BNUMBER:  B-275717.2 
DATE:  April 28, 1997
TITLE: Severn Companies, Inc., B-275717.2, April 28, 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:Severn Companies, Inc.

File:     B-275717.2

Date:April 28, 1997

William M. Rosen, Esq., Kendrick C. Fong, Esq., and Robert J. Moss, 
Esq., Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, for the protesters.
Jay P. Urwitz, Esq., Barry J. Hurewitz, Esq., and James L. Quarles, 
Esq., Hale and Dorr, for LA Systems, an intervenor. 
Robert Goff, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, 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

Protest against termination of delivery order issued against 
protester's General Services Administration, Federal Supply Schedule 
contract for direct access computer storage device is denied where 
protester's response to request for pricing (RFPr) indicated 
noncompliance with RFPr's specifications.

DECISION

Severn Companies, Inc. protests the action of the Defense Information 
Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Information Technology Contracting 
Organization (DITCO), in terminating for the convenience of the 
government the delivery order (DCA200-97-F-0991) issued to Severn 
against its General Services Administration (GSA), Federal Supply 
Schedule (FSS) contract under a request for pricing (RFPr) for a 
direct access storage device (DASD) system for the DISA Continuity of 
Operations and Test Facility (DCTF) at Slidell, Louisiana 
(DCTF-Slidell).  DISA terminated the delivery order after concluding, 
in response to a protest filed by LA Systems, that the RFPr was 
ambiguous.

We deny the protest.

The RFPr, as amended, requested pricing for items available on GSA 
schedules, existing indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity 
contracts, or other agency contracts to which DITCO is an authorized 
ordering activity.  Specifically, the RFPr required offerors to quote 
a price for one terabyte (TB) of redundant array of inexpensive disk 
(RAID) storage to support IBM multiple virtual storage (MVS) operating 
system computers and one TB of RAID to support UNIX operating system 
computers, in either "a single box or multiple box solution."  The 
specifications required that the solution "[p]rovide channel 
interfaces between the disk subsystem and the host computer or 
computers to which it is attached."  In this regard, the 
specifications provided that:  "Support for 32 channels per box is 
required for growth.  The channel configuration required at initial 
delivery is 8 parallel channels, 8 ESCON and 8 SCSI."  The parties 
agree that the parallel and ESCON channels will work with the MVS 
operating system, while the SCSI channels will work with the UNIX 
operating system; thus, 16 channels were required at initial delivery 
for the MVS operating system and 8 channels for the UNIX operating 
system.  Offerors were required to furnish pricing, delivery and 
contract administration data, but not technical literature or a 
technical proposal.  DISA received four responses that it considered 
acceptable, including Severn's and LA Systems's.

Upon learning that DISA had issued a delivery order to Severn as the 
low, technically acceptable respondent, LA Systems protested to our 
Office that Severn's response was technically unacceptable.  
Subsequently, on January 8, 1997, DISA terminated Severn's delivery 
order on the basis that the specifications were ambiguous in that the 
meaning of certain terms--such as box, subsystem, system and 
architecture--was unclear, and in that "the exact number and 
configuration of the channels required for MVS and UNIX portions of 
the DASD are still unclear."  DISA intends to resolicit its DASD 
requirement under revised specifications.

Severn denies that the specifications were ambiguous and maintains 
that its solution complied with the specifications as reasonably 
interpreted.  Severn concludes that its delivery order should be 
reinstated.

Our Office generally will not review an agency's decision to terminate 
a contract for the convenience of the government; such decisions are a 
matter of contract administration which is not within our bid protest 
function.  However, we will review such a termination, where, as here, 
it is based upon an agency determination that the initial contract 
award was improper.  Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corp., 
B-219988.3, Dec. 16, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  667 at 2.[1]  

Whether or not the solicitation contained ambiguities, termination of 
Severn's delivery order was proper since Severn's response to the RFPr 
reasonably indicated noncompliance with the clear specification 
requirement to support 32 channels.  In this regard, the Deputy 
Director, DCTF-Slidell, reported on February 19 that the government 
conducted "extensive research" on Severn's proposed equipment after 
receiving LA Systems's protest; according to the Deputy Director, 
"[t]his examination of [Severn's] solution against the salient 
characteristics and our actual needs indicated that the Severn 
solution, as proposed, could not meet our requirement for 32 channels 
for the UNIX operating system portion of the DASD requirement."  As 
the Deputy Director explained during April 15 and April 16 conference 
calls conducted by our Office, Severn's UNIX solution included 16 
controllers; according to a letter from the manufacturer of the 
controllers furnished to DISA by Severn after submission of its 
pricing but prior to issuance of the delivery order, each controller 
"supports one 16 bit differential Wide Ultra SCSI host interface," 
such that "[t]he proposed configuration will support up to 16 host 
connections."  The Deputy Director indicated that he considered each 
"host interface" or "host connection"--that is, each interface or 
connection between the storage system and a host computer--to be 
equivalent to a "channel."  (Severn has not shown that the agency's 
conclusion that the term "connection" in this context equates with 
"channel" was unreasonable.)  Thus, while Severn's proposed UNIX 
configuration met the requirement for 8 SCSI channels at initial 
delivery, its proposal of 16 controllers, each of which supports one 
SCSI host interface, such that "[t]he proposed configuration will 
support up to 16 host connections," reasonably indicated that the 
proposed solution would be unable to meet the requirement to support 
growth to 32 channels without the addition of equipment not included 
in Severn's price.  

A proposal which fails to comply with one or more of a solicitation's 
material terms and conditions is technically unacceptable and cannot 
form the basis for an award.  Harris Corp., B-274566; B-274566.2, Nov. 
27, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  205 at 5.  Thus, by taking exception to the 
32-channel growth requirement in its response, Severn rendered its 
proposal unacceptable. 

As noted by Severn, the Deputy Director indicated during the 
conference calls that information supplied in Severn's March 19 
comments altered his view of Severn's solution.  According to DISA, 
Severn's March 19 comments provided the Deputy Director with "the 
information necessary to show how the Severn solution would have met 
his actual needs."  (It is unclear from the record why the information 
in Severn's March 19 comments has convinced the agency that the Severn 
solution would meet its "actual needs.")  However, the fact that 
Severn, in developing its protest, has now explained how it would meet 
the agency's "actual needs," does not retroactively render its 
response acceptable; it remains that Severn's response to the RFPr, as 
clarified by the letter from the manufacturer of the controllers, took 
exception to the specifications.  See generally Lyudmila Franke et 
al., B-275164 et al., Dec. 18, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  231 at 5.  Under these 
circumstances, Severn was not entitled to the award, and the agency 
therefore properly terminated Severn's delivery order.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. DISA maintains that our consideration of Severn's protest is 
precluded by 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304c(d) (1994), which provides that "[a] 
protest is not authorized in connection with the issuance or proposed 
issuance of a task or delivery order except for a protest on the 
ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of 
the contract under which the order is issued."  However, we do not 
find its position persuasive, since we find no evidence that that 
provision is intended to preclude protests with respect to the 
placement of orders against GSA 
FSS contracts.  In this regard, we note that the legislative history 
for the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 
(FASA),  sec.  1004, Pub. L. No. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3243, 3252 (1994), 
which added the above restriction on protests as part of FASA's 
treatment of task and delivery order contracts, indicates that the 
order provisions were intended to encourage the use of multiple award 
order contracts, rather than single award order contracts.  H. R. 
Conf. Rep. No. 103-712, 103rd Cong. 2d Sess. 178 (1994), reprinted in 
1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2607, 2608; S. Rep. No. 103-258, 103rd Cong. 2d 
Sess. 15-16 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2561, 2575-2576.  
However, no such incentive was required with respect to the FSS, since 
it already afforded users a choice of multiple contractors.  Further, 
subpart 16.5 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which 
includes the restriction on protests, supports the interpretation that 
the restriction was not intended to apply to the FSS since it treats 
FSS contracts as separate from other indefinite delivery contracts.  
FAR  sec.  16.500 (FAC 90-41); see 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304a(g) (1994); 41 U.S.C.  sec.  
253h(g) (1994).