expensive than the 
protesters under appropriate cost of implementation analysis.

DECISION

Cincom Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Western Data 
Systems (WDS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67004-96-R-0006, 
issued by the U.S. Marine Corps for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) 
software for use in reparables management at Department of Defense 
(DOD) maintenance depots.  Cincom challenges the agency's technical 
and price realism evaluations and contends that under a proper 
evaluation it is entitled to the award.

We deny the protest.

Department of Defense depots, operated by the Army, Air Force, Navy, 
and Marine Corps, are responsible for repair of the operating forces' 
tactical equipment and weapons.  The COTS software, known as 
Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP II) software, is to be a 
component system of the depot maintenance program.  The depot 
maintenance program is comprised of automated information systems 
supporting depot unique business functions.  The software will perform 
planning, scheduling and tracking functions for repair of depot 
maintenance reparable items.  Under the terms of the RFP, the COTS 
system offered was to have been developed and tested by the vendor and 
capable of operating in the depot environment upon acquisition and 
installation.  The RFP contemplated award of a firm, fixed-price, 
indefinite quantity contract including certain time and materials line 
items for a base year with 5 option years.  

Proposals were evaluated on the basis of technical and price 
considerations.  Proposals were first evaluated on the basis of 
certain screening factors which included features which the offered 
software was required to possess in order to be considered further in 
the evaluation.  Only proposals meeting the screening factors were to 
be included in the detailed evaluation for technical merit.  This 
detailed evaluation was based on six factors:  functional capabilities 
(38 percent); technical capabilities (18 percent); past performance 
(18 percent); interface capabilities (15 percent); life cycle support 
(9 percent); and subcontracting plan goals (2 percent).  Offerors 
whose proposals were in the competitive range were allowed to provide 
an operational capability demonstration (OCD) which was approximately 
one-half as important as the detailed evaluation.  Proposals were 
scored numerically with corresponding colors in descending order of 
merit:  "Blue," "Green," "Yellow," and "Red."  Price was evaluated on 
the basis of all line items in both the basic and option periods.  
Offers also were evaluated for price realism to determine whether the 
goods and/or services could be furnished at the proposed prices.  

Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal offered the best 
value to the government determined by comparing the differences in the 
value of technical merit features with the associated cost to the 
government.  In making the comparison, the government was more 
concerned with obtaining superior technical performance than with 
making an award at the lowest overall cost.  To this end, the RFP 
provided for the conduct of a cost-benefit tradeoff analysis which 
would take into consideration seven listed factors including 
government implementation costs, ease of use, and additional 
functional capabilities.

Cincom, WDS, and a third offeror submitted proposals by the May 24, 
1996, closing date.  The source selection evaluation team (SSET) 
evaluated the offerors' written proposals and observed the OCDs for 
each offeror, conducted written discussions, obtained written 
responses, and evaluated the offerors' best and final offers (BAFO) 
resulting in the following relevant final ratings:

Offeror           WDS               Cincom

Functional (score/risk)[deleted]    [deleted]

Technical         [deleted]         [deleted]

Past Performance  [deleted]         [deleted]

Interfaceability  [deleted]         [deleted]

Life Cycle Support[deleted]         [deleted]

Subcontracting Plan[deleted]        [deleted]

Technical Total   [deleted]         [deleted]

OCD               [deleted]         [deleted]

Overall[1]        [deleted]         [deleted]

BAFO Price        $29,459,496       [deleted]
In addition to the final color ratings, the SSET compiled lists of 
each offeror's strengths, weaknesses, and risks, specifically 
identifying those denominated as key discriminators for use in the 
best value analysis.  In making the best value determination, the SSET 
first considered the results of the final technical evaluation.  The 
SSET then conducted a cost realism analysis to ensure that all line 
items had been evaluated and to determine and consider the total cost 
to the government for the offerors' proposals.   The SSET determined 
that approximately [deleted] million for additional software should be 
added to WDS' price and approximately [deleted] million should be 
added to Cincom's price to reflect the necessary costs of implementing 
their respective proposed solutions.  

The best value analysis then addressed the potential benefits of the 
competing offers based on the strengths and weaknesses identified as 
discriminators impacting the value of the proposed packages when 
implemented in the DOD repair environment.  The SSET found that WDS' 
proposal represented three positive benefits and two negative benefits 
for an overall positive rating, while Cincom's proposal represented 
only one positive benefit and four negative benefits for an overall 
negative rating.  Given the two offerors' comparable technical scores, 
WDS' lower total cost as adjusted for realism ($2.33 million less), 
and its overall positive benefit rating, the SSET recommended award to 
WDS as representing the best value.  The source selection authority 
concurred, and the agency awarded the contract to WDS on September 27.  
After receiving a debriefing, Cincom filed this protest challenging 
the agency's realism analysis which effectively added costs to its 
fixed-price proposal.   

Generally, cost realism (a measurement of the likely cost of 
performance in a cost reimbursement contract) is not a factor in the 
evaluation of proposals when a fixed-price contract is to be awarded 
since the government's liability is fixed, and the risk of cost 
escalation is borne by the contractor.  PHP Healthcare Corp.; Sisters 
of Charity of the Incarnate Word, B-251799 et al., May 4, 1993, 93-1 
CPD  para.  366.  However, even where a contract is to be awarded on a 
fixed-price basis, a contracting agency may properly examine proposed 
prices for realism by performing a "should cost" analysis.  OAO Corp., 
B-211803, July 17, 1984, 84-2 CPD  para.  54; Ocean Data Equip. Div. of Data 
Instruments, Inc. B-209776, Sept. 29, 1983, 83-2 CPD  para.  387.  The depth 
of an agency's should cost or price realism analysis is a matter 
within the sound exercise of the agency's discretion.  See Family 
Realty, B-247772, July 6, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  6.

Cincom first argues that nothing in the RFP allowed for the type of 
realism analysis which the agency conducted.  In this regard, Cincom 
notes that the RFP provided simply that the total estimated prices for 
all line items would be added and that the realism analysis would 
simply compare the prices of products and services "proposed by the 
offerors" with other prices proposed in connection with this and prior 
procurements and sales lists.  However, Cincom's analysis fails to 
acknowledge all of the cost realism provisions in the RFP.

Section M-4(e) provides that "Price realism may be determined by a 
comparison of proposed prices either to apparent costs, sales 
information, competitive prices, or a combination of any of the 
above."   [Emphasis added.]  Further, section M-2.F specifically 
provides for the conduct of a "cost-benefit trade off analysis."  The 
first factor to be considered in that analysis is "government 
implementation costs estimated as a result of the offeror's proposed 
approach including costs associated with site preparation, data 
conversion, data loading, interface development and training."  In 
practice, the SSET assessed what additional costs, if any, were 
necessary to implement the software proposed by the offerors, 
including the cost of third party software which was not included in 
the offers.  The SSET based its determination on its evaluation of the 
proposals including each offeror's own advice as to what hardware and 
software the government would need to implement the proposed software.  

In our view, the RFP plainly disclosed the agency's intent to conduct 
this type of "should cost" analysis.  Calculating the cost of software 
needed to implement the proposed solutions is plainly within the 
parameters set out both in the price realism and cost-benefit analysis 
provisions.  At a minimum, necessary software is relevant to the 
issues of site preparation and interface development, the cost of 
which the RFP clearly advised offerors would be considered in the 
cost-benefit analysis.  Likewise, the cost of necessary additional 
software is reasonably included in an analysis of "apparent costs" 
compared to proposed prices.  Because the RFP clearly disclosed the 
agency's intention to perform the analysis in question, Cincom's 
objection to the conduct of this analysis is without merit.

Cincom next argues that the agency improperly added costs for certain 
ORACLE software identified in its proposal.  Cincom states that the 
software products, ORACLE "Distributed Database" and "Parallel Query," 
were clearly denominated only as "required for each concurrent user 
needing access to data across multiple servers."  Cincom argues that 
since its solution is designed to operate on a single server, there is 
no need for access across multiple servers, thus eliminating any need 
for this software.  We disagree.

The RFP required the MRP II software to meet certain performance 
specifications including support of 250 concurrent users with a 
minimum of 1,000 transactions per minute with a 1- to 2-second 
response time, while executing normal daytime batch run processes, if 
any, in background.  The agency's evaluation identified weaknesses in 
Cincom's solution including complex and data intensive system screens 
and slow response time during the OCD.  The evaluation also found 
higher risk of performance issues due to the proposed hardware 
configuration's placement of a greater workload on the server.  
Further, one of Cincom's customers had experienced significant 
run-time problems using the proposed software in a single 
server/single processor environment at a much lower performance level 
than that required by the RFP.  In addition, the proposed MRP II 
software was required to operate on both Hewlett-Packard (HP) 9000 and 
Sun Sparc 2000 server platforms.  Cincom's proposal included an HP9000 
sizing guide "to assist the user in selecting the most appropriately 
sized hardware configuration for use with Cincom's [software] 
products."  According to the guide, the largest server available uses 
twelve processors but only supports slightly more than half the daily 
transactions required by the RFP.[2]  Thus, the agency concluded that 
at least two servers would be required to meet the minimum 
requirements.  

To arrive at a realistic cost for each site, the agency added the cost 
of obtaining a single distributed data base software set for 250 
concurrent users and 250 copies of the parallel query software.  Since 
a cost realism analysis is a judgment function on the part of the 
contracting agency, our review is limited to a determination of 
whether an agency's cost evaluation was reasonably based and not 
arbitrary.  General Research Corp., 70 Comp. Gen. 279 (1991), 91-1 CPD  para.  
183;  Science Applications Int'l Corp., B-238136.2, June 1, 1990, 90-1 
CPD  para.  517.  While the protester argues that it proposed use of 
multiple servers only as an option, we believe the agency's realism 
analysis was reasonably based.  The technical evaluation, coupled with 
Cincom's own proposal sizing guide, make clear that multiple servers 
are required for it to meet the performance requirements.  In this 
regard, we also note that the RFP indicates that the software solution 
must be compliant with the Defense Information Systems Agency's 
Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management (TAFIM).  
This means implementing the Defense Information Infrastructure/Command 
Operating Environment for multiple services with interoperability 
across multiple client/server platforms.  The TAFIM requires the 
ability to have real access over multiple servers on a client-server 
basis. Since each server must be a client and each client a server, 
the use of multiple servers is implicit in the requirement.  Once the 
agency determined that multiple servers are necessary, Cincom's own 
option language mandated that the agency have the software identified 
by Cincom as required "for each concurrent user needing access across 
multiple servers."  Since the cost of that additional software was not 
included in Cincom's proposal, it was reasonable for the agency to 
consider that cost in determining the best value solution. Cincom's 
simple disagreement with the agency's judgment does not render this 
evaluation unreasonable.  Medland Controls, Inc., B-255204; 
B-255204.3, Feb. 17, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  260.[3]   

We reach the same conclusion regarding the agency's addition of 
software costs associated with Cincom's proposed Planner Toolkit 
product (Toolkit).  During the OCD, Cincom demonstrated Toolkit, a 
graphical user interface (GUI).  Cincom argues that this GUI is only 
in a beta version and was demonstrated solely to show the agency its 
capabilities.  Cincom claims that it never intended to propose the 
Toolkit product and avers that it clearly explained this during the 
OCD.  However, prior to the submission of BAFOs, the agency 
specifically asked about software needed to operate the Toolkit GUI.  
Cincom's written response stated that "both" the Toolkit and PowerUser 
GUIs "are included in the proposed application."[4]  Based on this 
representation, the agency evaluated Cincom's proposal as including 
the Toolkit.  In the same response, Cincom advised that the Toolkit 
would not run under the Windows programs currently in use at the 
depots but would require Windows 95 or Windows NT.  Since the depots 
did not have sufficient copies of either software product, the agency 
added the cost of Windows 95, the less expensive alternative, for 
1,000 workstations at each site.  Since the protester itself clearly 
advised the agency that the Toolkit was part of its proposal, and 
acknowledged that it would not operate without appropriate Windows 
software, the agency reasonably included the cost of that software as 
part of the best value evaluation.[5]

Cincom also takes issue with the manner in which the agency calculated 
the cost of the necessary Windows software.  In Cincom's view, the 
agency could have purchased upgrade software at a fraction of the 
cost, would not require as many copies of the software as it 
estimated, and failed to consider the cost benefits of using Windows 
95 software.  The agency explains that an upgrade is inadequate since 
the depots must continue to use current applications which use an 
earlier Windows program and will not run under Windows 95.  Thus, the 
depots will have to use both programs.  It requires an estimated 1,000 
per site based on its need to have depot users able to run "what-if" 
simulations at workstations all across the depots.  Further, since 
multiple Windows versions would be in operation, the potential 
benefits of the faster Windows 95 software would be negated and could 
degrade overall client performance due to the processing load 
involved.  Under these circumstances, we find nothing objectionable in 
the agency's methodology. 

Cincom finally challenges the best value determination, arguing that 
as the offeror with the highest technical score and lowest price, it 
was entitled to the award.  Cincom is incorrect for two reasons.  
First, as explained above, the agency  reasonably conducted a "should 
cost" realism analysis of the offerors' proposals as part of its best 
value determination.  Under that analysis, the cost of additional 
software raised the cost associated with Cincom's proposal more than 
$2 million above that associated with WDS' proposal.  Thus, for 
purposes of the best value analysis, Cincom's proposal did not offer 
the lowest price.  Second, Cincom's proposal was not the highest 
technically rated.  Section M makes clear that the evaluation would 
include technical factors, the OCD, and the best value analysis which 
would take into account additional factors as discriminators.  The 
agency evaluated both proposals as technically equivalent prior to the 
best value analysis.  In this regard, while Cincom's proposal was 
scored slightly higher on the technical factors evaluation, it was 
scored lower under the OCD.  When the scores for both were combined, 
the proposals were determined to be equivalent with ratings of Green 
with Yellow (moderate) risk.  The agency's determination that the 
proposals were equivalent is also supported by the fact that the total 
numerical scores were less than one-fifth of a  point apart.

In the best value analysis the agency concluded WDS' proposal was 
superior in that it represented greater benefits.  For example, while 
Cincom's proposal offered the best functional solution, its [deleted] 
and it was not yet available on the Sun Sparc platform.  WDS' proposal 
was identified as "extremely" user friendly, the easiest to use and 
interface, and provided the best accounting of actual cost for repair.  
Its only discriminating weaknesses concerned the [deleted].[6]  In 
view of the equivalent total technical ratings, WDS' lower-evaluated 
"real" cost, and WDS' greater number of beneficial discriminators, we 
find nothing objectionable in the agency's conclusion that WDS' 
proposal represented the best value notwithstanding its slightly 
higher BAFO price.[7] 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In the final evaluation Cincom scored 4.36 on the technical 
evaluation and 1.97 on the OCD for a combined score of 6.33.  WDS 
scored 3.82 on the technical evaluation and 2.32 on the OCD for a 
combined score of 6.14.    

2. The RFP required 1000 transactions per minute.  In an 8-hour day 
this would equal 480,000 transactions.  The largest server could only 
do 254,016 transactions in 
8 hours.  Cincom claims that this transaction figure represented 
"control" transactions which could be made up of 30 or more individual 
queries.  Thus, the sizing guide did not directly compare with the 
agency's performance requirement.  We find this argument unpersuasive.  
Cincom's software is called "Control: Open" and the column from which 
the transaction figures were taken is entitled "Estimated # of 
Control: Open Trans./8 hrs."  Thus, it was reasonable for the agency 
to conclude that the transactions per 8 hours figures represented 
transactions comparable to those identified in the performance 
specification.  In this regard, nowhere in the sizing guide does 
Cincom represent that the "Control:  Open" transactions include some 
sort of bundled transactions.

3. In related arguments, Cincom contends that the agency should have 
added additional cost to WDS' proposal to cover the cost of missing, 
but necessary data extraction tools and the same ORACLE software 
associated with Cincom's proposal.  With regard to the ORACLE 
software, the agency explains that it was not necessary to do so 
because the WDS system does not require the same software to meet the 
RFP's performance requirement.  Further, to the extent additional 
ORACLE software would be needed for WDS' proposal, WDS' product is 
native to ORACLE meaning that all necessary ORACLE functions are 
built-in.  With regard to the data extraction tools, an evaluator 
noted that there was no evidence of the tools in the proposal.  
However, the SSET chairman's final evaluation explains that further 
research, discussion responses, and the OCD found evidence to support 
WDS' ability to support the requirement.  Accordingly, there was no 
need to add cost for this software. 

4. In fact, Cincom concedes in its protest comments that its written 
response during discussions did not make clear its intention not to 
offer the Toolkit, and now notes that it would furnish this 
application at no cost to the agency. 

5. The agency adds that Cincom's technical evaluation was enhanced by 
the presence of the Toolkit.  Thus, if it were not offered, Cincom's 
technical score would decrease. 

6. Cincom argues that these matters do not fall within the 
discriminators identified in the RFP.  Although the discriminating 
factors identified by the agency do not necessarily quote the language 
of the discriminators, they clearly are reasonably included within 
them.  For example, ease of use and ease of interface clearly fall 
within the discriminator "Ease of use including menu navigation, data 
entry . . . and response time.  

7. We point out that there is significant doubt on this record as to 
whether Cincom's proposal is technically acceptable.  Under the terms 
of the RFP, an offeror's proposed COTS software was required to 
operate on the Sun Sparc Center 2000 server platform.  Offerors unable 
to meet this requirement, as well as others, were not to be evaluated 
further.  At the time of its proposal and BAFO, Cincom's software 
would not operate on the Sun platform, but Cincom promised that it 
could do so by September 30, the projected award date.  The agency 
allowed Cincom to remain in the competition notwithstanding its 
failure to meet the requirement.  (WDS' initial proposal also was 
lacking in a particular screening area, which was corrected prior to 
award.)  While Cincom now claims that it meets the Sun requirement, it 
never notified the agency that it had met this requirement.  Further, 
although Cincom states that it has completed testing of its software 
on this platform, the agency never had an opportunity to subject it to 
an OCD on the Sun platform as it did the other offerors' software.  In 
addition, a representative of Sun Microsystems, Inc. advises our 
Office that his company is unaware of any commercially available 
Cincom product available for use on Sun platforms.  We note that at 
present even Cincom's own Internet homepage does not specifically 
identify Sun as one of the platforms on which its software will 
operate, nor is there any evidence that it has publicly announced this 
capability.  Thus, it is not clear that the software meets the 
agency's requirements for COTS software.