BNUMBER:  B-276349 
DATE:  June 9, 1997
TITLE: L.A. Systems, Inc., B-276349, June 9, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:L.A. Systems, Inc.

File:     B-276349

Date:June 9, 1997

Joseph A. Artabane, Esq., and Joseph G. Billings, Esq., Riley & 
Artabane, P.C., for the protester.
Jerry T. James for Severn Companies, Inc., an intervenor.
Robert R. Goff, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the 
agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly issued delivery order for robotics tape 
library system that failed to meet stated requirements is denied where 
the requirements were relaxed but the record establishes that there is 
no reasonable possibility that the protester was prejudiced by the 
relaxation.  

DECISION

L.A. Systems, Inc. protests the issuance of delivery order No. 
DCA200-97-F-1265 to Severn Companies, Inc., against General Services 
Administration (GSA), Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract as the 
result of a request for pricing (RFPr) issued by the Defense 
Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Information Technology 
Contracting Organization (DITCO), for a robotics tape library system 
to be used at the Defense MegaCenter Sacramento.  L.A. asserts that 
Severn's system does not satisfy several salient characteristics set 
forth in the RFPr.

We deny the protest.

The RFPr, as amended, requested pricing for items available on GSA 
schedules, existing indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) 
contracts, or other agency contracts to which DITCO is an authorized 
ordering activity.  The RFPr listed several salient characteristics 
with respect to the robotics/tape cartridge capacity, tape drives, and 
host connectivity.  The specifications required, among other things,  
that the tape cartridge provide access to any tape transport for any 
tape cartridge in the system; that it read and write in 36-track 
format and read 18 track format; and  that the system consist of 4 
control units and 16 cartridge drives.  The RFPr provided that this 
requirement could be met by upgrading either the existing StorageTek 
or International Business Machines (IBM) equipment, but not both.  The  
tape library system was also required to be able to direct datasets to 
any of the supported device or media types without job control 
language (JCL) changes.  Award was to be made on the basis of "best 
value procedures."

Nine price quotations were received from seven vendors.  After 
technical review,  discussions were held with all vendors except L.A. 
because it was determined that only L.A's. quoted system was 
responsive to the salient characteristics.  The discussion responses 
were evaluated by the DITCO evaluators and an independent third party 
evaluator, and the agency determined that Severn's alternate quotation 
#1 offered a technically superior solution at the lowest price.  
Severn proposed a mix of IBM 3490 Enhanced Technology Drives (36 
track) and IBM 3590 Magstar Technology Drives (128 track).  On 
February 18, 1997, DITCO issued a delivery order to Severn under 
Seven's GSA FSS, which, while designated a "best value decision," was 
actually a low price-driven determination.

On February 27, L.A. filed this protest with our Office contending 
that DISA had accepted nonconforming equipment.  The agency maintains 
that it accepted the best solution based on the lowest overall cost 
and that the Severn solution met or exceeded agency requirements.[1]  

L.A. maintains that four of the listed salient characteristics are not 
satisfied by the Severn proposed solution, and that by issuing the 
delivery order to Severn, DISA relaxed these specifications for Severn 
but not for L.A.  L.A. maintains that Severn's use of the IBM magstar 
cartridge prevents compliance with the following specifications:  
"access to any tape transport for any tape cartridge in the system," 
requirement that the tape drives read and write in 36 track format and 
read 18 track format, requirement for 16 cartridge drives transport 
and 4 control units, and  requirement that the system be able to 
direct datasets to any of the supported device or medial types without 
JCL changes.  L.A. asserts that if Severn's materially nonconforming 
equipment was viewed as satisfying DISA's needs, L.A. should have been 
permitted to revise its offer to satisfy the relaxed specifications.  
L.A. claims that it was prejudiced by DISA's actions because if L.A. 
had been informed that it need not fully comply with the 
specifications, it could have offered a different system at a lower 
price.

DISA contends the specifications were not improperly relaxed since 
this was an FSS buy, and the agency issued the delivery order to the 
vendor meeting the agency's functional requirements and offering the 
overall best value to the government.  DISA maintains that it acted 
properly in accepting Severn's solution because it provided the lowest 
price and offered newer state-of-the-art equipment.  However, as 
discussed below, it is clear that at a minimum, Severn's solution did 
not meet the specifically stated requirement for 4 control units and 
16 cartridge drive transports.[2]

The record shows that Severn's proposed system consisted of 12 IBM 
3490 transports and 2 IBM magstar transports for a total of 14 
transports, rather than the 16 transports required by the RFPr.  The 
Severn system also provided for only 
2 control units rather than the 4 required units.  The agency 
recognizes that the Severn solution does not meet its stated 
requirement for transports and control units but maintains that with 
the mix of technology proposed by Severn the minimum tape cartridge 
capacity requirement and minimum tape exchanges per hour requirement 
are exceeded.  However, it is clear that Severn's proposed system was 
noncompliant with the express technical requirements of the RFPr.

That does not mean that the protest must be sustained.  While the 
general rule is that a request for quotations (RFP) (which is similar 
to the type of solicitation used here) leading to the issuance of a 
delivery order under an FSS contract must accurately describe the 
agency's minimum needs and provide for a fair and equitable 
competition, Haworth, Inc.; Knoll North America, Inc., 73 Comp. Gen. 
283, 286-287 (1994), 94-2 CPD  para.  98 at 5-6, an agency, in appropriate 
circumstance, may order items that deviate from the specifications set 
forth in the solicitation.  See Spacesaver, B-224339, Aug. 22, 1986, 
86-2 CPD  para.  219; see also Mobile Telesystems, Inc., B-255213, Feb. 15, 
1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  110 at 3 (involving a Commerce Business Daily 
synopsis).  This is so because an RFQ-type solicitation does not seek 
offers that are subject to acceptance by the government; rather, it 
solicits information from which the agency can determine what 
equipment meets its needs at the best available price.  Spacesaver, 
supra at 2.  In other words, the information is used to enable the 
government to place a delivery order with an FSS contractor pursuant 
to the rules governing FSS purchases.  See Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) Subpart 8.4.

Since those rules require selection of the "best value item at the 
lowest overall cost," FAR  sec.  8.404(b)(2) (FAC 90-45), an agency's 
failure to accurately describe its actual needs in an RFQ-type 
solicitation could lead to its placing an order for other than the 
lowest overall cost best value item.  In such circumstances, placing 
an order for items that deviate from the stated requirements is 
improper.  Haworth, Inc.; Knoll North America, Inc., supra.  On the 
other hand, where the order for deviating items in fact represents a 
best value purchase at the lowest overall cost, the fact that the 
ordered items deviate in some way from the requirements set forth in 
the solicitation is not a basis to sustain the protest since the order 
will comply with FSS rules and no prejudice will have accrued to the 
protester (whose FSS contract, under such circumstances, will not 
include the items in question).  Spacesaver, supra.

Here, the record does not evidence a reasonable possibility that FSS 
rules were violated or that L.A. was prejudiced by the agency's 
acceptance of Severn's proposal.  L.A. maintains that had DISA stated 
its requirements differently (i.e., in the manner which was used to 
view Severn's system as compliant), L.A. could have offered, at a 
lower price, the Storagetek Redwood subsystem which it also asserts 
provides better technology than the Severn system.  This position is 
untenable because the solicitation called for offers based on FSS and 
existing ID/IQ contracts and the Storagetek Redwood system is not 
offered under L.A.'s FSS contract.  L.A. claims that if DISA modifies 
the specifications to allow use of the Redwood system, it could 
process a modification requesting that GSA add the Redwood system to 
L.A.'s FSS contract or would team with StorageTek to avail itself of 
StorageTek's FSS contract and offer the system on a spot basis for 
less than the Severn system.  The possibility of competitive 
prejudice, however, may not be established on the basis of 
speculation.  L.A. lacks the present capability to provide the Redwood 
system under its FSS contract, and the assertion, after disclosure of 
prices, that L.A. might have teamed with StorageTek to provide the 
Redwood system on a spot basis at a lower price (i.e., at a reduction 
from StorageTek's extant FSS price) is too

speculative and self serving to warrant sustaining the protest.  See 
DynCorp, 
B-233727.2, June 9, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  543 at 12.  

Under the present circumstances, issuance of a delivery order to 
Severn is unobjectionable because there is no reasonable basis to 
conclude that L.A. could have offered a different system at a lower 
cost even if L.A. had been informed that DISA did not require 
compliance with all of the listed salient characteristics.  

Accordingly, 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."  We have recently 
concluded that this provision does not preclude protests such as this 
one concerning the placement of orders against GSA FSS contracts.  
Severn Co., Inc., B-275717.2, Apr. 28, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  ___ at 2-3 
n.1.  DISA also contends that L.A. is not an interested party because 
it is not next in line for award.  However, this protest raises the 
question of whether the agency improperly waived requirements without 
notifying all offerors and giving them an opportunity to offer on the 
relaxed requirements.  Since an appropriate remedy could be that the 
protester be given an opportunity to compete under the relaxed 
specifications, we believe L.A. has a sufficient interest in the 
outcome to be considered an interested party notwithstanding the 
existence of intervening offerors.  Meridian Management Corp.; 
Consolidated Eng'g Servs., Inc., B-271557 et al., July 29, 1996, 96-2 
CPD  para.  64 at 4. 

DISA also takes the position that the specifications at issue were not 
mandatory because the amended RFPr no longer contained the phrase 
"minimum mandatory requirements" used in the original RFPr.  This 
argument is without merit because the RFPr specifically provided 
vendors with a list of "salient characteristics," which constitutes a 
statement of the agency's minimum needs for purposes of placing an 
order under an FSS contract.  MII Lundia, Inc., B-214715, Jan. 3, 
1985, 85-1 CPD  para.  14 at 4. 

2. We also question whether the Severn solution satisfies the RFPr 
requirement that the system "must be able to direct dataset to any of 
the supported device or medial types without JCL changes."  It appears 
from the record that the dual technology system proposed by Severn 
requires extensive system software changes in order to comply with 
this requirement.