TITLE:  Computer Associates International, Inc., B-292077.3, B-292077.4, B-292077.5, January 22, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-292077.3, B-292077.4, B-292077.5
DATE:  January 22, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Computer Associates International, Inc.

   File:            B-292077.3, B-292077.4, B-292077.5

   Date:              January 22, 2004

   Claude P. Goddard, Jr., Esq., J. Michael Littlejohn, Esq., J. William
Eshelman, Esq., and Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq., Wickwire Gavin, and James M.
Black, Esq., Computer Associates International, Inc., for the protester.

   Marion T. Cordova, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.

   Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1.  Under a request for quotations issued in a competitive procurement
under the Federal Supply Schedule, protest that the agency improperly made
award based on a price discount that had expired by the terms of the
vendor's quotation is denied as the vendor's submission was not an offer
to which the standard for expired bids generally applies.

   2.  Protest that the evaluation method used by the agency for the
evaluation of vendors' quotations was arbitrary is denied where the
evaluation method used was reasonable.

   3.  Protest that the agency failed to evaluate vendors' quotations
consistent with the stated evaluation criteria is denied where the record
fails to show that the protester was competitively prejudiced by any such
inconsistency.

   4.  Protest that the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations and
selection decision were based upon the application of an unstated minimum
requirement is denied where the record does not support protester's
assertion. 

   DECISION

   Computer Associates International, Inc. (CA) protests the issuance of a
purchase order to Serena Software, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ)
No. RFQ-OPPM-3-1007VT, issued by the Office of Procurement and Property
Management, Department of Agriculture (USDA), for quotations from Federal
Supply Schedule (FSS) vendors for *change management' software.  CA argues
that the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations and the resulting
award decision were improper.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFQ, initially issued on December 13, 2002, requested quotations from
three FSS vendors, including Serena and CA, for a change management
software product, to include installation, configuration, training, and
maintenance, for use at the USDA National Finance Center, New Orleans,
Louisiana, and the National Information Technology Center, Kansas City,
Missouri.  The solicitation informed vendors of the various computer
platforms and operating systems upon which the change management software
would be installed, and advised that *[i]t is only essential that the
functional requirements [of the proposed software] be satisfied in the
same manner for each participating platform.'  RFQ at 5.

   The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price purchase order for a
3-year period of performance.  The solicitation also set out three
evaluation factors in descending order of importance--price, technical,
and corporate experience and past performance--and stated that technical
merit and corporate experience when combined were more important than
price.  Award was to be made to the responsible vendor whose quotation
conformed to the solicitation and provided the overall *best value' to the
government, based on consideration of all factors.

   The agency received quotations from the three vendors it solicited by the
January 6, 2003, closing date.  A technical evaluation team (TET)
evaluated vendors' technical quotations as to the functional requirements
set forth in the solicitation's statement of work (SOW) using a numeric
rating system.  Agency Report (AR), Tab N, TET Evaluation Report, Jan. 23,
2003.  Following both the technical and price evaluation of quotations,
the USDA determined that the quotation of the third vendor, Merant/
Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc., represented the best overall
value.

   On March 13, following a debriefing by the agency, CA filed a protest with
our Office, arguing that the USDA had improperly evaluated CA's technical
and price quotations and that the agency had failed to follow the
solicitation's stated source selection criteria in making its best-value
determination.  On April 8, the agency notified our Office of its intent
to take corrective action in response to CA's protest.  Specifically, the
USDA stated that its source selection decision had not been documented
adequately, and that the contracting officer should have sought
clarification of certain aspects of CA's price quotation.[1]  Accordingly,
the agency stated its intent to seek clarification from CA regarding its
price quotation, and once this clarification was received, to perform a
new price/technical tradeoff and arrive at a new source selection
decision.  Letter from USDA to GAO, Apr. 8, 2003.  CA then withdrew its
protest in light of the agency's proposed corrective action.

   On May 16, the agency issued amendment No. 1 to the RFQ seeking price
clarifications from all three vendors.  The amended solicitation required
vendors to submit detailed, standardized price templates indicating the
software, maintenance, training, and consulting prices being proposed.[2] 
When CA asked the contracting officer whether vendors could also submit
revised technical quotations, the agency informed vendors that no new
technical quotations would be accepted or evaluated, as the purpose of the
amended solicitation was to clarify and standardize vendors' price
submissions.

   CA then filed a second protest with our Office, challenging the propriety
of the agency's decision not to allow vendors to submit revised technical
quotations as well as revised price quotations.  We determined that the
USDA's corrective action was unobjectionable because the agency had a
reasonable basis for restricting the scope of revisions that vendors could
make to their quotations, and the agency's corrective action resolved the
suspected impropriety.[3]  Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., B-292077.2, Sept.
4, 2003, 2003 CPD P 157.  The USDA completed its reevaluation of vendors'
quotations, and determined that Serena's quotation was both higher
technically rated and lower-priced than those of the other vendors, and
represented the overall best value to the government.  AR, Tab V, Source
Selection Decision, TabA W, TET Award Recommendation, June 6, 2003.  These
protests followed.

   CA's protests here raise several issues regarding the USDA's evaluation of
vendors' quotations.  The protester first argues that the agency
improperly made award to Serena based on an expired quotation.  CA also
alleges that in several different ways the USDA conducted an unreasonable
and arbitrary evaluation of its quotation *against a fluid baseline of
requirements and evaluation factor weightings.'[4]  CA's Protest, Nov. 17,
2003, at 2.  Although we do not here specifically address all of CA's
complaints about the USDA's evaluation of vendors' quotations, we have
fully considered all of them and find that they afford no basis to
question the agency's selection decision.

   ANALYSIS

   CA first protests that the USDA acted unreasonably by making award to
Serena based on a price discount that had expired by the terms of Serena's
quotation.  CA further argues that since Serena's discounted price had
expired, the agency could only evaluate Serena's price based on the
vendor's regular, undiscounted GSA FSS rates, which would have increased
Serena's evaluated price here by some $6 million.  Under these
circumstances, CA contends, the USDA could not reasonably have determined
that Serena offered a lower price than that offered by CA, or that
Serena's quotation was the overall best value here.[5]

   The solicitation here requested the submission of quotations from vendors
holding GSA FSS contracts, and established that *[t]his is a request for
information, and quotations furnished are not offers.'  RFQ at 1.  As part
of its revised price quotation, Serena stated as follows:

   Serena has taken this opportunity to not only provide price clarification
but to also revise down our pricing to the Government. . . .  Serena
Software, Inc. is offering to USDA an Enterprise offer that represents an
80% discount of our published GSA pricing and a 40% discount off Serena's
initial offer.  In addition, Serena has significantly discounted services
below GSA.  Enclosed please find our best and final pricing represented in
Tables A, B and C.  This offer is valid through June 31 [sic], 2003. 

   AR, Tab Z, Serena's Revised Price Quotation, at 1.

   The USDA found that Serena's evaluated price totaled $1,525,780.[6] 
Following its determination that Serena's quotation represented the
overall best value to the government, on September 5 the agency issued a
purchase order to Serena under the vendor's GSA FSS contract for the first
year's performance (i.e., configuration management software, consulting
and training services) at the unit prices set forth in Serena's revised
price quotation.  AR, Tab V, Purchase Order, at 1-2.  Serena subsequently
accepted and performed the purchase order issued by the USDA at the quoted
prices.  Agency Report, Dec. 9, 2003, at 2-3.

   Quotations in response to an RFQ are not offers that can be accepted by
the government to form a contract.  FAR S 13.004; KPMG Consulting LLP,
B-290716,
B-290716.2, Sept. 23, 2002, 2002 CPD P 196 at 11, Intelligent Decisions,
Inc., B-274626, B-274626.2, Dec. 23, 1996, 97-1 CPD P 19 at 7; Eastman
Kodak Co., B-271009, May 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD P 215 at 2 n.2.  Rather, they
are informational responses that indicate the products that vendors would
propose to meet the agency's requirements and the prices of those products
and related services that the government may use as the basis for issuing
a purchase order.  Intelligent Decisions, Inc., supra; Crown Furniture
Mfg. Inc., B-225575, May 1, 1987, 87-1 CPD PA 456 at 2, and it is the
government's purchase order which represents the offer that the vendor may
accept through performance or by a formal acceptance document.  KPMG
Consulting LLP, supra.

   We find that the agency's issuance of a purchase order to Serena here was
not improper, notwithstanding that Serena's quoted price discount had
expired, because the vendor's submission was not an offer to which the
standard for expired bids generally applies.  As set forth above, the USDA
evaluated Serena's prices based on the discounts within the vendor's
revised price quotation.  Following its evaluation and source selection
decision, the agency issued a purchase order to Serena at the discount
prices contained in Serena's quotation, an offer that Serena accepted.[7] 
Serena was under no duty to accept the USDA's offer here, irrespective of
any expiration date in the vendor's quotation, because it did not
constitute an offer.  Quite simply, the agency's decision to offer a
purchase order to Serena here was not improper, because it did not violate
a procurement statute or regulation, nor was it unreasonable.

   CA also protests that the agency's evaluation of quotations was in various
ways improper.  Specifically, the protester contends that the USDA
utilized a point scoring system in its evaluation of vendors' quotations
that was both arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the terms of the
solicitation; improperly penalized CA for not offering *Workbench,'
another of its change management software products; improperly imposed an
unstated minimum requirement for an integrated
multiple-platform solution in the evaluation of vendors' quotations;
improperly considered and evaluated vendors as to financial viability; and
unreasonably evaluated vendors' prices.

   In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals (or, as
here, quotations), our Office will not reevaluate the vendors'
submissions, but instead will examine the record to determine whether the
agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation
criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.  See
Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, Sept.A 25,
2002, 2002 CPD P 169 at 3; Hydraulics Int'l, Inc., B-284684, B-284684.2,
MayA 24, 2000, 2000 CPD P 149 at 14.  A protester's mere disagreement with
the agency's judgment does not establish that the evaluation was
unreasonable. 
C. Lawrence Constr. Co., Inc., B-287066, Mar. 30, 2001, 2001 CPD P 70 at
4.  Our review of the record, including the agency's reports, vendors'
quotations, and the pleadings, provides us no basis to find the agency's
evaluation here unreasonable or otherwise objectionable.

   As noted above, the RFQ set forth three evaluation factors in descending
order of importance:  price, technical, and corporate experience and past
performance.  Each factor contained multiple subfactors without specifying
their relative importance.  The solicitation also established that, while
price would be considered the highest value factor once the baseline
software product functionality had been confirmed, technical merit and
corporate experience when combined were more important than price.  The
agency also informed vendors that, as to the evaluation of price, *total
dollar value will become the sole [price] evaluation factor,' and *[price]
will not be 'scored.'  The total [price] will be weighed against the other
two evaluation factors.'  AR, Tab H, CA's Questions to RFQ amend. 1, at 2.

   In its initial evaluation, the TET rated vendors' technical quotations
against the functional specifications set forth in the SOW using a numeric
rating system.  Out of a possible 256 points, the baseline technical merit
ratings assigned to the vendors' quotations were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Vendor                       |Technical Merit Score                     |
|-----------------------------+------------------------------------------|
|           Merant            |                   230                    |
|-----------------------------+------------------------------------------|
|           Serena            |                   226                    |
|-----------------------------+------------------------------------------|
|             CA              |                  216[8]                  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report (AR), Tab N, TET Evaluation Report, Jan. 23, 2003, at 8.

   The technical merit scores became an essential aspect of the TET's
subsequent determination that the vendors' rankings under the technical
evaluation factor were Merant, Serena, and CA, in that order.  AR, Tab M,
Price and Technical Team Report, Feb. 5, 2003, at 5-7.  The agency then
determined, based on consideration of all factors, that Merant's quotation
represented the overall best value to the government.

   As explained above, in response to CA's initial protest challenging the
USDA's original source selection decision, the agency took corrective
action, including receipt of vendors' revised price submissions and a new
evaluation of quotations both as to price and technical factors and
subfactors using a percentage/point rating system.[9]  The TET's revised
ratings for the vendors' revised quotations were as follows (with
available points for each criterion in parentheses): 

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                Factor                 |    CA    |  Serena  |  Merant  |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|1.  Price                              |A         |A         |A         |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |Amount                             |$1,586,629|$1,525,780|$3,536,693|
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |1.1, Price (15)                    |    14    |    15    |    6     |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |1.4, Volume Discounts (4)          |    0     |    2     |    2     |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |1.5, Training (4)                  |    3     |    4     |    2     |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |1.5, Implementation Support (4)    |    4     |    4     |    2     |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |1.6, Expansion (5)                 |    5     |    5     |    0     |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |1.7, Upgrades (5)                  |    0     |    5     |    5     |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |Total (37)                         |    26    |    35    |    17    |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|2.  Technical                          |A         |A         |A         |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |2.1, Functionality                 |A         |A         |A         |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |           Raw score (256)         |   228    |   226    |   230    |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |           Points (20)             |    20    |    20    |    20    |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |2.2, Documentation (4)             |    2     |    2     |    4     |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |2.3, Innovation (10)               |    0     |    10    |    5     |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |Total (34)                         |    22    |    32    |    29    |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|3.  Corporate Experience               |A         |A         |A         |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |3.1, Experience (12)               |    12    |    12    |    12    |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |3.2, Usage Breadth (5)             |    3     |    5     |    0     |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |3.3A, Product Maturity (6)         |    3     |    0     |    6     |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |3.3B, Commitment (6)               |    0     |    6     |    3     |
|---+-----------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|A  |Total (29)[10]                     |    18    |    23    |    21    |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|Total                                  |    66    |    90    |    67    |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab W, TET Award Recommendation.  The agency then determined, based on
consideration of all factors, that Serena's quotation represented the
overall best value to the government. 

   CA first argues that the USDA's use of a point scoring system for the
evaluation of vendors' quotations was arbitrary and capricious.  The
protester points to the fact that under the USDA's original evaluation
rating system, vendors' technical quotations were only scored against the
SOW's functional specifications, and that CA scored higher than Serena
(228 points to 226 points).  CA also contends that in its initial
evaluation the TET found no discriminators between the quotations of
Serena and CA as to the technical innovation subfactor.  CA alleges that,
by contrast, the USDA developed post hoc an arbitrary point rating system
with random subfactor weightings and an inconsistent scoring methodology
in an effort to explain away CA's technical superiority over Serena.

   Agencies have considerable discretion in determining the particular method
used in evaluating vendors' quotations, see Preferred Sys. Solutions,
Inc.,A B-292322 et al.,
Aug. 25, 2003, 2003 CPD P 166 at 9, and we will not question an agency's
choice of evaluation methods unless it is unreasonable or inconsistent
with the solicitation.  Federal Computer Int'l Corp., B-276885, July 29,
1997, 97-2 CPD P 35 at 3.

   We find that the revised point rating system applied by the USDA here was
reasonable.  Unlike the USDA's initial evaluation system that scored
vendors' quotations under only one technical subfactor, and employed a
narrative description for the evaluation of the remaining non-price
factors and subfactors, the agency's revised rating system utilized a
common evaluation methodology for each of the factors and subfactors set
forth in the RFQ.  Additionally, the relative point weightings assigned by
the agency to each evaluation factor were consistent with the
solicitation.  The agency then applied the point scoring rating system to
its evaluation of vendors' quotations in a consistent manner.  To the
extent that CA argues that the USDA's point scoring evaluation system is
unreasonable merely because it yielded ratings different from the agency's
initial ratings of vendors' quotations, where CA scored higher than Serena
as to technical merit, the fact that the USDA's revised evaluation scoring
system did not result in the same ratings or rankings as those initially
achieved does not make the agency's revised rating system unreasonable.

   We note, however, as does the protester, that the USDA developed its point
scoring system after it already possessed the technical quotations of the
vendors, which it had precluded vendors from revising.  While the
protester does not allege bad faith--only the post hoc development of the
agency's evaluation methodology---and the record does not reveal any
violation of law or regulation by the agency, in our view the integrity of
the public procurement process is not enhanced here by the USDA's actions
of obtaining and reviewing vendors' technical submissions first and
developing an evaluation methodology second.[11]  See Finlen Complex,
Inc., B-288280, Oct. 10, 2001, 2001 CPD P 167 at 9.

   CA also argues that the point rating system applied by the USDA to the
evaluation of vendors' quotations was contrary to the terms of the
solicitation.  The protester points out that the RFQ established that the
evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance, and
asserts that this implies that the same must be true for evaluation
subfactors as well.  CA contends, for example, that the agency's decision
to assign more than twice as many points to the technical innovation
subfactor (10 points) as to the technical documentation subfactor (4
points) was arbitrary and inconsistent with the solicitation.[12]  Having
already determined that the USDA's overall evaluation rating system was
not arbitrary or unreasonable, we need not resolve whether the agency's
evaluation of vendors' quotations improperly weighted various subfactors
contrary to the terms of the solicitation, because the record demonstrates
that the protester could not have been prejudiced as a result of any
alleged error in this regard.

   Our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a
reasonable possibility of prejudice, that is, unless the protester
demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a
substantial chance of receiving the award. Parmatic Filter Corp.,
B-285288.3, B-285288.4, Mar. 30, 2001, 2001 CPD P 71 at 11; see
McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD P 54 at 3 (prejudice is
an essential element of every viable protest); see also Statistica, Inc.
v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  Here, Serena's and
CA's quotations received equal points for two of the three technical
subfactors (functionality and documentation), and Serena's received more
points for the third technical subfactor (innovation).  Accordingly,
regardless of the relative weight assigned to documentation and
innovation, Serena's quotation would have been higher rated technically
than that of CA.[13]  Under these circumstances, we conclude that CA could
not have been prejudiced, even assuming, arguendo, that the agency's
evaluation of vendors' quotations was inconsistent with the solicitation,
as asserted by the protester.

   CA also protests that the USDA improperly penalized the protester for not
offering its Workbench configuration management product.  Specifically, CA
contends that the agency precluded it from revising its technical
quotation in response to amendment No. 1, but then downgraded the
evaluation of CA's quotation under both the technical innovation and
corporate experience/commitment subfactors for not offering its Workbench
product.  CA argues that, in doing so, the agency's acted unreasonably. 
We disagree.

   Under the technical innovation subfactor, the agency evaluated a vendor's
innovations in software product design yielding up advantages to the
government.  RFQ at 17.  As part of its evaluation of CA's quotation under
the technical innovation subfactor the TET stated:

   CA's two product[] solution has inherent administrative and support
disadvantages since the products do not look and function in similar
manners.  CA's two-product design could become obsolete resulting in a
significant re-investment. . . .  In addition, CA has a product
'Workbench' that may enhance the 2-product design.  Workbench is shown on
the CA web site at release 1.1 and beta users are requested (beta users
are the first users of a software product).  When clicking on beta user
request, the next display is page not found (this is unusual).  It is not
clear whether 'Workbench' is a viable product.  CA did not offer
'Workbench' as a solution for the USDA.

   AR, Tab W, TET Award Recommendation, at 2.

   Under the corporate experience/commitment subfactor, the agency evaluated
a vendor's long-term commitment to product support based on the vendor's
product focus and overall condition of the company.  RFQ at 17; AR, Tab W,
TET Award Recommendation, at 9.  As part of its evaluation of CA's
quotation under the corporate experience commitment subfactor, the TET
stated:

   CA develops, acquires and integrates a number of products across many
areas.  The level of commitment to [change management] does not appear as
strong as Serena or Merant.  One product CA discussed was Workbench; it
had been developed but at the time had no initial users.  This product was
not offered to USDA, and we can assume there could be problems or that the
product may not be viable.

   AR, Tab W, TET Award Recommendation, at 9.

   An agency is not required to confine its evaluation to the *four corners'
of a vendor's quotation, and it may properly consider other information
known or available to it.  See Forest Regeneration Servs. LLC, B-290998,
Oct. 30, 2002, 2002 CPD P 187 at 6.  Here, as part of its evaluation of
CA's quotation under the technical innovation and corporate
experience/commitment subfactors, the USDA properly looked at whether CA
was developing another configuration management product, and what impact
that would have on the products offered here.  We find that the agency did
not penalize CA for not offering its Workbench product, and the decision
to look at CA's product line as part of its evaluation of CA's quotation
was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.

   CA also asserts that the USDA improperly downgraded CA's quotation based
on an unstated minimum requirement for an integrated multiple platform
solution.  CA contends that while the RFQ had no requirement that vendors
offer a single integrated change management solution, and permitted
vendors to offer multiple products so long as the products offered
functioned in a common way, the USDA's evaluation clearly demonstrates
that the USDA improperly downgraded CA based on an unstated requirement
for an integrated multiple platform solution.  We disagree.

   In the context of an RFQ where the agency requests that vendors prepare
non-price submissions for evaluation, it is fundamental that vendors must
be treated fairly, Garner Multimedia, Inc., B-291651, Feb. 11, 2003, 2003
CPD P 35 at 3; Draeger Safety, Inc., B-285366, B-285366.2, Aug. 23, 2000,
2000 CPD PA 139 at 4, and advised of the bases upon which their
submissions will be evaluated.  See Omniplex World Servs. Corp.,
B-290996.2, Jan. 27, 2003, 2003 CPD PA 7 at 5; H.J. Group Ventures, Inc.,
B-246139, Feb. 19, 1992, 92-1 CPD P 203 at 4.  Therefore, an evaluation
based on unstated minimum requirements is improper.  Omniplex World Servs.
Corp., supra; RJO Enters., Inc., B-260126.2, July 20, 1995, 95-2 CPD P 93
at 11.

   As set forth above, the solicitation informed vendors that *[i]t is only
essential that the functional requirements [of the proposed software] be
satisfied in the same manner for each participating platform.'  RFQ at 5. 
In its evaluation of CA's quotation, the TET rated it as essentially equal
overall to those of the other vendors under the technical functionality
subfactor (20 each points for CA, Serena, and Merant) notwithstanding that
CA's two-product solution was downgraded under certain functional
criterion.  Under the technical innovation subfactor, which evaluated
innovations in software product design yielding advantages to the
government, the TET stated:

   The government indicated in [SOW] paragraph 3.0 that it was essential that
the functional requirements be satisfied in the same manner for each
participating platform.  While not requiring an 'integrated solution,' the
government desires the solution to look and feel the same over the various
platforms. . . .  A solution that looked the same yet requires multiple
products would involve additional support costs such as systems
programmers for the government.  A vendor with multiple products that have
a different look and feel would require additional software support,
additional end user training support and additional administration
support.

   AR, Tab W, TET Award Recommendation, at 7.  The TET then proceeded to
evaluate all vendors' quotations under the technical innovation
subfactor.[14]

   We find that the protester's assertion that the USDA utilized an unstated
minimum requirement in its evaluation of vendors' quotations is not
supported by the record.  The agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations
did not require an integrated multiple platform solution, and CA's
decision to quote a two-product solution did not result in a determination
that its quotation was technically unacceptable.  Moreover, we think the
agency's decision to evaluate whether vendors had proposed an integrated
multiple platform solution was reasonably encompassed within both the
technical functionality and technical innovation subfactors, see
Independence Constr., Inc.,
B-292052, May 19, 2003, 2003 CPD P 105 at 4, and the award of higher
technical scores to those vendors who did propose an integrated software
product was also reasonable.

   CA also protests that the agency improperly considered and evaluated
vendors as to financial viability, which was not a stated evaluation
factor or subfactor.  CA points to the statement of the TET chairman
noting that he considered vendors' financial viability based on
publicly-available information.  CA argues that the agency's decision to
consider vendors' perceived financial viability, and to downgrade CA on
the basis of unfounded financial concerns, was improper. 

   As set forth above, the RFQ informed vendors of the various evaluation
factors and subfactors upon which the USDA would base its award decision;
the solicitation did not state that a vendor's financial condition would
be evaluated, and did not request that vendors furnish financial data as
part of their quotations.  As part of the agency's report, the TET
chairman stated that in May 2003, the TET reviewed the financial viability
of the competing vendors because *[t]he team wanted to ensure the vendor
selected was viable over the long haul.'  AR, Tab T, Statement of TET
Chairman, Nov. 7, 2003, at 3.  Based on the data gathered, the TET
chairman concluded that CA had extremely large losses over the last 3
years and that Serena *is clearly the most solid and would be able to
support aggressive pricing.'  Id. 

   It is clear from the chairman's statement that the TET looked into the
vendors' financial condition.  However, the record simply does not
show--and the protester points to nothing in the record indicating--that
the information regarding vendors' perceived financial viability was
factored into the agency's evaluation of quotations and source selection
decision.  Accordingly, we cannot conclude that CA was prejudiced by the
agency's action in this regard, even if the TET should not have considered
vendors' financial condition.

   Lastly, CA asserts that the USDA improperly discussed its evaluation of
vendors' quotations with the Gartner Group, an independent industry
analysis organization, and improperly used the Gartner Group's
recommendations in the evaluation.

   As part of the agency report, the TET Chairman declared that,

   On 2-4-2003, [TET] project team members . . . conducted a conference call
with the Gartner Group.  USDA purchases research and consulting from the
Gartner Group.  We shared our analysis and conclusions that Serena and
Merant were our top technical choices.  We also discussed the rationale
for not selecting CA.  Gartner discussed their thoughts on the vendors and
products.[15] 

   AR, Tab AE, Statement of TET Chairman, Dec. 8, 2003, at 1. 

   We need not determine if the TET improperly relied on the Gartner Group's
recommendations because any actions by the agency in connection with the
initial evaluation of quotations were rendered academic by the subsequent
reevaluation, which we have concluded was reasonable and consistent with
the solicitation.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

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

   [1] The solicitation required vendors to provide a description of all
services to be provided at no cost with the purchase of the software.  RFQ
at 16.  Although CA offered to provide one of two proposed change
management software products at no cost, its price quotation did not
address whether this offer also extended to the software's maintenance and
upgrades.  The contracting officer then used CA's FSS listed prices for
software maintenance and upgrades in the agency's evaluation of the
vendor's price.

   [2] The agency specified use of standardized templates so that vendors'
prices would be submitted in a uniform and consistent manner, thereby
permitting the agency to conduct an *apples-to-apples' price analysis. 
Contracting Officer's Statement,
June 4, 2003, at 2.

   [3] CA also protested that the solicitation was defective because it
failed to set forth the agency's actual minimum requirements (i.e., that
there existed an unstated minimum requirement).  We determined that CA's
protest was in essence a challenge to the evaluation of vendors'
quotations, and thus was premature where award had not yet been made.

   [4] CA also protested that the agency made an improper best value
determination by choosing a higher-priced and lower technically rated
vendor, Serena, and that the agency unfairly allowed Serena to make
technical revisions to its quotation while denying CA the opportunity to
do the same.  As the agency addressed these allegations in its reports,
and the protester failed to respond in its comments, we consider CA to
have abandoned these arguments and will not consider them further.  MFVega
& Assocs., LLC, B-291605.3, Mar. 25, 2003, 2003 CPD PA 65 at 4.

   [5] As a preliminary matter, we note that where, as here, an agency
solicits FSS vendor responses and provides for a technical evaluation and
price/technical tradeoff--that is, uses an approach that is like a
competition in a negotiated procurement, our Office will review the
agency's actions, if challenged pursuant to our bid protest regulations,
to ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms
of the solicitation.  COMARK Fed. Sys., B-278343, B-278343.2, Jan. 20,
1998,
98-1 CPD P 34 at 4-5.

   [6] If this represented an 80 percent discount, then Serena's regular
pricing would have totaled $7,628,900 here ($1,525,780 x 5 = $7,628,900).

   [7] The contracting officer was aware of Serena's continued interest in
this solicitation by various phone calls inquiring about the status of
CA's earlier protest.  Contracting Officer's Statement, Dec. 9, 2003, at
1.

   [8] The agency later recognized that CA's technical merit point score had
been inaccurately computed and should have totaled 228.  AR, Tab X, TET
Award Recommendation (Corrected), at 6-7.

   [9] We note that, in response to CA's second protest challenging the
USDA's corrective action for improperly failing to allow vendors to submit
revised technical quotations as well as revised price quotations, the
agency informed our Office that it had found no weaknesses in its
evaluation of the vendors' technical quotations and that permitting
vendors to submit new or revised technical quotations would unnecessarily
duplicate the time and cost (estimated at more than $42,000) already
incurred in the agency's initial technical evaluation.  Agency Report,
June 20, 2003, atA 5-6, Contracting Officer's Statement, June 18, 2003, at
1.

   [10] For subfactors 1.1, 1.5 (Training), 1.5 (Implementation Support),
1.6, 1.7, and 2.1, the rating scheme gave maximum evaluative credit to the
highest-rated vendor, and percentages thereof to the other vendors.  By
contrast, for subfactors 1.4, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3A (Maturity), and
3.3B (Commitment), the evaluation scheme gave full evaluative credit to
the highest rated quotation, half credit to the second-rated quotation,
and no credit to the third-rated quotation. 

   [11] Moreover, the agency's decision to develop a new evaluation
methodology and reevaluate vendors' technical quotations in addition to
revised price quotations is inconsistent with the representations that the
USDA made to our Office.  The USDA stated that the agency's earlier
corrective action was limited only to an *apple-to-apples' comparison of
vendors' prices and a better-documented source selection decision.  The
USDA also defended the reasonableness of its decision not to permit
vendors to revise their technical quotations by representing that the
agency did not want to incur the additional time and cost associated with
a new evaluation here, where it had found nothing improper in its initial
evaluation of vendors' technical quotations.  It now appears that, at the
very time the agency was making this argument, it was, in fact,
reevaluating vendors' technical quotations using a new rating system.

   [12] Similarly, CA argues that the USDA's evaluation of vendors'
prices--both by applying a point scoring scheme and by weighting price
subfactors in other than descending order of importance--was also contrary
to the terms of the solicitation.

   [13] Likewise, even if the USDA improperly applied a point scoring system
to the evaluation of vendors' prices instead of considering only vendors'
total prices, CA has not demonstrated that it was prejudiced by the
agency's action, since Serena's total price of $1,525,780 was lower than
CA's total price of $1,586,629.

   [14] The TET determined that CA's two-product solution had inherent
administrative and support disadvantages because its products did not look
and function in similar manners, and would cost the agency approximately
$[DELETED] in increased administration and training costs over the 3-year
performance period.  AR, Tab W, TET Award Recommendation, at 1, 4-5.

   [15] The TET did not provide the Gartner Group with vendors' technical
quotations, the solicitation, or any other documents either before of
after the February 4 conference call.  Agency Report, Dec. 11, 2003.