TITLE:  Datastream Systems, Inc., B-291653, January 24, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-291653
DATE:  January 24, 2003
**********************************************************************
Datastream Systems, Inc., B-291653, January 24, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Datastream Systems, Inc.
    
File:            B-291653
    
Date:              January 24, 2003
    
Thomas W. Epting, Esq., and Jack H. Tedards, Jr., Esq., Leatherwood Walker
Todd & Mann, for the protester.
Dorn C. McGrath, III, Esq., Scott Arnold, Esq., and Karen L. Tinsky, Esq.,
Greenberg Traurig, for MRO Software, Inc., an intervenor.
Lydia Kupersmith, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest that contracting agency improperly relaxed solicitation's
technical requirement that a computerized maintenance management system be
web-based by accepting for award a system that requires the use of a
software *plug-in* program (which was not included in the awardee's
proposal) in order to be fully web-based is denied where the protester has
not established competitive prejudice as a result of the waiver.
DECISION
    
Datastream Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to MRO Software,
Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. WPI-20021, issued by the
General Services Administration (GSA) to procure a computerized
maintenance management system (CMMS) to manage buildings in the
Washington, D.C. area.  Datastream argues that MRO's proposal failed to
meet the solicitation's technical requirements, and that GSA relaxed those
requirements solely for MRO.
    
We deny the protest.
    
GSA's National Capital Region (NCR) issued this solicitation on July 23,
2002 to procure, on a pilot basis, a CMMS to manage its more than 680
buildings in the Washington, D.C. area.  The NCR's government-owned and
-managed assets--fewer than 200 of these buildings--are the primary target
for an enterprise CMMS for the region.[1]  The agency anticipates that
such a system will help it manage its building assets in a consistent and
effective manner.  RFQ Statement of Work (SOW) at 3.
    
The RFQ advised vendors that GSA was primarily concerned with fulfilling
its needs for customer service calls or work orders, preventive
maintenance, inspections of work performed and of cleaning contractors,
and minor repair tracking.  Id. at 2.  The system was required to be a
mature product that would let GSA accomplish these tasks while providing
any supporting capability needed to support these functions, such as
inventory management, systems administration, and warranty tracking.  Id. 
The system was also required to be *tailorable* to end-users, such as
customers, show managers and technicians, call center personnel, managers
of multiple buildings, service center managers, and headquarters program
managers and upper management.  In addition, an administrative function
was to be handled by a program or functional lead and by information
technology support personnel.  Id.  NCR envisioned rolling the product out
to a subset of its buildings--a pilot population--in order to test its
full capability and to receive an assessment of the project.  If, after
the pilot phase, GSA decided to proceed to the second phase of the
project, it planned to negotiate a contract modification with the
contractor.  Id. at 3.
    
The selected product was to meet various environmental requirements listed
in the solicitation.  Among other things, the product should be
*web-architected*; the application had to be *compatible with all current
GSA standard systems software*; and the product had to use an *Oracle
back-end database (GSA Standard).*  Id. at 1.  Vendors were required to
submit technical proposals addressing how they could meet the project's
objectives; to demonstrate satisfactory performance of their
web-architected products through multiple installations within the public
and private sector; and to submit at least five references.  Id. at 3. 
Once GSA established that a vendor's proposal complied with the SOW's
criteria, each proposal was to be evaluated based on the following
criteria, *with the first being more important than the next*:  technical
merit of the product, technical merit of the proposal, cost, and time to
implement.  July 29, 2002 RFQ Questions and Answers (Q&A) No. 10.  Award
was to be made on a *best value* basis.  July 31, 2002 Q&A at 1.
    
The July 29 Q&A included the following exchange:
    
Q:  Please confirm that the term *web-architected* is to be interpreted as
the ability for a user to access the CMMS system from a web browser such
as Internet Explorer V5.5 or above.  If so, this definition is commonly
referred to as *web-enabled* rather [than] *web-architected.*  The term
*web-architected* is generally defined as an application that requires
zero footprint on the [user's] desktop computer and requires no middleware
such as PL/SQL or similar plug-ins on the client.
    
A:  GSA defines web-architected to allow the download of a plug-in and
[require] an Internet Explorer browser front-end.
              
July 29, 2002 Q&A No. 7.
    
A *plug-in* is an auxiliary software program that works with a major
software package to enhance its capability.  TechEncyclopedia,
.  The agency
explains that the term is typically used when a component of software is
downloaded, or otherwise required, to make a connection between a user's
desktop computer and the server hosting the application's website. 
Initial Agency
Report at 4.  Based upon the above exchange defining the RFQ's requirement
that the product be *web-architected,* a product that required the use of
a software program to access an application would be an acceptable
solution.  In response to a vendor's question whether GSA intended to
purchase software for this project, the contracting officer replied,
*Software part of technical proposal.*  July 31, 2002
Q&A at 1.
    
MRO and Datastream submitted quotations in response to the solicitation,
and GSA evaluated both as meeting all critical go/no go factors. 
Datastream's quotation, which offered a product called *Datastream 7i* at
a price of $406,981, was assigned a point score of 82 and evaluated as
satisfactory under all criteria.  GSA noted concerns in two areas where
there appeared to be a conflict with the SOW.  MRO's quotation, which
offered a product called *Maximo 5* at a price of $257,595, was assigned a
point score of 84 and evaluated as satisfactory under all criteria.  GSA
noted one area that might be a problem with further implementation of the
product.  Based upon the point scores, the references contacted by the
agency, and the vendors' relative prices, GSA determined that MRO's
proposal represented the best value to the government. 
    
Award was made to MRO on September 16.  Datastream subsequently filed a
post-debriefing agency-level protest in which it alleged that MRO's
proposal failed to meet the RFQ's technical requirements.  Referencing the
RFQ's requirement that the solution be *web-architected,* or *web-based,*
and citing language from the
Maximo 5 system administrator's guide, Datastream argued that MRO's
proposal offered a system whose systems administration applications were
not web-based but, instead, were client/server-based.  Agency-Level
Protest at 7.  Datastream stated that if it had been allowed to propose a
solution that was not web-based, its costs would likely have been less
than half the price of the web-based solution it proposed. 
    
The contracting officer denied Datastream's protest on October 25.  Her
rejection of Datastream's argument that MRO's proposed system was not
fully web-based was supported, in part, by language from MRO's proposal
indicating that its product was web-based.  For example, in addition to
stating that its product offered *a 100% web-native solution that requires
no software (plug-in, PL/SQL, etc.) on the [user's] desktop computer,* MRO
Proposal at 4, MRO's system requirements listed a web browser as the only
client workstation software requirement.  Id. at 18.  The contracting
officer stated that the systems administration applications could be
accessed by two methods:  either from a desktop using a Windows interface
(which would be a client/server-based method) or from a web-browser
through the use of a plug-in enabler, *ICA Client* (which would be a
web-based method).  The contracting officer stated that the systems
administration applications requiring the plug-in were ancillary to the
product's core user functions that were the subject of the procurement,
and that those core user functions did not require the use of
plug-ins.
    
On November 4, Datastream filed the instant protest in this Office,
arguing that MRO's proposal failed to meet the RFQ's requirement to be
web-architected.  Citing the contracting officer's statement that the MRO
product's systems administration applications can be accessed using either
a client/server-based method or a web browser through the use of a plug-in
enabler such as ICA Client (the web-based method), Datastream argues that
MRO's proposal did not include the plug-in software GSA would need to
access its systems administration applications using the web-based
method.[2]  Datastream argued that, instead, MRO's proposal required GSA
to provide the software plug-in at government expense.  Datastream
asserted that, since vendors were not made aware of GSA's willingness to
use software plug-ins at the government's expense, vendors whose
quotations included such costs were not competing on an equal basis with
MRO, and GSA improperly failed to consider the costs the government would
incur to provide the plug-in in evaluating MRO's proposal.  Datastream
states that ICA client is not a free download, but a software product that
requires GSA to have a Citrix server and appropriate licenses for use of
the Citrix product, which involves significant costs.
    
In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation of vendor submissions under
an RFQ, we will not reevaluate the quotations; we will only consider
whether the agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accord with the
evaluation criteria listed in the
    
solicitation and all applicable procurement statutes and regulations. 
Applied Mgmt. Solutions, Inc., B-291191, Nov. 15, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 202 at
2; Envirodyne Sys. Inc.,
B-279551, B-279551.2, June 29, 1998, 98-1 CPD P: 174 at 4.  Our review of
the record here shows that GSA did relax the solicitation's requirements
for MRO but that Datastream was not prejudiced by the agency's actions. 
    
It is undisputed that the RFQ required vendors to propose a solution that
was web-based, and that this requirement could be met if the solution
relied upon software plug-ins.  It is also undisputed that MRO's proposal
stated that its product offered *a 100% web-native solution that requires
no software (plug-in, PL/SQL, etc.) on the [user's] desktop computer,* MRO
Proposal at 4, and listed a web browser as the only client workstation
software requirement.  Id. at 18.  GSA concedes, however, that Maximo 5's
systems administration applications do require a plug-in, ICA Client. 
Initial Agency Report at 9; GSA Response to Questions at 1.  MRO's
proposal does not include the provision of this software plug-in or its
associated costs. 
    
The RFQ, as amended by a Q&A, put vendors on notice that software was to
be *part of [the] technical proposal.*  July 31 Q&A, supra.  While GSA
argues that this instruction was *intended to address the software
associated with the database
end-user,* GSA Response to GAO Questions at 2, there is no such limitation
set forth in the RFQ.[3]  As a result, we read the RFQ's requirement that
software was to be *part of the technical proposal* to extend to software
plug-ins required to make an offered product a web-based solution.
    
GSA argues that it did not think it necessary to address plug-in software
since it already has such software, including ICA Client, as part of its
standard systems infrastructure.  GSA and the intervenor point to the
RFQ's requirement that the system be *compatible with all current GSA
standard systems software* as somehow putting vendors on notice that the
agency already possessed software plug-ins, including ICA Client, that
need not be provided as part of a vendor's quotation.  We do not find this
argument persuasive.  The cited requirement is clearly designed to prevent
vendors from proposing solutions that would not work with GSA's existing
systems, and in no way puts vendors on notice of any software plug-ins GSA
might possess that they might use in crafting their quotations.  Contrary
to the apparent view of the intervenor, a vendor is not required to search
through GSA's Internet site in an effort to determine which software
programs are currently part of the agency's standard systems.
    
The record shows that GSA, in fact, evaluated the quotations of both
Datastream and MRO as relying on plug-in software that was available as
part of GSA's standard information technology infrastructure, and did not
consider either firm's failure to explicitly include plug-in software as
part of their proposals to be deficiencies.  There is, however, a
distinction between the two quotations and their use of plug-ins.  The RFQ
required the offered system to use an *Oracle back-end database.*  SOW
at 1.  On notice that GSA currently used Oracle as part of its standard
systems infrastructure, Datastream proposed the use of a free and
automatic plug-in provided by Oracle for use with its product.  See
Datastream Proposal at 6, 31; Protester's Supplemental Comments at 2-3. 
In contrast, MRO's product requires a plug-in whose current use by GSA is
not apparent from the solicitation, was not part of MRO's proposal, and
which is not a free download.  As a result, strictly speaking, GSA relaxed
the requirement to propose a web-based solution for MRO.   
    
However, our Office will sustain a protest that an agency improperly
relaxed its requirements for the awardee only where the protester
establishes a reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the
agency's actions; that is, had it known of the changed or relaxed
requirements, it would have altered its proposal to its competitive
advantage.  HHI Corp., B-266041, B-266041.2, Jan. 25, 1996, 96-1 CPD
P: 21 at 3.  Here, there is no evidence in the record that Datastream
would have altered its proposal to its competitive advantage even if GSA
had clearly advised vendors that they could use plug-ins that were part of
the agency's standard system in order to offer a web-based solution.[4] 
To the extent that Datastream even argues that it could have submitted a
less costly solution had it been permitted to offer a product that used
government-provided software plug-ins, it has failed to identify what such
an alternate and less costly solution would have been that could have
overcome the 58 percent price differential here.  Establishing prejudice
generally requires more than a mere statement by the protester that it
could have lowered its price had it known of the relaxed requirements,
particularly where, as here, the protester presumably has access to more
specific information bearing on the issue of prejudice.  Id. at 4;
Computer Prods., Inc., B-271920, Aug. 9, 1996, 97-1 CPD P: 97 at 6.
    
Datastream argues that GSA should have considered the cost to the
government of providing the ICA Client plug-in in order to make a
meaningful comparison between the quotations.  The protester asserts that
the use of GSA resources by MRO's system depletes the server capacity,
uses up available licenses, and requires GSA to maintain the availability
of ICA Client to serve MRO's system even if it otherwise might discontinue
its use. 
    
In response, GSA explains that the plug-in software programs required by
both vendors' products are part of the agency's standard systems
infrastructure and generally available for use in connection with all
agency information technology applications.  As a result, GSA states, any
costs related to their purchase and installation have been absorbed as
part of the agency's overall costs for operating and maintaining its
information technology systems.  The agency explains that the cost
associated with the ICA Client or any similar plug-in is either
nonexistent or minimal to the point that it would be difficult, or
impossible, to assign a cost.  GSA's standard system software provides for
concurrent usage of ICA Client software so that GSA does not have to
obtain a dedicated license each time it uses the ICA plug-in, and GSA
states that it has never approached a limit on its capacity in this
regard.  Moreover, GSA notes, the use of a plug-in when operating Maximo 5
would arise only in rare circumstances, since it is only required in
connection with use of the ancillary system administrative functions that
are not used by the end-users but, instead, by network administrators. 
GSA Response to GAO Questions at 5-6.  The agency states that Datastream's
proposal was approximately $150,000 more than MRO's proposal, far above
any differential that could be attributable to plug-in software.  As a
result, even if it had considered the minimal costs of MRO's plug-in in
evaluating quotations, MRO would have retained its significant competitive
advantage.  
    
Datastream's assertion that GSA is *missing the point* in arguing that the
costs associated with the ICA Client plug-in is minimal itself misses the
point.  Competitive prejudice is a prerequisite to sustaining a protest. 
Where the record does not demonstrate that, but for the agency's actions,
the protester would have had a reasonable chance of receiving the award,
our Office will not sustain a protest, even if a deficiency in the
procurement is found.  McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD
P: 54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed.
Cir. 1996).  Here, the agency's explanation that the results of the
competition would have been the same even if it had considered the costs
of providing the plug-in associated with MRO's product is not
substantively challenged by the protester, and we have no basis to
question its validity.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

   ------------------------

   [1] The remaining inventory includes government-owned but tenant-managed
buildings and leased buildings that may or may not be managed by GSA.  GSA
envisions basic tracking within the whole inventory of buildings, but
active engagement in at least the GSA-owned and -operated buildings. 
[2] Datastream was first put on notice of GSA's view that the systems
administration applications could be accessed using a web-based method,
with a plug-in, when it received the contracting officer's October 25
denial of its agency-level protest.  As a result, its November 4 protest
to this Office raising the issues associated with the plug-in was timely
filed.  4 C.F.R. S: 21.2(a)(2) (2002) (protests other than those based
upon alleged solicitation improprieties must be filed within 10 days after
the basis of the protest is known or should have been known).
[3] GSA states that these systems administration applications are separate
and apart from the CMMS system which was the primary subject of the
procurement, and which does not require the use of plug-ins.  The GSA
argues that these applications are not for the regular end-users, and that
only a GSA network administrator might elect to use them.  Initial Agency
Report at 9.  Ancillary though the systems administration applications
might be, the RFQ specifically required the system to be a mature product
that would let GSA accomplish its primary tasks while providing any
supporting capability, including *systems administration.*  SOW at 2. 
    
[4] While Datastream argues that it could have submitted a proposal that
was not web-based for a price less than the web-based price, the agency
was clearly seeking a web-based solution.