BNUMBER:  B-278651 
DATE:  February 23, 1998
TITLE: Compro Computer Services, Inc., B-278651, February 23, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Compro Computer Services, Inc.

File:     B-278651

Date:February 23, 1998

Cyrus E. Phillips, IV, Esq., and Christopher H. Jensen, Esq., 
Kilcullen, Wilson and Kilcullen, for the protester.
Joshua Kranzberg, Esq., and Maj. Harry W. Longbottom, JAGC, Department 
of the Army, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Solicitation provisions requiring contractors to possess certain 
expertise and experience in computer maintenance do not constitute 
definitive responsibility criteria--since they do not set out 
specific, objective standards for determining an offeror's capability 
to perform--but are performance obligations considered under the 
contracting officer's general responsibility determination.

DECISION

Compro Computer Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
MFSI under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD01-97-R-0013, issued by 
the Department of the Army for maintenance and parts support of 
computer workstations at the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground.  Compro 
contends that MFSI's proposal should have been rejected because MFSI 
does not meet certain alleged definitive responsibility criteria 
contained in the solicitation.

We deny the protest. 

The solicitation, as amended, contemplated award of a fixed-price 
contract for a base year with 4 option years to provide preventive 
maintenance services, on-call maintenance services, and parts exchange 
services for 39 Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) workstations.  These 
computers are used in Yuma's testing and data reduction requirements.  
The successful contractor is required to provide all necessary parts 
and personnel to perform the maintenance as required under the terms 
of the statement of work (SOW).  

Section 12 of the SOW, entitled "Contractor Requirements," contains 
individual sections which read as follows:

     C.12.1.  This section specifies the minimum requirements which 
     must be met by the KTR [contractor].  The KTR shall give evidence 
     that these requirements shall be met, thus assuring . . . that 
     the KTR has the background, experience, and resources that the 
     Government considers necessary for successful performance of the 
     resulting contract.

     C.12.2.  Corporate Maintenance Expertise:  The KTR shall have 
     reserve expertise available to maintenance personnel.  This 
     expertise shall extend to cover all aspects of the electronic and 
     eletro-mechanical components and corresponding software which 
     comprise the [SGI] Systems.  The KTR shall have established lines 
     of communication with this reserve so that consultation is 
     available by telephone, or if needed, by personnel from this 
     reserve, who are expert in the referenced areas, who may be 
     transported to the [Yuma] site, on a temporary basis, to aid in 
     the diagnosis of malfunction or other maintenance considerations 
     at no additional cost to the Government.

     C.12.3.  Maintenance Personnel:  Maintenance personnel supplied 
     under the terms of this contract must be factory trained in 
     maintaining the [SGI] Systems specified . . . . Contractor shall 
     be required to authenticate factory training.

The RFP at Attachment 7 detailed the evaluation plan including sample 
evaluation sheets, the composition of the evaluation team, and the 
scoring methodology.  Proposals were evaluated on the basis of three 
areas, in descending order of importance:  technical/management, past 
performance, and price.  The technical/management area was divided 
into two factors:  technical/management merit, and corporate expertise 
and understanding work performance merit.  Each of these was further 
divided into four subfactors.  The factors were rated on a color coded 
basis:  red, fails to meet requirements of the SOW; yellow, weak, but 
may meet requirements through clarifications; blue, meets minimum 
requirements; and green, significantly exceeds requirements.  RFP, 
Attachment 7.  Award was to be made to the offeror whose 
technical/management and price proposals, considered together with 
past and present performance, represented the best buy to the 
government.  

Compro and MFSI were the only offerors to submit proposals by the June 
30, 1997, closing date.  After receipt of proposals, the agency 
amended the RFP, substantially  reducing the level of effort required 
under the SOW, and requested revised price proposals.  The results of 
the evaluation on all factors were as follows:

Factor/Subfactor                    Compro    MFSI

Technical/Management Merit                    

1-factory trained personnel/prior experienceGreenBlue

2-plan for obtaining spare/repair partsBlue   Green

3-adequate procedure for obtaining ECOs/ FCOs of original equipment 
manufacturer[1]                     Blue      Blue

4-clear identification of any subcontracting/ ability to provide full 
maintenance service                 Green     Blue

Corporate Expertise/ Understanding Work Merit 

1-corporate/personnel expertise and understanding of criticality of 
maintenance                         Green     Blue

2-organizational structure          Blue      Green

3-experience in like services/understanding of scope of workGreenBlue

4-personnel satisfy security requirementsGreenGreen

Past Performance Risk Assessment[2] NegligibleLow

Price                               $442,188  $128,580
Due to the disparity in pricing, the contracting officer was concerned 
that the offerors misunderstood the reduced level of effort.  
Accordingly, she issued amendment No. 0004, which included a revised 
SOW and equipment history information.  Subsequently, the contracting 
officer requested best and final offers from both firms.  Compro did 
not change its price, but MFSI raised its price to $186,185.96.

In making her award determination, the contracting officer considered 
that MFSI's proposal met and, in many areas, exceeded the solicitation 
requirements.  She also considered MFSI's significantly lower price 
and low performance risk rating.  While Compro's technical score was 
higher than MFSI's, the contracting officer determined that this 
technical superiority was not worth the approximately 230 percent 
higher price proposed by Compro.  Accordingly, she awarded the 
contract to MFSI.  Compro did not request a debriefing and filed a 
protest with the agency.  After receiving a denial of its agency-level 
protest, Compro filed this protest with our Office.  

Compro asserts that MFSI's proposal did not demonstrate its ability to 
meet the "definitive responsibility criteria" identified in section 
C.12 which require contractors to provide evidence that the stated 
maintenance expertise and factory training requirements "shall be 
met."  In this regard, Compro alleges that without proof of 
appropriate agreements with SGI, which it possesses but MFSI does not, 
MFSI has not met, and cannot meet, these requirements.  

Definitive responsibility criteria are specific and objective 
standards, qualitative or quantitative, established by a contracting 
agency in a solicitation to measure an offeror's ability to perform a 
contract.  In order to be a definitive responsibility criterion, the 
solicitation provision must reasonably inform offerors that they must 
demonstrate compliance with the standard as a precondition to 
receiving award.  AT&T Corp., B-260447.4, Mar. 4, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  200 
at 5.

Here, the provisions pointed to by the protester are not sufficiently 
specific to establish definitive responsibility criteria; rather, the 
provisions essentially require in general terms that each offeror have 
the appropriate expertise, lines of communication, and factory 
training in order to successfully perform the contract requirements, 
and that it provide sufficient evidence thereof.  The cited provisions 
do not specify any particular license requirements, years of required 
experience, or the time when an offeror must obtain the necessary 
expertise.  Accordingly, these experience and training provisions 
represent performance obligations, enforceable by the agency in its 
administration of the contract.   Southern Nevada Communications, 
B-241534, Feb. 11, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  146 at 3.  As such, these 
provisions concern the general responsibility of the awardee and its 
ability to perform the contract consistent with all legal 
requirements.  The agency found MFSI to be a responsible contractor, 
and our Office will not review the agency's affirmative determination 
of MFSI's responsibility under the circumstances here.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.5(c) (1997). 

Compro also argues that MFSI's proposal should have been rejected as 
technically unacceptable because MFSI allegedly cannot supply required 
technical publications, ECOs/FCOs, and peripheral change notices 
released by SGI, since MFSI allegedly lacks the requisite agreements 
with SGI.  In Compro's view, the only acceptable offeror is one, like 
itself, which possesses SGI Channel Partner and ServicePro agreements, 
which provide access to the necessary publications and expertise of 
senior SGI engineers.

Contrary to Compro's position, nothing in the RFP requires a specific 
agreement with SGI.[3]  The RFP requires the contractor to provide a 
technical publication, containing programming guides and tips, 
technical articles, and answers to common questions.  SOW at C.2.3.  
Section C.2.6.2 requires the contractor to provide all services and 
functions required to keep the systems current with the latest 
hardware, software diagnostics and documentation, including purchasing 
and incorporating the manufacturer's ECOs, FCOs, and peripheral 
changes.  Section C.2.6.4 makes the contractor responsible for 
furnishing the government with ECO and FCO documentation and to make 
the necessary corrections or substitutions of equipment schematics and 
spare parts inventories.  

As the agency observes, and the record reflects, MFSI's proposal 
provides sufficient evidence of its ability to meet all contract 
requirements.  In this regard, MFSI's proposal states that it 
subscribes to the update services of original equipment manufacturers, 
has a contractual relationship with Great Eastern Technology, has 
certificates showing factory training for its proposed technicians, 
and evidence of its past performance of an SGI equipment maintenance 
contract with the Navy.  The agency has also submitted a letter from 
SGI stating that "Great Eastern Technology of Woburn, MA is an 
authorized reseller (VAD) [value added dealer] of SGI's products and 
services."  In view of MFSI's experience, expertise, and relationship 
with Great Eastern, the agency reasonably concluded that MFSI's 
proposal was technically acceptable, in accordance with the stated 
evaluation criteria.  Information Sys. & Networks Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 
284, 285 (1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  203 at 3.  Compro's mere disagreement with 
the agency's judgment does not establish that the evaluation was 
unreasonable.  Medland Controls, Inc., B-255204, B-255204.3, Feb. 17, 
1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  260 at 3.[4]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1."ECO" refers to engineering change orders and "FCO" refers to field 
change orders. 

2. A "negligible" risk is "so small that it can be disregarded," while 
a "low" risk means that "little doubt exists that the offeror will 
successfully perform." 

3. In this regard, the absence of any RFP reference to specific 
agreements with SGI also serves to contradict Compro's position that 
the RFP contained definitive responsibility criteria.  

4. Our conclusion is not changed by a letter from an SGI "Sr. Division 
Legal Counsel and Manager" who declined to make a declaration 
concerning Great Eastern's status.  While admitting that Great Eastern 
has a current indirect reseller agreement with SGI, the counsel noted 
in passing that Great Eastern did not have a ServicePro Agreement with 
SGI and therefore was "not currently an authorized service provider 
for SGI equipment."  As noted above, the RFP simply does not require 
contractors to possess any specific SGI agreements in order to perform 
the contract.  Whether MFSI is ultimately capable of performing the 
contract is a matter of the agency's affirmative determination of 
responsibility, a matter which we will not review under the 
circumstances presented here.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(c).