BNUMBER:  B-275385; B-275385.2
DATE:  February 18, 1997
TITLE:  Card Technology Corporation

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

Matter of:Card Technology Corporation

File:     B-275385; B-275385.2

Date:February 18, 1997

Michael A. Hordell, Esq., and Laura L. Hoffman, Esq., Gadsby & Hannah, 
for the protester.
David S. Cohen, Esq., Cohen & White, for DataCard Corporation, an 
intervenor.
Jeanne A. Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the 
agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Award of  purchase order for printers to Federal Supply Service (FSS) 
vendor without providing protester an opportunity to compete was 
proper where agency determined that only one printer was compatible 
with the system with which it was to operate, and protester does not 
submit any evidence showing that it offers a compatible printer listed 
on the FSS.

DECISION

Card Technology Corporation protests the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA) issuance of purchase order Nos. A64026 and 101-C67065 to 
DataCard Corporation for Image Card II color printers under its 
General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 
contract.  Card Technology also challenges the award to DataCard under 
its FSS contract pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 
101-18-96, for a Veterans Identification Card (VIC) system.

We deny the protests.

On August 13, 1996, the VA issued the RFQ to three FSS vendors capable 
of providing the VIC system.  The RFQ set forth minimum and maximum 
quantities, as well as the agency's current known requirements for 
readers, reader/writers, and plastic cards.  Two offerors--DataCard 
and Card Technology--submitted quotations, and the agency made award 
to DataCard based on its low price ($7,187,947.60 versus $8,688,260.70 
for Card Technology).  Subsequently, the VA identified a need for 
color printers, pop-up keyboards, and service and support to modify 
DataCard supplied software and to reinstall and relocate DataCard 
equipment at certain VA facilities, and issued the two purchase orders 
to DataCard for these requirements.  
Card Technology maintains that it was improper for the VA to purchase 
Image Card II color printers from DataCard under its FSS contract 
without providing Card Technology an opportunity to compete for the 
requirement. 

The FSS program managed by GSA provides agencies with a simplified 
process for obtaining commonly used supplies and services at prices 
associated with volume buying.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  
8.401(a).  When placing an order under a schedule contract, the 
procuring agency is not required to seek further competition, 
synopsize the solicitation or award, or to determine separately fair 
and reasonable pricing, since the planning, solicitation, and award 
phases of the FSS comply with FAR requirements.  FAR  sec.  8.404(a).  When 
ordering from the FSS, the determination of the agency's minimum needs 
and which product meets those needs is the agency's responsibility; 
the agency may consider such factors as special features of one item 
not provided by comparable items which are required for effective 
program performance.  FAR  sec.  8.404(b)(2)(ii)(A).  We will only review 
this determination for reasonableness.  Design Contempo, Inc., 
B-270483, Mar. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  146.

The VA states that it purchased the Image Card II printers under 
DataCard's FSS contract because it required a printer that was 
compatible with the DataCard VIC system it had purchased (under the 
RFQ), and it was not aware that any other printer would interface with 
the DataCard system.  More specifically, the agency's project manager 
for the VIC project states that, 

     "[b]ased on our review of the technical manuals, our experience 
     with the hardware and software, and routine discussions with 
     DataCard during installation and set-up of their equipment, it 
     appears that the interface between the QuickWorks workstation and 
     the printers/embossers is non-standard and proprietary to 
     DataCard.  Though the software runs on a standard personal 
     computer and connects via a standard cable, the actual data being 
     sent over that cable is formatted in such a way that only Data 
     Card printers understand its meaning.  To the best of my 
     knowledge, there are no other printers available that conform to 
     this special interface."[1]  

The protester does not dispute that the agency's minimum need is for a 
color printer that is compatible with the DataCard VIC system; it 
asserts only that it can provide a compatible printer.  In this 
regard, the protester asserts that, even if QuikWorks is proprietary, 
it is simple enough to install other capture systems software products 
on DataCard's 280 systems to make the system compatible with other 
printers. 
  
We find that the agency's actions were proper since the information 
provided by Card Technology does not demonstrate that it offers a 
color printer that can be made compatible with DataCard's 280 system.  
In this regard, the protester has not explained or furnished 
literature showing that any specific software would make a specific 
Card Technology printer compatible with the DataCard system, or how 
any specific software would achieve this end.  Indeed, despite 
specifically requesting permission to respond to comments in which 
DataCard explains why no other printer will work with its 280 system, 
the protester did not address DataCard's explanation that there are 
special encoded devices on the printer, that the printer has been 
specifically developed to take advantage of the selective overlay 
capabilities that are available in QuikWorks software, and that no 
other printer has these capabilities.[2]  Absent such explanation and 
information, Card Technology's general assertion that it would be 
"simple" to achieve compatibility amounts to no more than disagreement 
with the agency's specific determination that only DataCard's printer 
is compatible with the DataCard system.  This is not sufficient to 
show that the agency's determination was unreasonable.  See National 
Mailing Sys., B-251932.3, Aug. 4, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  78.[3]

In its December 23 comments in response to the agency's protest 
report, Card Technology argues for the first time that DataCard's 
quotation should have been rejected as unbalanced; the agency 
improperly purchased a DataCard reader not covered by its FSS 
contract; DataCard improperly was provided with inside information 
that the VA would purchase additional components of the VIC; and the 
VA's purchase of certain additional items constituted a cardinal 
change to the initial RFQ.  However, these arguments are based on 
copies of purchase orders that the protester received under a FOIA 
request on November 18.  Since protest arguments such as these, to be 
timely, must be raised no later than 10 days after the basis for the 
argument was known or should have been known--here, November 18--these 
arguments are untimely and will not be considered.  Bid Protest 
Regulations, section 21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39043 (1996) (to 
be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)).

In a supplemental protest, Card Technology questions whether DataCard 
included the price of required keyboards and service in the quotation 
it submitted in response to the RFQ for the VIC system; Card 
Technology maintains that an award to DataCard without these required 
items would be improper.  The VA states, and the record shows, that 
DataCard's initial offer did contain pricing for the required items, 
including the keyboards and warranty service.[4]  

The protests are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. DataCard supports this position.  It states that printers 
configured to run with the DataCard 280 systems must receive commands 
from DataCard's proprietary software, QuickWorks, and that Quickworks 
contains a number of unique attributes that will not work on printers 
that are not specifically designed to support it.  For example, 
DataCard states, QuikWorks has an interface that treats the magnetic 
stripe data on an identification card in a specified manner.  Special 
encoder interfaces or filters have been developed, tested and released 
for both the DataCard 280 and the DataCard Image Card II printer to 
use this interface.  DataCard also states that the ImageCard II has 
been specifically developed to take advantage of the selective overlay 
capabilities that are available in the QuikWorks software, and that 
only DataCard's Image Card II printers provide these capabilities.

2. In addition, notably, although it is aware of the purchase price of 
DataCard's printers, Card Technology has submitted no evidence that 
its allegedly compatible printer is lower priced than DataCard's.  
Card Technology did submit a copy of its FSS contract to show that it 
had a printer available, but the schedule did not indicate a price (or 
that the printer is compatible).  Further, Card Technology has not 
disputed DataCard's statement that Card Technology only offers 
printers that are much higher priced than DataCard's. 

3. Card Technology also argues that the agency improperly failed to 
consider three price lists, as required by FAR  sec.  8.404(b)(2) (to 
ensure that the government's needs are being met at the lowest 
available price), before issuing the purchase orders to DataCard.  
However, as Card Technology has not shown that it offers a compatible 
printer, Card Technology would not be in line for award if we 
sustained the protest on this ground and thus is not an interested 
party to raise this issue.  See generally American Overseas Book Co., 
Inc., B-266297, Feb. 9, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  60.

4. Card Technology filed January 23 comments on the agency's protest 
report on the supplemental protest.  However, those comments also 
further addressed the issues raised in Card Technology's initial 
protest.  To the extent the comments address the original protest 
issues, they are untimely and unauthorized, and have not been 
considered.