BNUMBER:  B-275480.2, B-275480.3, B-275480.4 
DATE:  April 3, 1997
TITLE: International Data Products, Inc.; Commax Technologies, Inc.,
B-275480.2, B-275480.3, B-275480.4, April 3, 1997
**********************************************************************

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:International Data Products, Inc.; Commax Technologies, Inc.

File:     B-275480.2, B-275480.3, B-275480.4

Date:April 3, 1997

Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., and Jason I. 
Hewitt, Esq., 
Winston & Strawn, for International Data Products, Inc.; and Laura K. 
Kennedy, Esq., Grace Bateman, Esq., and G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., 
Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for Commax Technologies, 
Inc., the protesters.
William M. Rosen, Esq., and Kendrick C. Fong, Esq., Dickstein, 
Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, for Government Technology Services, Inc.; 
Patrick O' Keefe, Esq., Ian T. Graham, Esq., and Philip H. M. 
Beauregard, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for Sysorex Information Systems, 
Inc., the intervenors.
Vera Meza, Esq., Richard C. McGinnis, Esq., and Arthur E. Lees, Esq., 
Department of the Army, for the agency.
David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

An offeror's global or blanket certification of compliance with the 
specifications is insufficient to establish compliance where the 
agency has reason to question the characteristics of the products 
being offered.

DECISION

International Data Products, Inc. (IDP) and Commax Technologies, Inc. 
protest the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command's (AMC) 
award of contracts to Sysorex Information Systems, Inc. and Government 
Technology Services, Inc. (GTSI), under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. DAHC94-96-R-0003, for portable computer systems and related 
resources.  The protesters primarily argue that the awardees' 
proposals failed to comply with various mandatory specification 
requirements.

We deny the protests.

The solicitation contemplated award of two firm, fixed-price, 
indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts, with a contract 
period of 2 years, for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) portable 
computer systems, including generally a number of standard 
configurations and a number of high performance configurations.[1]  
Award was to be made to the two responsible offerors whose offers 
"represent the best overall value to the Government" under four 
criteria:  (1) technical, (2) past performance, (3) cost, and (4) 
management.  The technical factor--comprised of eight subfactors, 
including performance of the standard and high performance systems on 
the Winstone 32, Winbench 96, and Ziff-Davis BatteryMark benchmark 
tests and on the agency's ergonomics tests--was "significantly more 
important" than past performance, cost or management; past performance 
was "comparatively equal" to cost; and past performance and cost both 
were "more important" than management.  Although the solicitation 
included detailed specifications, it did not require the submission of 
detailed technical proposals.  Instead, it required that offerors:  
(1) furnish "commercial technical information sheets/brochures 
sufficient to identify the products being offered (e.g., specification 
sheets)," and identify the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of 
the products; (2) furnish the results from unwitnessed benchmark 
tests; (3) furnish bid samples consisting of the core systems, but not 
the various required peripherals, for witnessed benchmark testing; (4) 
make oral presentations; and (5) complete a "global certification" 
stating that "the offeror meets all the requirements of the 
solicitation . . . except as noted below. . .," and agreeing that in 
the event that it should "fail to meet any requirements, the 
contractor shall, at no additional cost, make any changes necessary to 
the products or services to comply with the contract requirements."  
(In addition, offerors were required to submit price, past 
performance, and management information.)

Eight proposals were received.  Following discussions, oral 
presentations and benchmark testing, AMC requested best and final 
offers (BAFO) from five offerors, including IDP, Commax, Sysorex and 
GTSI.  Based upon the evaluation of BAFOs, oral presentations and 
benchmark testing, AMC determined that the proposals of Sysorex and 
GTSI, which included signed global certifications of compliance with 
the specifications, represented the best value.  The evaluation scores 
were as follows:

             Sysorex      GTSI         Commax       IDP

Technical    38.78        32.43        39.88        32.43

Past              Performance15.0518.6511.45        16.85

Management   13.55        13.55        11           12.2

Total Non-Cost67.38       64.63        62.33        61.48

Evaluated Cost$[DELETED]
               million    $[DELETED]
                            million    $[DELETED]    million$[DELETED]    
                                                    million
Upon learning of the resulting awards to Sysorex and GTSI, IDP and 
Commax filed these protests with our Office.

GLOBAL CERTIFICATION

As an initial matter, AMC contends that by signing the solicitation's 
global certification of compliance, and taking no exception to the 
specifications, the awardees established the technical acceptability 
of their proposals, irrespective of the contents of the proposals.  
AMC concludes that the awardees' proposal are not subject to challenge 
on the basis that they do not satisfy specification requirements.  
We disagree.  While an agency can properly provide for a certification 
of compliance and based on such certification accept a proposal that 
does not affirmatively establish compliance with the specifications, 
an offeror's blanket certification or promise of compliance is 
insufficient to establish compliance where the agency has reason to 
question the characteristics of the products being offered.  See 
generally Lappen Auto Supply Co., Inc., B-261475, Aug. 14, 1995, 95-2 
CPD  para.  68 at 4 (although "brand name" offeror was not required to 
submit descriptive literature, its unsolicited literature could not be 
disregarded to the extent that it clearly qualified the bid by 
describing an item that did not satisfy a specified salient 
characteristic); SeaBeam Instruments, Inc., B-253129, Aug. 19, 1993, 
93-2 CPD  para.  106 at 7 (certification of compliance with Appropriations 
Act domestic manufacture restriction may not be accepted where the 
proposal suggests noncompliance); Mine Safety Appliances Co.; 
Interspiro, Inc., B-247919.5; B-247919.6, Sept. 3, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  
150 at 3 (even where a solicitation does not require a showing of 
compliance with each solicitation requirement, a proposal that does 
not explicitly show compliance with a requirement may not be accepted 
where there is reason to doubt that the offeror is agreeing to meet 
that requirement).  Thus, notwithstanding the existence of a signed 
global certification, our Office will still review protests that the 
agency had reason to question the characteristics of the products 
being offered.

IDP PROTEST

IDP asserts that the IBM Thinkpad 760E portable proposed by Sysorex to 
meet the high performance requirement is noncompliant with the 
specification requirement that "[t]he base configuration for a high 
performance portable shall include an internal 3ï¿½" floppy disk drive, 
a built-in pointing device, 1.2 [gigabyte] removable hard disk drive, 
internal 5ï¿½" CD-ROM Player. . . ."  Specifically, Sysorex's proposal 
indicated that the IDP Thinkpad 760E uses a single drive-bay to 
accommodate internally either a floppy disk drive or a CD-ROM drive; 
thus, the floppy disk drive and CD-ROM drive are accommodated on an 
interchangeable basis rather than simultaneously.  IDP argues that 
simultaneous accommodation is required.

Where a dispute exists as to the meaning of a solicitation 
requirement, we will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as 
a whole, and in a manner that is reasonable and which gives effect to 
all its provisions.  Honeywell Regelsysteme GmbH, B-237248, Feb. 2, 
1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  149 at 5.  Further, we will not read a provision 
restrictively where it is not clear from the solicitation that such a 
restrictive interpretation was intended by the agency.  Reflectone 
Training Sys., Inc.; Hernandez Eng'g, Inc., B-261224; B-261224.2, Aug. 
30, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  95 at 5; MAR Inc., B-242465, May 6, 1991, 91-1 
CPD  para.  437 at 4.

We find no basis to conclude that simultaneous accommodation was 
required.  First, the specifications did not expressly require 
simultaneous accommodation, and AMC notes (and IDP does not refute) 
that interchangeable floppy disk and CD-ROM drives is a common 
commercial approach for portables (five of the eight offerors proposed 
portables based on this approach).  Further, in offeror question No. 
59, IDP asked the agency to "confirm this offeror's understanding that 
the Standard Portable need not support the 3.5 "floppy disk drive and 
optional CD-ROM simultaneously."  AMC answered that:  "The offeror's 
understanding is correct.  The Standard Portable need not support the 
3.5 "floppy disk drive and the optional Standard Portable CD-ROM 
Player . . . simultaneously."  While AMC's answer did not address the 
high performance portable, in the absence of any express RFP 
requirement that the high performance model provide for simultaneous 
accommodation, and given the fact that interchangeability is a common 
commercial approach, we think AMC's answer was sufficient to indicate 
that it did not intend that offerors read a simultaneous accommodation 
requirement into the RFP.[2]  Put another way, it was unreasonable for 
IDP to read the RFP restrictively by assuming that the solicitation 
was intended to preclude a common commercial approach to providing the 
required functionality, when the solicitation did not include any such 
express restriction.  We conclude that Sysorex's proposal reasonably 
was found compliant with this aspect of the specifications.

COMMAX PROTEST

Docking Station

Commax asserts that GTSI's proposal failed to comply with a 
solicitation requirement for docking stations (which permit connection 
of the portable with desktop components and provide additional 
capabilities).  In this regard, the solicitation required offerors to 
propose standard and high performance portables equipped with a PCMCIA 
card reader "capable of accommodating two Type II and one Type III 
device (not simultaneously)," five separate types of PCMCIA cards, and 
docking stations for both portables.  Commax contends that because 
GTSI proposed a PCMCIA card reader that accommodates two Type II cards 
or one Type III PCMCIA card, and a "universal" docking station that 
connects to the portables using the PCMCIA slot--rather than a docking 
station connecting with the portables through the docking station 
interface connector--and occupies one Type II PCMCIA slot, thereby 
preventing use of the PCMCIA card reader by a Type III card, GTSI's 
docking station is noncompliant with the solicitation requirements as 
clarified by the agency's response to offeror question No. 46.  In its 
answer, AMC responded to a request that the solicitation "requirement 
for the MPEG [video] module be supplied via a PCMCIA card," by stating 
that

     "[t]he Army needs to use the existing PCMCIA card reader for 
     other missions (e.g., remote communications and Fortezza).   Use 
     of a PCMCIA MPEG card would greatly limit the Government's 
     flexibility.  The requirement remains as stated."

Commax argues that use of the PCMCIA card reader by GTSI's docking 
station is inconsistent with the above-stated need of the agency to 
use the PCMCIA card reader "for other missions."  Commax specifically 
notes that by occupying one Type II slot, GTSI's docking station 
prevents the use of the PCMCIA card reader by the Type III card GTSI 
proposed to meet the solicitation requirement for a PCMCIA hard 
card.[3]

The fact that GTSI's proposed docking station connects to the portable 
through the PCMCIA card reader was not apparent from GTSI's proposal, 
which did not discuss the mode of connection to the portable, and only 
became known to the agency during the course of the protest (AMC 
relied on the global certification in finding GTSI's proposal 
compliant).  Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 309.  Commax argues that this 
should not protect GTSI from the consequences of its proposal of an 
allegedly nonconforming docking station, since GTSI allegedly 
concealed the identity of the OEM for the docking station.  In this 
regard, claims Commax, while GTSI's proposal identified Everex 
Systems, Inc. as the OEM, the proposed docking station, which 
apparently was designed and engineered by CNF, Inc. and known as the 
CNF Digitari 535i Universal Docking Station, was to be manufactured by 
CNF.

GTSI, on the other hand, has testified that it was advised by Everex, 
and believed, that although CNF designed the docking station, Everex 
would manufacture it.  Tr. at 172-174, 179-180, 185, 216-221.  Indeed, 
GTSI maintains that Everex will in fact manufacture the docking 
stations for this contract under license from CNF.[4] 

Generally, where an offeror has made an intentional misrepresentation 
that materially influenced the agency's consideration of its proposal, 
the proposal should be disqualified and a contract awarded based upon 
the proposal should be canceled.  The Law Offices of George E. Hill, 
B-272168, Sept. 4, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  96 at 4; Gold Appraisal Co., 
B-259201, Mar. 15, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  144 at 6.  

Here, it is clear that the alleged misrepresentation and concealment 
could not have been material.  AMC states that, had it been aware that 
GTSI was offering a CNF Digitari 535i Universal Docking Station, it 
would have accepted it as compliant with the specifications.  
According to the agency, a PCMCIA-based docking station would not have 
the same negative impact on utilization of the PCMCIA card reader as 
would a PCMCIA MPEG card (referenced in the answer to question 46).  
AMC maintains in this regard that users generally want to have an MPEG 
card (and its video capabilities) available at all times, which is why 
the agency considers a PCMCIA MPEG card to pose an impediment to 
communications.  In contrast, AMC explains, since a docking station is 
intended for home station (rather than remote) use, and communications 
are possible even when the PCMCIA-based docking station is connected 
to the portable (through use of a modem that is resident on either a 
network, via a docking station interface card, or on an internal 
docking station modem expansion board), a docking station does not 
impede remote communications.  In addition, the agency states, a Type 
II Fortezza encryption card can be used with a PCMCIA-based docking 
station utilizing a Type II connection, since the card reader can 
accommodate two Type II devices simultaneously.  Tr. at 312-313.  
Indeed, the agency considers GTSI's offer of a universal PCMCIA-based 
docking station not only to be compliant with the specifications, but 
also to represent a significant advantage, since it could be used with 
portables in the existing Army inventory, as well as portables 
obtained from other sources.

AMC's position--that use of the PCMCIA card reader by GTSI's docking 
station is consistent with the specifications--is reasonable.  As with 
the simultaneous accommodation issue discussed above, the 
specifications, even as clarified by the questions and answers, did 
not expressly prohibit such an approach.  Specifically, 
notwithstanding the protester's urged expansive reading, the agency's 
answer to question No. 46 stated only that use of the PCMCIA card 
reader for purposes of meeting the MPEG requirement was unacceptable; 
it did not state that use by a docking station--which, unlike an MPEG 
card would not impede communications--likewise was unacceptable, and 
the specifications did not even address how the required docking 
station was to connect with the portable.[5]  Under these 
circumstances, it was unreasonable for Commax to assume that the 
solicitation precluded GTSI's approach.

Other Issues

Commax challenges other aspects of the evaluation of proposals.  We 
conclude that Commax's arguments are either without merit or, given 
Commax's lower non cost score and significantly higher cost, do not 
demonstrate competitive prejudice.

For example, Commax argues that GTSI's proposal failed to comply with 
the solicitation requirements for memory upgrades to the required 
graphics accelerator cards.  In this regard, the specifications 
required:  (1) a standard graphics accelerator card that supports a 
resolution of 800x600 with 16.7 million simultaneous colors, and whose 
memory is "upgradeable to 4 MB [megabytes]"; and (2) a high 
performance graphics accelerator card that supports a resolution of 
1024x768 with 16.7 million simultaneous colors, and whose memory is 
"upgradeable to 8 MB."  The record indicates that two common types of 
memory on graphics cards are DRAM (Direct Random Access Memory) and 
VRAM (Video Random Access Memory).  Although the base configurations 
of GTSI's standard and high performance graphics cards come with VRAM, 
they are only upgradeable with DRAM; adding DRAM would tend to 
accelerate graphics processing and facilitate 3D (3-dimensional) 
displays and full motion video without jitters but, unlike an addition 
of VRAM, would not permit higher resolutions at a given color depth on 
these cards.  Tr. at 207-209, 335-338, 439, 441-442, 449.  Commax 
essentially argues that because the specifications define the 
performance requirements for the base configuration graphics cards in 
terms of resolution at a given color depth, any upgrade to GTSI's 
graphics cards must involve the addition of VRAM, since only VRAM will 
increase resolution at a given color depth.  According to the 
protester, had it been afforded an opportunity to propose to the 
allegedly relaxed specifications, it could have reduced its price by 
approximately $[DELETED] by offering different graphics accelerator 
cards.

We find the protester's position unpersuasive.  As with the other 
features discussed above, the protester's restrictive interpretation 
is not supported by any RFP language.  The solicitation neither 
defined the type of memory to be used in the upgrades nor established 
performance requirements for the upgraded cards.  Although the 
solicitation implicitly required an improvement in performance from an 
upgrade, the record indicates that upgrading GTSI's proposed graphics 
accelerator cards with DRAM would in fact improve performance; it 
would tend to accelerate graphics processing and facilitate 3D 
displays and full motion video without jitters.  (Indeed, it appears 
from the record that for certain graphics accelerator cards, but not 
for GTSI's proposed cards, a DRAM upgrade would also permit higher 
resolutions at a given color depth.)  The record further indicates 
that some Army users actually were more interested in the additional 
3D capability offered by a DRAM upgrade than in the additional 
capability offered by a VRAM upgrade.  Tr. at 335-338.  In our view, 
it was unreasonable for Commax to assume without inquiry that the 
solicitation precluded a commercial approach to providing memory on 
graphics accelerator cards when the solicitation did not include any 
such express prohibition.

As a further example, Commax challenges the agency's acceptance of the 
product GTSI offered to comply with the solicitation requirement for a 
combination printer/scanner/copier/fax machine.  We agree with the 
protester that, given the manufacturer's speed rating for this 
product, as revealed in the descriptive literature enclosed with 
GTSI's proposal, the unit was noncompliant under any reasonable 
interpretation of the specifications.  However, Commax claims it could 
have reduced its price only by $[DELETED] had it been aware of this 
relaxed specification.  Since Commax's evaluated price was 
approximately $[DELETED] million higher than Sysorex's much 
higher-rated proposal and $[DELETED] million higher than GTSI's 
somewhat higher-rated proposal, it clearly suffered no competitive 
prejudice as a result of the relaxation.

The protests are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States  

1. Although the agency's answer to offeror question No. 75 (answers to 
questions from offerors were incorporated in the RFP) stated that the 
applicable definition of commerciality would be that specified by 
Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  52.212-4(e), the answer indicated 
that

            "[t]he fact that a product is unannounced when offered 
            would not violate the commerciality requirement for that 
            reason as long as the product otherwise satisfies the 
            provisions of the clause, which encompasses certain items 
            not yet available in the commercial marketplace that have 
            evolved through advances in technology or performance and 
            that will be available in time to satisfy the delivery 
            requirements under the contract."   

2. We recognize that, as noted by the protester, although both 
portables must support a CD-ROM drive, the CD-ROM for the high 
performance portable was a mandatory part of the base configuration 
while the CD-ROM for the standard portable was an optional item.  
However, AMC's answer to question No. 59--that the standard portable 
need not support the floppy disk drive and the CD-ROM 
simultaneously--addressed the agency's needs with respect to 
simultaneous support of the two devices where a CD-ROM also is 
required for the standard portable.  Thus, we see no reason why AMC's 
answer should not likewise apply to the high performance portable.

3. Commax also cites AMC's answer to an offeror's request that, 
because the requirement for a docking station is "limiting," and the 
functionality of a docking station can be furnished by a PCMCIA card 
reader, the agency delete the requirement for a docking station.  The 
agency responded that

            "[t]he Government has a requirement for docking stations 
            that are capable of supporting expansion cards and storage 
            bays for use with not only products provided with the 
            vendor proposal, but also to provide the flexibility to 
            utilize items which already exist in the Government 
            inventory.  The requirement stands as stated."

This question and answer, however, addressed the need for the docking 
station, while Commax' protest focuses on the need for and use of the 
PCMCIA card reader.  Thus, we do not consider it relevant to the 
question of whether GTSI's proposed docking station makes unacceptable 
use of the PCMCIA card reader.

4. GTSI also offered evidence to the effect that it believed when 
preparing its proposal that its proposed docking station would be 
commercially available by the time of contract delivery.  See, e.g., 
Tr. at 195-197, 222-224. 

5. At a minimum, we fail to understand why, in view of the fact that 
the specifications did not expressly prohibit a PCMCIA-based docking 
station, and the protester's claim as to the significance of this for 
the choice of portable and components, the protester did not seek 
clarification from the agency with respect to this matter.  In this 
regard, a Commax employee involved in developing its technical 
approach to this procurement testified that had it viewed a universal 
PCMCIA-based docking station as being acceptable, and thus not 
believed it necessary to propose a proprietary-design docking station 
with a more limited market for its product, it could have realized 
savings totaling approximately $22 to $22.5 million as a result of the 
consequently greater choice it would have had with respect to 
portables and other components.  Tr. at 111-122.  (Likewise, Commax 
maintains that permitting "a universal docking station removes the 
tremendous 'compatibility' challenge" offerors would otherwise face 
when utilizing a proprietary design.)