BNUMBER: B-277133
DATE: September 4, 1997
TITLE: EMC Corporation, B-277133, September 4, 1997
**********************************************************************
Matter of:EMC Corporation
File: B-277133
Date:September 4, 1997
Carolyn G. Hyde for the protester.
Lynn W. Flanagan, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
David Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that agency improperly issued delivery order for noncompliant
direct access storage devices (DASD) system is denied where, although
compliance with stated storage capacity and access time requirements
could only be determined with certainty once DASD system was installed
and used in the processing of the agency's particular data mix, agency
reasonably determined that quoted system complied with the
requirements.
DECISION
EMC Corporation protests the issuance of a delivery order to
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) against its General
Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule contract. The
purchase order was issued on the basis of responses received to
request for quotations (RFQ) No. 00-97-1012, issued by the Department
of Agriculture for direct access storage devices (DASD) for the
agency's National Information Technology Center (NITC). EMC asserts
that IBM's proposed DASD system does not satisfy two salient
characteristics set forth in the solicitation.
We deny the protest.
The RFQ requested pricing for a DASD system, comprised of items
available on GSA schedules, which would provide storage with "a
minimum guaranteed capacity of 720 gigabytes (GB) of data" and an
"[a]verage response time of 10 ms [milliseconds] or less for any data
set under all conditions (e.g., during data recovery, volume rebuild
or reconstruction)." As noted by Agriculture prior to closing,
however, respondents were not required to offer 720 GB of actual,
physical storage, but instead could meet the requirement with a
virtual storage system that used data compression techniques that
permitted 720 GB of data to be stored in a system of lesser physical
capacity. Specifically, the agency was asked:
Does 720 Gigabytes refer to the physical, or virtual capacity of
the DASD storage subsystem? If an offeror uses data compression
to provide larger user capacity on a lesser amount of physical
capacity, what compression ratios should be assumed? Is all of
the data to be stored on the proposed data storage subsystem
compressible, or is any of the data already compressed before
being written to the storage subsystem such as . . . DB2 . . . ,
etc.?
In its written response furnished to potential respondents,
Agriculture stated that:
The 720 Gigabytes refers to virtual capacity, with the capability
to store 720 Gigabytes of data presently stored on IBM 3390-3
DASD. [Emphasis in original.]
NITC does not intend to specify a compression ratio to be used
here.
There will be some data (e.g., DB2) stored on this equipment that
is already compressed.
The RFQ required vendors to guarantee the actual performance of their
systems as follows:
The offeror guarantees that any DASD subsystem furnished as a
result of this RFQ will meet or exceed the minimum performance
level specified above, for any data stored on the DASD subsystem.
The Government will monitor the performance of the subsystem(s)
for a period of 120 calendar days from the date of installation.
. . .
Should the subsystem fail to meet the required performance level,
the offeror will provide, at no additional cost to the
Government, any additional equipment necessary to meet the
specified performance level. . . .
EMC asserts that IBM's proposed system failed to comply with the RFQ
requirement for a minimum storage capacity of 720 GB. IBM proposed
its model 9393 RAMAC Virtual Array Storage Model 2 DASD system, which
the descriptive literature included in its quote described as
employing built-in compression and compaction algorithms to provide an
effective disk storage capacity of up to 726 GB, depending on the
particular configuration of capacity increments selected. In its
specific response to the specifications, IBM stated that it
"guarantees that the one (1) RAMAC Virtual Array which is provided
will have a minimum capacity of 720 gigabytes (GB) of data in the 3390
format. A conservative compression ratio has been used to determine
that the RAMAC Virtual Array will have a minimum capacity of 720 GB."
However, IBM described the three standard storage increments which it
proposed by reference to their standard denominations in the
descriptive literature: "420 GB EFF. CAP."; "EFF. CAP. INCREMENT-210
GB"; and "EFF. CAP. INCREMENT-80 GB." Noting that the capacities of
the increments as described in the descriptive literature totaled only
710 GB, EMC contends that IBM's proposed system is noncompliant with
the 720 GB storage capacity requirement.
An RFQ leading to the issuance of a delivery order under an FSS
contract must provide for a fair and equitable competition, and
issuing an order for items that deviate from requirements set out in
an RFQ may, at least in certain circumstances, be improper. L.A.
Sys., Inc., B-276349, June 9, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 206 at 3-4. In this
case, however, we need not consider whether circumstances existed that
might permit the agency to issue a delivery order that deviated from
the RFQ terms, since we find that the agency reasonably determined
that IBM's proposed solution satisfied both of the RFQ requirements at
issue.
First, the agency reasonably determined that IBM's proposed "virtual"
storage system met the storage capacity requirement. In our view,
EMC's focus on the nominal capacity of the proposed storage increments
simply ignores the nature of compression as used in a "virtual" DASD
system. Agriculture and EMC agree that "virtual" storage subsystem
capacity is difficult to verify until the system is deployed because
the actual storage capacity depends upon such things as the proposed
compression algorithm and how "compression friendly" the data is.
Here, IBM's descriptive literature for the specific model 9393 RAMAC
Virtual Array Storage Model 2 DASD system it quoted reported "typical
compression ratios of 2:1 for cache and 3.6:1 for disk storage which
are used to calculate effective cache and storage capacities," but
noted that "[g]reater ratios have also been observed for both cache
and disk." IBM, apparently drawing upon its knowledge of NITC's data
requirements as acquired in the course of serving as NITC's DASD
supplier for more than 6 years, in effect guaranteed a disk
compression ratio of 3.65:1 (so as to achieve the guaranteed overall
virtual storage capacity of 720 GB). Although slightly higher than
the typical 3.6:1 compression ratio upon which the nominal 710 GB
storage capacity of the quoted components was based, this minimal
increase was not inconsistent with IBM's descriptive literature, which
noted that greater than 3.6:1 ratios had been observed, nor with the
experience of large system customers such as Agriculture, which,
according to the agency, have experienced compression ratios as high
as 5:1. In these circumstances, where the actual storage capacity of
the quoted system can only be determined in operation using actual
Agriculture data, the record indicates that the minimal increase in
compression ratio--relative to that typically encountered with the
proposed DASD system--which was necessary to furnish the required
capacity was not unlikely, and the resulting contract included a
mechanism by which any shortfall in the guaranteed system performance
will be remedied at no additional cost to the government, Agriculture
reasonably determined that IBM's guarantee of an overall 720 GB
storage capacity satisfied the specification's storage capacity
requirement.
Second, EMC asserts that IBM's proposed system failed to comply with
the RFQ requirement for an "[a]verage response time of 10 ms
[milliseconds] or less for any data set under all conditions." EMC
bases its assertion on IBM sales literature downloaded from the
Internet which indicates a minimum random access time of 11.2
milliseconds for a model 9393 Model 002 RAMAC Virtual Array Storage
system--apparently the model quoted by IBM--with a 290-GB capacity
when processing the most difficult, "cache hostile" data.
We find EMC's position to be unpersuasive, as it appears to be based
on an unsupported, unwarranted assumption as to the actual data
processed by Agriculture. Specifically, Agriculture reports that its
typical work load is not "cache hostile" in its entirety. In this
regard, the agency calculates from the data cited by EMC, that even if
as much as 75 percent of its data were "cache hostile," and the
remainder were in the next most difficult category ("cache uniform,"
with a minimum random access time of 5.9 milliseconds), the overall
minimum random access time would be only 9.875 milliseconds. Indeed,
Agriculture notes that it is currently experiencing an access time of
slightly less than 10 milliseconds using equipment which was installed
in 1989 and is at least two generations out-of-date. EMC has failed
to demonstrate that, given the actual data processed by Agriculture,
the agency acted unreasonably in concluding that IBM's quoted DASD
system would satisfy the access time requirement for any data set
likely to be encountered by the agency.[1]
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. EMC also objects that, after issuance of the delivery order, IBM
proposed and Agriculture agreed to the substitution of IBM's newer,
better performing model 9393 RAMAC Virtual Array Storage Model (Turbo)
T42 DASD system for the model 9393 RAMAC Virtual Array Storage Model 2
DASD system originally quoted. EMC's objection, however, concerns the
administration of an existing contract, which is not for consideration
under our bid protest process. 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.5(a) (1997). In any
case, even if the substitution had occurred prior to issuance of the
delivery order, under FAR sec. 52.215-10, which was incorporated into the
RFQ, a procuring agency may accept a late modification of an otherwise
successful offer where, as here, that modification results in terms
more favorable to the government. Human Resource Sys., Inc.; Health
Staffers, Inc., B-262254.3 et al., Dec. 21, 1995, 96-1 CPD para. 35 at 9
n.3.