TITLE:  GTSI Corp., B-292298; B-292298.2; B-292298.3, August 14, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292298; B-292298.2; B-292298.3
DATE:  August 14, 2003
**********************************************************************
GTSI Corp., B-292298; B-292298.2; B-292298.3, August 14, 2003

   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.        

   Decision
    
Matter of:   GTSI Corp.
    
File:            B-292298; B-292298.2; B-292298.3
    
Date:              August 14, 2003
    
John J. Fausti, Esq., Monica C. Parchment, Esq., and Jennifer M. Morrison,
Esq., John J. Fausti & Associates, for the protester.
Kelley P. Doran, Esq., William A. Shook, Esq., and Michael D. Garson,
Esq., Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, for Dell Marketing, L.P., an
intervenor.
James H. Haag, Esq., Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command, for the
agency.
David A. Ashen, Esq., and Jerold D. Cohen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest that agency improperly accepted quotation that did not
unambiguously indicate compliance with mandatory computer monitor viewing
area requirement, but instead could reasonably be interpreted as
indicating noncompliance, and then improperly modified the blanket
purchasing agreement shortly after award to *correct* ambiguity, is denied
where there is no basis for concluding that the agency's actions
prejudiced protester; protester has not alleged, nor is there any basis
for concluding, that it would have lowered its price sufficiently to
displace awardee as the low-priced vendor.
DECISION
    
GTSI Corp. protests the Department of the Navy, Space & Naval Warfare
Systems Command's (SPAWAR), award of a blanket purchasing agreement (BPA)
to Dell Marketing, L.P., under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
N00039-02-Q-0016, for computers, laptops and peripherals. GTSI asserts
that Dell's quotation failed to comply with the specifications in the RFQ.
    

   We deny the protest.
   
The RFQ contemplated award of a BPA for the procurement of commercial
off‑the‑shelf computers, laptops and peripherals in support of
shipboard command, control, communications, computers and intelligence
networks.  All items offered by a vendor were required to be on that
vendor's General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule
(FSS) contract.  The required equipment characteristics, configurations
and options were set forth in the RFQ's Section B Schedule (including
attachment No. 1) and Statement of Objectives (SOO).
    
The RFQ provided that award would be made to the responsible contractor
whose proposal represented the best value to the government.  Best value
was to be determined based on price and four non-price evaluation factors,
including (in descending order of importance):  (1) satisfaction of
technical requirements; (2) past performance; (3) logistics and support
plan; and (4) small and disadvantaged business (SDB) participation.  While
the SOO provided that *[t]he identified specifications are to be met at a
minimum, but may be exceeded,* SOO S: 2.1, the statement of evaluation
factors in Section M provided, with respect to the factor for satisfaction
of technical requirements, that *[t]he government will evaluate the extent
to which the equipment proposed by the contractor meets or exceeds the
requirements of Section B of the RFQ and in the SOO.*  RFQ S: M.3.  The
non-price evaluation factors when combined were approximately equal in
importance to price.
    
Four vendors submitted six quotations.  Dell's and GTSI's quotations were
included in the competitive range.  SPAWAR conducted discussions with Dell
and GTSI in which the agency advised the vendors of a number of
weaknesses, including instances in which their proposed equipment did not
appear to meet the requirements set forth in the Section B Schedule and
the SOO.  SPAWAR then requested revised quotations.  Based on its
evaluation of final quotation revisions, SPAWAR determined that Dell's
basic quotation offered the best value.  (Dell submitted basic and
alternate quotations.)  Specifically, while Dell's and GTSI's revised
quotations both received very good ratings under the evaluation factors
for satisfaction of technical requirements and logistics and support plan,
and both received acceptable ratings for SDB participation, Dell's past
performance was rated excellent while GTSI's was only rated very good. 
SPAWAR concluded that Dell had a *slight edge* under the non‑price
technical factors.  Source Selection Advisory Council Report at 11.  In
addition, Dell's evaluated price ($60,733,475) was significantly
($[DELETED]) lower than GTSI's ($[DELETED]).  Upon learning of the
resulting award of the BPA to Dell, GTSI filed this protest with our
Office.
    
MONITORS
    
In its comments on the agency reports responding to its protest, GTSI
primarily argues that it was improper for SPAWAR to make award on the
basis of Dell's quotation because Dell offered computer monitors that did
not comply with the specifications.
    
In this regard, the RFQ's Section B Schedule required vendors to offer a
quantity of *17 [inch] Viewable Monitor[s]* and a smaller quantity of  *21
[inch] Viewable Monitor[s].*  RFQ S: B, High End PC & Associated Items,
and Standard PC & Associated Items.  When asked prior to receipt of
initial quotations to confirm that the monitor descriptions required
monitors *with actual viewable areas (measured diagonally per industry
standards) of 17 . . . and 21 inches as opposed to CRT tube sizes,* the
agency responded in writing that its requirement was *based on viewable
areas as opposed to CRT tube size.*  Industry Questions/Comments and
Government Response, Nov. 7, 2002.  In its initial quotation, however,
Dell nevertheless offered the *Dell M782, 17 in[ch] (16.00 inch VIS)*
monitor to satisfy the RFQ requirement for 17-inch viewable monitors and
the *Dell P1130, Trinitron, 21 in[ch] (19.8 VIS)* monitor to satisfy the
RFQ requirement for 21-inch viewable monitors.  Since these monitors
offered viewable areas of only 16 and 19.8 inches respectively, neither of
these monitors met the applicable viewable area requirement. 
    
When SPAWAR challenged Dell during discussions to explain how its monitors
would meet the viewable area requirements, SPAWAR Discussion Letter, Feb.
10, 2003 (dated 2002), at 2, Dell responded, in a submission dated
February 17, 2003 (as well as February 18, 2003), that *Dell
misinterpreted the RFQ specification.  We would like to propose the
following items as replacements which meet the RFQ specification . . . .* 
Dell Response, Feb. 17, 2003, at 5.  Dell's submission then listed and
included a price for the Dell 19‑inch M992 monitor, with an 18-inch
viewable area, to meet the 17-inch viewable area requirement, and the Sony
GDM-FW900 24‑inch monitor, with an 22.5-inch viewable area, to meet
the 21‑inch viewable area requirement.
    
Dell's final revised quotation dated March 20, included an *Updated CLIN
Structure (Section B),* as well several other documents, and described
*these documents in addition to the Dell response to SPAWAR Questions
submitted on 18 February 2003 [--apparently referring the above response
dated February 17‑-] and e-mail submittals of 24 February, 3 March
and 6 March as our Final Proposal Revision.*  Dell Final Revised
Quotation, March 20, 2003, at 1.[1]  However, while Dell's February 17
response had substituted the Dell M992 19-inch monitor and the Sony
GDM-FW900 24-inch monitor for its initially offered Dell M782
17‑inch and Dell P1130 21‑inch monitors, the Section B
Schedule included in the March 20 final revised quotation again indicated
that the Dell M782 17‑inch and Dell P1130 21‑inch monitors
were being offered to satisfy the requirements for 17-inch and 21-inch
monitors.  Likewise, in *new* and *corrected* Section B Schedules
submitted on March 27 and March 28, Dell continued to list the
non‑compliant Dell M782 17-inch and Dell P1130 21‑inch
monitors as being offered to satisfy the requirements for 17-inch and
21-inch monitors.  Dell March 27, 2003 Submission at 2; Dell March 28,
2003 Submission at 2. 
    
The record indicates that since Dell's final revised quotation had
incorporated by reference its February 17 response, which substituted the
compliant Dell M992 19‑inch and the Sony GDM‑FW900 24-inch
monitors for the previously offered monitors, SPAWAR, in its final
evaluation, determined that Dell's quotation satisfied the viewable area
requirement for monitors.  Addendum to the Report of the Technical
Evaluation Board (TEB) at 8-9; Agency Memorandum to File, May 6, 2003, at
2; Agency Report, June 9, 2003, at 31.  However, Dell's final evaluated
price was based on the lower price for the noncompliant Dell M782 17-inch
and Dell P1130 21‑inch monitors as listed in Dell's Section B
Schedule.  Only after the April 28 award to Dell (and as a result of
concerns raised by GTSI) did the agency become aware of the discrepancy
between Dell's February 17 response offering the Dell M992 19‑inch
and Sony GDM-FW900 24-inch monitors and Dell's Section B Schedule listing
the Dell M782 17-inch and Dell P1130 21‑inch monitors.  Agency
Memorandum to File, May 6, 2003, at 2; Agency Report, June 9, 2003, at
31.  Upon learning of the discrepancy, SPAWAR determined that a mistake
had been made in Dell's proposal which was correctable under the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.  Noting (among other considerations) that *Dell
has confirmed that* the discrepancy was *a mistake on its part,* and that
Dell had agreed to furnish the upgraded monitors at no additional cost to
the government, SPAWAR concluded that it was appropriate to *modify the
BPA on a bilateral basis* to resolve the discrepancy by replacing the
noncompliant monitors on Dell's Section B Schedule with the compliant Dell
M992 19-inch and Sony GDM‑FW900 24-inch monitors.  Agency Memorandum
to File, May 6, 2003, at 4.    
    
GTSI asserts that Dell's final revised quotation was based on the offer of
the monitors that were noncompliant with the viewable area requirement and
that the agency's correction of this deficiency after award was improper. 
SPAWAR, on the other hand, maintains that Dell's final revised quotation
in fact offered the compliant Dell M992 19‑inch and Sony
GDM‑FW900 24-inch monitors.
    
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.  Datastream Sys., Inc., B-291653,
Jan. 24, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 30 at 4-5; Applied Mgmt. Solutions, Inc.,
B-291191, Nov. 15, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 202 at 2.  Our review of the record
here shows that SPAWAR did relax the solicitation's viewable area
requirement for monitors when making award to Dell but that GTSI was not
prejudiced by the agency's actions.
    
Again, in determining that Dell's monitors satisfied the viewable area
requirement, the record indicates that SPAWAR relied upon the fact that
Dell's March 20 final revised quotation generally incorporated by
reference Dell's 127‑page February 17 response, which substituted
the compliant Dell M992 19‑inch and the Sony GDM‑FW900 24-inch
monitors for the non‑compliant Dell M782 17-inch and Dell P1130
21‑inch monitors.  Dell's March 20 final revised quotation, however,
also included and specifically made part of its final proposal revision an
*Updated CLIN Structure (Section B)* which expressly provided that the
(noncompliant) Dell M782 17-inch and Dell P1130 21‑inch monitors
were being offered to satisfy the requirements for 17-inch and
21‑inch monitors.  Likewise, Dell's subsequently submitted *new* and
*corrected* March 27 and March 28 Section B Schedules also listed the Dell
M782 17‑inch and Dell P1130 21‑inch monitors as being offered
to satisfy the requirements for 17-inch and 21-inch monitors. 
    
It is a vendor's burden to submit an adequately written quotation in
response to an RFQ.  Godwin Corp., B-290291, June 17, 2002, 2002 CPD P:
103 at 4.  Here, given Dell's repeated express statements in the updated,
new and corrected Section B Schedules in its final submissions that it was
offering the noncompliant Dell M782 17-inch and Dell P1130 21‑inch
monitors to satisfy the requirements for 17-inch and 21-inch monitors, the
mere fact that Dell's March 20 final revised quotation also generally
incorporated the earlier 127-page February 17 response did not furnish a
reasonable basis for concluding that Dell was instead proposing the
compliant Dell M992 19‑inch and the Sony GDM‑FW900 24-inch
monitors.  At best, Dell's commitment to furnish monitors that complied
with the viewable area requirement was ambiguous, with the ambiguity not
resolvable from the face of Dell's final, revised quotation.
    
Nevertheless, even if SPAWAR should not have accepted Dell's quotation as
submitted and later permitted the firm to *correct* it via modification of
the BPA, there is no basis for concluding that the agency's actions
prejudiced GTSI.  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 Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577,
1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  GTSI has not shown, nor does the record otherwise
indicate, that it was prejudiced with respect to the monitor issue.  The
evaluated price of GTSI's quotation ($[DELETED]) already included the
price for the compliant monitors.  Adjusting Dell's price upward (to
$[DELETED]) to reflect the higher price (an additional $[DELETED]) for the
compliant Dell M992 19‑inch and the Sony GDM‑FW900
24‑inch monitors as indicated in Dell's February 17 response, still
leaves the award price lowest by a substantial margin ($[DELETED]). 
Agency Memorandum to File, May 6, 2003, at 3.  Further, even if SPAWAR had
noted the ambiguity in Dell's quotation before award and had reopened
discussions to resolve it‑‑which necessarily would have given
GTSI the opportunity to revise its price‑‑there is no basis
for concluding that it
would have lowered its price sufficiently to displace Dell as the
low-priced vendor.[2]  Given Dell's advantage under the non-price factors,
we are unable to find that GTSI was prejudiced.
       
SPARE PARTS KIT
    
GTSI also challenges the evaluation of Dell's quotation with regard to
spare parts kits.  The RFQ's SOO required that vendors provide as an
optional item a spare parts kit.  According to the RFQ:
    
The contents of the Kits will be based on the Contractor's analysis of
past failures of the equipment provided and a desired 97 % availability
level of the equipment supported.  The contents of the kits shall be based
on supporting a quantity of 50 fielded end items.
RFQ, SOO S: 2.10.3.  Further, vendors were required to *provide a list of
the contents of the proposed Spare Parts Kits,* with the contents based on
an analysis of past failures of the proposed equipment.  RFQ S:
L-2.1(c)(2).  Although Dell did not provide details in its initial
quotation as to what was in its spare parts kit, it subsequently furnished
a detailed listing of which spare parts were in each kit, tailored to the
computer the kit was supporting.  Dell, however, did not specify the
number of each spare part that was included in the kits. 
    
GTSI notes that its prices for the spare parts kits were higher than
Dell's prices.  For example, with respect to the first year prices for the
desktop computer spare parts kit, the kit which the agency indicated would
account for 170 of the 231 first year spare parts kits, Dell's price was
$[DELETED] while GTSI's price was $[DELETED].  For the remaining kits,
GTSI's price also was higher than Dell's.  For example, GTSI's price was
more than [DELETED] times higher for a kit with an expected first year
demand of two units.  GTSI asserts that SPAWAR lacked a reasonable basis
for finding Dell's spare parts kits to be acceptable.
    
Again, the statement of evaluation factors in Section M provided, with
respect to the factor for satisfaction of technical requirements, that
*[t]he government will evaluate the extent to which the equipment proposed
by the contractor meets or exceeds the requirements of Section B of the
RFQ and in the SOO.*  RFQ S: M.3.  Likewise, the statement of evaluation
factors in Section M provided, with respect to the factor for logistics
support plan, that *[t]he Government will evaluate the extent to which the
contractor demonstrates their ability to provide Logistics Support.*  RFQ
S: M.5.  We find that SPAWAR could reasonably determine that Dell had
substantially complied with the spare parts kit requirement.  In addition
to listing in its revised quotation each spare part (but not the number
thereof) that was included in its kits, Dell also explained the basis for
determining the contents of its spare parts kits.  Specifically, Dell
stated that its recommended spare parts kits took into account such
factors as the quantity of units and failure rate; lead times; and that
the kits were designed to support 100 percent availability for parts
deemed critical.  Dell Response, Feb. 17, 2003, at 8‑12; Agency
Supplemental Report, June 20, 2003, at 53.  Further, although Dell's price
for the kits was significantly lower than GTSI's, the record indicates
that the difference may reflect the fact that GTSI's approach to stocking
the kits was different than Dell's.  When advised during discussions that
its kits appeared to include sufficient spare parts to build three
computers from scratch, Agency Discussions Letter to GTSI, Feb. 10, 2003,
at 2, GTSI responded that its intent was to provide the agency with the
option of replacing an entire computer while repairs were being made to
the failed computer by the original equipment manufacturer.  GTSI
Response, Feb. 19, 2003, at 37.  GTSI, however, has pointed to nothing in
the RFQ that required furnishing replacement computers rather than simply
replacement spare parts.  Further, to the extent that Dell's quotation
lacked detail as to the number of each spare part, there is no basis in
the record for concluding that any weakness in this respect was so
significant that it was unreasonable for the agency to find that Dell's
quotation represented the best value.  In this regard, we note that even
if the vendors' prices for the spare parts kits were excluded from the
evaluation, the evaluated price of Dell's quotation would remain nearly
approximately $[DELETED] lower than GTSI's.  See Price Evaluation Board
Summary Report, Apr. 14, 2003, at 5; Agency Memorandum to File, May 6,
2003, at 3.[3]
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    
    

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

   [1] Dell's March 6 clarification included Dell's GSA schedule price list,
which included not only the compliant Dell 19-inch M992 and Sony GDM-FW900
24‑inch monitors, but also the non-compliant Dell M782 17-inch and
Dell P1130 21‑inch monitors.  (The prices offered by Dell for this
procurement were less than those listed on its GSA schedule.) 
[2] GTSI now generally alleges that if it had been afforded the
opportunity to revise its price *it would have certainly taken the
opportunity . . . to make its proposal more competitive from a price
standpoint.*  GTSI Comments, June 27, 2003, at 5.
[3] GTSI also challenged several other aspects of the evaluation in its
several protests.  SPAWAR addressed these allegations in its reports, and
the protester failed to respond in its comments; thus, we consider GTSI to
have abandoned its other arguments and will not consider them further. 
MFVega & Assocs., LLC, B‑291605.3, Mar. 25, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 65 at
4.