BNUMBER:  B-279892             
DATE:  July 29, 1998
TITLE: Cache Box, Inc., B-279892, July 29, 1998
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Cache Box, Inc.

File:B-279892            
        
Date:July 29, 1998

Steven L. Briggerman, Esq., Grace Bateman, Esq., and Adria Benner, 
Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for the protester. 
John E. Lariccia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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

Agency properly eliminated proposal from competitive range as 
technically unacceptable where it did not include sufficiently 
detailed information to establish that offered reservations management 
software will meet the solicitation requirements, and instead included 
conflicting provisions which called general offer of compliance into 
question, such that the proposal was at best ambiguous. 

DECISION

Cache Box, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the 
competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F41691-97-R0016, issued by the Department of the Air Force for 
reservations management software.  Cache Box challenges the agency's 
determination that its proposal was technically unacceptable.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The solicitation provided for award of a fixed-price requirements 
contract to furnish commercially available software to control 
reservations at approximately 250 Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps 
lodging facilities world-wide.  The overall required system was 
comprised of three components:  (1) a property management system that 
enables lodging personnel to create and cancel reservations, check 
guests in or out, create accounting entries and reports, and create 
other management reports; (2) a web reservation module that enables 
travelers to directly access the property management system at a 
specific location and make reservations; and (3) corporate 
headquarters systems that enable service headquarters to retrieve 
occupancy information and merge data into consolidated reports.  

Offerors were required to furnish "descriptive literature such as cut 
sheets, illustrations, drawings, brochures or any narrative 
descriptions deemed necessary to establish for the purpose of 
evaluation and award, the details of the product pertaining to 
significant elements such as design, materials, components, or 
performance characteristics which fully support the requirements in 
the Statement of Need (SON)."  RFP, amend. 0006, Addendum to [Federal 
Acquisition Regulation] 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors--Commercial 
Items, (b) Submission of Offers, 
Vol. 2, at 109.  Award was to be made "to the responsible offeror 
whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the best value 
and will be most advantageous to the Government" under the following 
three evaluation criteria, listed in descending order of importance:  
(1) technical capability, as established in the written proposal and 
"through a visit to the Contractor's facility for a Live Test 
Demonstration [LTD] of the functional capabilities of the Offeror's 
software"; (2) past performance; and (3) price.  Id., Statement of 
Evaluation Criteria, at 111-114.

The Air Force received proposals from eight offerors by closing time 
on February 20, 1998; Cache Box's and five other offerors' proposals 
were included in an initial competitive range.  The agency then 
advised the competitive range offerors of the "areas [which] need to 
be clarified during the [LTD]," and directed that "[i]n addition to 
the answers given at the [LTD], the questions presented above and any 
additional questions identified during the [LTD] must be answered in 
writing within 10 days following the demonstration."  Air Force Letter 
to Cache Box dated March 19, 1998.  

Based upon evaluation of Cache Box's written proposal, the results of 
the LTD conducted on March 24, and Cache Box's April 2 response to the 
agency's questions, the Air Force determined that Cache Box's proposal 
was technically unacceptable because it failed to demonstrate 
compliance with the specifications in nine areas.  The agency 
therefore excluded Cache Box's proposal from the revised competitive 
range (comprised of three proposals).  The agency advised Cache Box by 
letter dated April 10 that its proposal had been rejected and set 
forth the specific deficiencies that led to the rejection.  Following 
a debriefing on April 20, Cache Box filed this protest.

Cache Box challenges the exclusion of its proposal from the 
competitive range, primarily arguing that the proposal indicated 
compliance with the specifications and was not technically 
unacceptable.

Where a protester challenges an agency's elimination of its proposal 
from the competitive range, our review is limited to considering 
whether the competitive range determination was reasonable and in 
accordance with the terms of the RFP and applicable regulations and 
statutes.  Loral Sys. Co., B-270755, Apr. 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  241 at 
7; Cyber Digital, Inc., B-255225, Feb. 18, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  123 at 
2-3.  In this regard, it is the offeror's duty to include sufficiently 
detailed information in its proposal to establish that the equipment 
offered will meet the solicitation requirements, and blanket 
statements of full compliance are insufficient to fulfill this 
obligation.  TRS Research, B-274845, Jan. 7, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  6 at 3.  
Where a proposal contains a blanket offer of compliance to meet 
specifications and also contains conflicting provisions which call 
that offer of compliance into question, the offer is ambiguous and 
properly may be rejected as technically unacceptable.  Id. 

Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that, although Cache 
Box's proposal included general statements of compliance with each of 
the specification requirements, it failed to establish compliance with 
material specification requirements.  We discuss two of the 
requirements below.

OPERATING SYSTEM

Specification (Statement of Need) paragraph 3.1.2.6.2, "Operating 
System," provided that "[t]he server software must function on either 
Microsoft NT Advanced Server release 4.0 or higher or non public 
domain Unix."  Cache Box generally stated in its proposal that "[t]he 
system's server software functions on Microsoft NT Advanced Server 4.0 
or higher," Vol. 2, Tab 5, at 10, and it included a price "As Needed" 
for "[Microsoft] NT Server ver 4.0" in a table entitled "Property 
Management System, Ba-Table, Implementation Options," in the section B 
schedule of prices.  Vol. 4.  
However, Cache Box's "Implementation Options" pricing table also 
included a price for a "[DELETED]," and Cache Box's proposal stated 
that its proposed property management software ([DELETED]):

     operates in a [DELETED] environment.  [DELETED] provides the 
     capability to operate what is known as a "thin client."  Thin 
     clients are PCs or Network PCs which run a [DELETED] client 
     application to gain access to the Windows NT server.  The 
     hardware requirements for [DELETED] client PCs are considerably 
     less than that of traditional networked PCs.

Vol. 2, Tab 5, at 108.  Further, in the slide demonstration at the 
LTD, Cache Box described its "Proposed System Architecture" as based 
on a "[DELETED] architecture," which would permit use of the agency's 
existing Intel 486 and Pentium processor computers.  Likewise, in its 
subsequent response to the agency's clarification questions, Cache Box 
stated that:

     the system will be running [DELETED].  [DELETED] provides a fully 
     integrated client-server environment where the database engine 
     and [DELETED] applications run entirely on the server.  The 
     [DELETED] client runs a front end which provides connectivity to 
     the host server.

Cache Box letter of April 2, 1998, at 1.

The Air Force determined that Cache Box's proposal's references to 
[DELETED] indicated noncompliance with Windows compatibility 
requirements of the specifications.  This is because, as the Air Force 
reports and the record (including the information on [DELETED]'s web 
site) confirms, the commercially available [DELETED] software is based 
on Microsoft Windows NT version 3.5.1, and not version 4.0 or higher 
as specifically required.  Indeed, as acknowledged by the protester in 
its comments on the agency report, "everyone in the industry knew that 
[DELETED] was based on an earlier version of Windows NT, in this case 
NT 3.5.1.  This could not possibly work in new systems that were 
designed around Windows NT 4.0."  Comments of June 8, 1998, at 21.  In 
this regard, the record (including information from a representative 
of Cache Box's software supplier provided during a telephone 
conference conducted by our Office) shows that [DELETED] modifies an 
existing operating system, such as Windows NT, by 
overwriting/replacing operating system files.  As a result, 
updates/upgrades of the operating system become more difficult.  The 
agency found that this was inconsistent with the requirement that the 
software "function on . . . Microsoft NT Advanced Server release 4.0 
or higher."  Specification  para.  3.1.2.6.2 (emphasis added).

Cache Box maintains that the Air Force was "mistaken [in its] belief 
that Cache Box's system includes [DELETED], software that functions on 
Microsoft NT 3.5.1, but cannot function on Microsoft NT 4.0, as 
required in the solicitation."  Comments of July 14, 1998, at 4.  
According to the protester, at the time it submitted its proposal, 
Microsoft was in the process of incorporating [DELETED] technology 
into its NT 4.0 system, resulting in a product later named [DELETED], 
but which had not yet been named at the time of proposal submission.  
Thus, argues Cache Box, it could refer to its intended software only 
by reference to [DELETED], and its intention to offer compliant 
software that functions on NT 4.0 should have been clear from other 
references to NT 4.0 in its submissions to the agency--e.g., 
"[DELETED]" and "[DELETED]"--and its reference to a "[DELETED]."  
Cache Box letter of April 2, 1998, at 1; Vol. 2, Tab 5, at 10; 
"Property Management System, Ba-Table, Implementation Options," Vol. 
4.  

Cache Box's position is without merit.  The Air Force reports, and 
Cache Box has made no showing to the contrary, that at the time of the 
LTD on March 24, the only commercially available product known as 
[DELETED] was the [DELETED] product based on NT 3.5.1, that is, the 
product which both the agency and the protester agree is unacceptable.   
Further, we note that trade literature indicates that even before 
Cache Box submitted its proposal on February 20, and, indeed, by the 
end of 1997, Microsoft's new NT 4.0 product incorporating [DELETED] 
technology was known both by its code name of [DELETED], and also as 
[DELETED]; similarly the [DELETED] product that was to work with the 
new Microsoft NT 4.0-based product (as an add-on) was being referred 
to as [DELETED].  See, e.g., "[DELETED]," InfoWorld, [DELETED]; 
"[DELETED]," LAN Times, [DELETED]; "[DELETED]," PC Week, [DELETED]. 
Given this availability of specific terminology specifying compliant 
products, and absent some express indication in Cache Box's proposal 
that the [DELETED] references were intended to refer to a not-yet 
released compliant product, we think the agency reasonably could 
conclude that the [DELETED] references were referring to the currently 
available, noncompliant [DELETED] product or that, at best, the 
proposal was ambiguous on the point.  We conclude that the agency 
reasonably determined that the proposal did not establish compliance 
with the Windows compatibility requirement.[1]

REPORT REQUIREMENT

It is undisputed that Cache Box failed to demonstrate at the LTD 
compliance with the requirements that the corporate headquarters 
systems enable service headquarters to retrieve occupancy information 
and merge data into consolidated reports.  Specification  para.  6.1.3 
through 6.1.8.3.  Cache Box argues that it was not required to 
demonstrate this capability, citing specification paragraph 2.1.6, 
which provides that "[t]he Contractor shall meet with the Joint 
Service Contracting Officer Representatives . . . to design all the 
system screens and reports within forty-five (45) days after contract 
award."  According to the protester, it could not demonstrate 
compliance in this area because the agency had not yet provided 
details on the type of desired calculations and summarizations.  

This argument is without merit.  In its March 19 notice scheduling the 
LTD, the agency specifically cautioned Cache Box that "[y]ou will be 
expected to demonstrate the capabilities of your software to meet the 
requirements of the solicitation beginning at paragraph 2.1 of the 
Statement of Need and proceeding through paragraph 9.1.3."  This 
encompasses the paragraphs in question.  Cache Box therefore was on 
notice that it was expected to demonstrate compliance with the 
requirement.  While Cache Box and other offerors may not have been 
able to determine the report format desired by the agency, the agency 
reasonably could expect them to demonstrate the general capability to 
enable service headquarters to retrieve the occupancy information and 
merge it into reports.  The agency thus reasonably found Cache Box's 
proposal technically unacceptable in this regard.[2]

Given the totality of the deficiencies which the Air Force found in 
Cache Box's proposal, we find reasonable the agency's determination 
that the proposal would 
require major revision--"complete revision," Contracting Officer's 
Statement of Facts, May 27, 1998, at 18--in order to become acceptable 
and its consequent elimination of the proposal from the competitive 
range.[3]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Cache Box also disputes the agency's determination that it failed 
to demonstrate compliance with the Windows compatibility requirement 
at the LTD.  The record indicates that during the LTD, Cache Box 
presented slides and demonstrated capabilities of its proposed 
property management software ([DELETED]) for the assembled government 
evaluators using a personal computer running the Microsoft Windows 95 
operating system.  In addition to this formal presentation to the 
government evaluators, there were several computers set up at the 
other end of the demonstration room.  Cache Box asserts that these 
computers were linked in a network in which the server was running 
[DELETED].  Cache Box claims that unnamed government personnel sat 
down at these computers during the course of the day.  However, three 
government evaluators who were at the LTD and participated in the 
telephone conference conducted by our Office stated that they were 
unaware of what software was on these latter computers, and that they 
did not see any presentation by Cache Box using these computers.  We 
need not resolve this dispute since, irrespective of the software on 
these latter computers, Cache Box rendered its obligation to meet the 
requirement ambiguous by referring in its proposal--both before and 
after the LTD--to an unacceptable product ([DELETED]).  

2. In its comments filed on July 15, Cache Box for the first time 
argues that the agency improperly failed to conduct meaningful 
discussions with respect to perceived deficiencies in its proposal 
regarding the Windows compatibility and corporate headquarters systems 
requirements.  Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a protest based on 
other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation generally must be 
filed not later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or 
should have known, the basis for protest, whichever is earlier.  4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2) (1998).  Cache Box's protest in this regard, filed 
approximately 3 months after it learned of the specific bases for the 
exclusion of its proposal (in the agency's April 10 letter and again 
at the April 20 debriefing) does not meet this standard.   

3. Cache Box argues that the Air Force improperly based its 
competitive range determination on Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR)  sec.  15.306(c)(1), (2) (FAC 97-02), which provides for "a 
competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated 
proposals," unless the number is limited for purposes of efficiency.  
According to the protester, since the solicitation was issued prior to 
the October 10, 1997 effective date for this FAR provision, the prior 
version of the provision, at FAR  sec.  15.609(a) (June 1997), applied; 
that section provides for a competitive range of "all proposals that 
have a reasonable chance of being selected for award."  This argument 
is without merit; given the agency's reasonable determination that 
Cache Box's proposal did not meet several material RFP requirements, 
it did not have a reasonable chance for award and thus could be 
eliminated from the competitive range under either version of the 
regulation.