TITLE:  Cerner Corporation, B-293093; B-293093.2, February 2, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293093; B-293093.2
DATE:  February 2, 2004
**********************************************************************
Cerner Corporation, B-293093; B-293093.2, February 2, 2004

   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:   Cerner Corporation
    
File:            B-293093; B-293093.2
    
Date:              February 2, 2004
    
Stephen S. Kaye, Esq., Thomas A. Schweich, Esq., and William E. Olson,
Esq., Bryan Cave, for the protester.
Daniel D. Dinur, Esq., Dinur & Associates, for Mobiam Solutions, Inc., an
intervenor.
D.A. Ridgely, Esq., and Blane B. Lewis, Esq., Department of the Army, for
the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
1.  Agency properly accepted awardee*s software as meeting the
solicitation requirement for a commercial, off-the-shelf item where the
firm proposed software that is currently being sold and used under other
commercial contracts.
    
2.  Where a solicitation allows for alternative approaches to meeting
performance requirements, the agency is not required to advise a
technically acceptable offeror during discussions that it considers
another approach to be superior to that proposed by the offeror.
    
3.  Protest that evaluation and source selection decision were flawed is
denied where the record shows that the evaluation and source selection
were reasonable and consistent with the evaluation factors.
DECISION
    

   Cerner Corporation protests the award of a contract to Mobiam Solutions,
Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DASW01-03-R-0011, issued by the
Defense Contracting Command-Washington for commercial, off-the-shelf
(COTS) software to satisfy a requirement for an enterprise-wide scheduling
and registration system (EWS-R).
    

   We deny the protest.
    
BACKGROUND
    
The purpose of the procurement is to acquire a COTS solution for a
schedule and registration system for the Department of Defense*s military
health system (MHS).  RFP S: C.3.  The MHS includes ambulatory and
inpatient care, operating room facilities, medical and dental offices, and
other related functions.  The solicitation was issued on January 28, 2003,
and the RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract. 
    
Under the solicitation, award was to be made based on the best overall
value.  The solicitation provided that in determining the proposal
representing the best value, the technical and past performance evaluation
factors would be considered more important than price.  The technical
evaluation factor included the following subfactors, which were listed in
descending order of importance:  requirements, software architecture,
integration, configuration methodology, and quality control/security. [2] 
The government also stated it might conduct discussions and require
product demonstrations.
    
The agency received 11 proposals, including Mobiam*s and Cerner*s, by the
original due date of March 23.  After one vendor made a claim for patent
infringement, the agency amended the solicitation to include a patent
indemnification clause and
re-issued the solicitation with a new proposal due date of May 30.  One
additional proposal was received by the amended due date of June 3, and
six of the original offerors submitted revised proposals.  Mobiam proposed
a web-based application solution, including FirstServe software, and
Cerner proposed a solution based on client-server technology.  After the
source selection evaluation board*s (SSEB) initial technical evaluation,
five offerors* proposals were eliminated from the competitive range.  As
relevant here, Mobiam*s proposal received an acceptable rating and
Cerner*s proposal received a good rating.  Both offerors* proposals were
among those included in the competitive range.
    
On July 2, offerors whose proposals were included in the competitive range
were advised of the date and time to perform live product demonstrations. 
After these product demonstrations, two more offerors* proposals were
excluded from the competitive range, leaving proposals from five offerors
in the competitive range, including those from Mobiam and Cerner.  The
agency conducted discussions with these five offerors and invited them to
submit final revised proposals and a recorded video version of their
respective product demonstrations.  
    
With respect to the evaluation of proposals, the agency reports that the
background of the majority of the members of the SSEB was mainly in the
program aspects of the procurement.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 13.13,
SSEB/Source Selection Authority (SSA) Award Memorandum, at 2.[3]  In order
to understand the technical aspects of the proposals, the SSEB chair
requested an analysis of the technical proposals by the EWS-R integration
contractor.  The integration contractor*s technical rankings were based on
an analysis of the following areas:  architecture, configuration,
application technology, scalability,[4] security, and interface and
integration.  Id. at 3.  As relevant here, under architecture, the
integration contractor advised that industry was migrating to web-based
architectures.  More specifically, the integration contractor commented
that the web-based application proposed by Mobiam reflects the direction
the market for enterprise applications *is going* because this web-based
solution offers cheaper maintenance costs, the ability to add
functionality, and the fastest response time for a web application.  AR,
Tab 13.10, SSEB Minutes, at 2.  The integration contractor stated that the
client-server technology proposed by Cerner reflects a proven technology,
but that a client-server solution requires the use of Citrix software to
provide the advantages that come from a web-based application.  The
integration contractor also reported that Citrix deployment, including
hardware and software, was not covered in the cost proposals of the
offerors, like Cerner, that proposed client-server solutions.
    
Under configuration, the integration contractor found that Cerner*s
client-server solution and Mobiam*s web-based solution offered sound
hardware configurations for the MHS.  Under application technology, the
integration contractor found that the Mobiam product was more advantageous
because it operates on the latest Oracle 9i database, while Cerner*s
product operates on the earlier Oracle 8i database; as a result, Cerner*s
solution would require a database upgrade sometime during deployment
because future applications will operate on the later Oracle database. 
Id.; AR, Tab 13.13, SSEB/SSA Award Memorandum, at 3.
    
Under scalability, Mobiam claimed the highest number of concurrent
users--more than [DELETED].  Cerner claimed its product would operate with
more than [DELETED] concurrent users, although it later claimed that in a
simulated laboratory test, there were [DELETED] concurrent users.  With
respect to security, the integration contractor also found that Mobiam and
Cerner had acceptable levels of security built into their systems. 
Finally, the integration contractor rated Mobiam*s and Cerner*s solutions
acceptable with respect to interface and integration.  The integration
contractor assigned an acceptable rating to Cerner*s proposal and a good
rating to Mobiam*s proposal.  AR, Tab 13.13, SSEB/SSA Award Memorandum, at
4. 
    
The SSEB identified the relative strengths and weaknesses associated with
each offeror*s proposed solution.  For Cerner, the SSEB cited as strengths
its product*s functionality and configurability, the firm*s excellent
operating room product, and the company*s strength in the healthcare
information technology market.  The SSEB also identified a number of
weaknesses concerning Cerner*s solution, including that Cerner*s product
required 4 months per site to implement; that its solution was a
client-server product that would require Citrix software; and that its
solution did not currently use the Oracle 9i database.  For Mobiam, the
SSEB cited as strengths that the firm proposed a web-based product with
the highest rated functionality, the best architecture, and the most
flexible approach for configuration.  The SSEB found that Mobiam*s
software was intuitive, easy to navigate, and more scalable.  Mobiam*s
weaknesses included that the firm was a small, new company, and that its
product had not been implemented in a hospital setting.  AR, Tab 13.13,
SSEB/SSA Award Memorandum, at 4-5.
    
Considering the strengths and weaknesses for each of the proposed
solutions, the SSEB assigned a consensus ranking to each proposal. 
Mobiam*s proposal was ranked first and Cerner*s proposal was ranked
third.  The SSEB recommended award to Mobiam.  AR, Tab 13.14, SSEB/SSA
Award Memorandum, at 12. 
    
The cost and pricing team rated Cerner*s proposal good for compliance and
good for financial capability, and rated Mobiam*s proposal acceptable for
compliance and unacceptable for financial capability.  The cost and
pricing team had originally rated Mobiam as acceptable for financial
capability, but lowered Mobiam*s rating to unacceptable based on research
performed on the background and financial history of the firm.  In making
her selection decision, the SSA disagreed with the cost and pricing team*s
rating of Mobiam as unacceptable for financial capability.  She concluded
that Mobiam*s unacceptable rating primarily was based on the cost and
pricing team*s concern that the firm was small.  However, the SSA noted
that the financial viability analysis showed that Mobiam*s financial
condition was above industry averages and that its financial statements
did not indicate any financial stress.  The SSA concluded that Mobiam*s
financial capability was acceptable.  The SSA also did not agree with the
good rating assigned to Cerner*s proposal for compliance with the RFP
because Cerner submitted a price for a perpetual license, rather than for
an annual license as required by the RFP.  The SSA also found that
Cerner*s total costs, which were significantly lower than Mobiam*s, did
not reflect the total cost of Cerner*s proposed solution to the government
because the proposal did not include costs associated with the requirement
for Citrix (a government-furnished item under the RFP) and Cerner required
a longer deployment time to implement its solution than the agency had
anticipated. 
    
The SSA selected Mobiam*s proposal as superior to the proposals of the
other competitors from a technical and functional perspective, and
specifically agreed with the SSEB that Mobiam*s proposal was the best
value.  AR, Tab 13.13, SSEB/SSA Award Memorandum, at 16.  In this respect,
the SSA determined that Mobiam*s product had the highest chance of success
in meeting the project management timeline with a product that could be
configured and changed to meet user needs. While the SSA recognized that
Mobiam*s proposal was substantially higher priced than Cerner*s, the SSA
analyzed the price difference.  When the SSA considered the cost to the
government of a longer deployment time for Cerner*s solution and the cost
of additional Citrix software that the agency believed was necessary for
Cerner*s solution to meet the agency*s needs, the SSA concluded that the
difference between Cerner*s and Mobiam*s total cost to the government was
reduced significantly.  On September 30, 2003, the SSA awarded the
contract to Mobiam, whose higher priced, higher technically rated proposal
was determined to represent the best value to the government.  AR, Tab
13.13, SSEB/SSA Award Memorandum,
at 16-7.
    
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
    
COTS Requirement
    
Cerner argues that Mobiam*s product is not a COTS product as required by
the solicitation.  While Cerner recognizes that there are healthcare
providers using Mobiam*s product, Cerner contends that Mobiam*s product*s
use in radiology centers, as reflected in its proposal, does not establish
that Mobiam has a COTS solution that satisfies the RFP*s more extensive
requirements.
    
Initially, we note that although the RFP solicited a COTS product, the
RFP*s evaluation criteria did not explicitly provide any guidance
concerning the agency*s evaluation of whether an offeror*s proposed
software was COTS.  The RFP did not define the term *COTS,* and the
protester does not assert otherwise.  The RFP did not require that the
COTS software explicitly meet all RFP requirements *off-the shelf,* but
rather, that the COTS product could be configured to meet the agency*s
requirements.   RFP S: C.3.
    
The determination of whether a product is a commercial item is largely
within the discretion of the contracting agency, and will not be disturbed
by our Office unless it is shown to be unreasonable.  Coherent, Inc.,
B-270998, May 7, 1996, 96-1 CPD P: 214 at 3; Komatsu Dresser Co.,
B-255274, Feb. 16, 1994, 94-1 CPD P: 119 at 5.  Mobiam*s proposal
extensively addressed the status of its FirstServe software as COTS.  For
example, in its proposal, Mobiam describes its FirstServe software as a

   mature software product that is designed to be configured and deployed
within highly complex and distributed environments. We have a proven and
structured approach to configuration and deployment and demonstrated
successes in both Healthcare and Government Industries. 
AR, Tab 7.1, Mobiam*s Technical Proposal, vol. II, at 1.
    
As required by the RFP, the Mobiam proposal identifies which technical
requirements were standard COTS software functions and which requirements
would require minimal configuration.  Id. at 27.  Further, Mobiam, in its
proposal, provided three references, two of which were using Mobiam*s
FirstServe software in healthcare environments, primarily radiology
centers, that required that the software be used for patient scheduling,
administration, file management, and financial management.[5]  AR, Tab
7.1, Mobiam*s Past Performance Proposal, vol. III, at 6.  These are the
types of functions covered by this RFP.  One reference involved a
$350 million healthcare provider that offered outpatient services to over
1 million patients per year at almost 100 locations throughout the United
States and the other involved a $450 million healthcare provider that
offered outpatient services for over 1 million patients per year at 450
centers throughout the United States.  The record shows that the Mobiam
product has been fielded successfully in the healthcare environment. 
    
Further, contrary to the protester*s contention that the agency did not
evaluate whether Mobiam*s solution was a COTS product, the record shows
that there were discussions by the SSEB concerning whether Mobiam*s and
the other offerors* proposed solutions were COTS products.  Ultimately,
the SSEB determined that all of the offerors, including Mobiam and Cerner,
whose proposals were in the competitive range, proposed COTS products. 
The evaluators recognized that COTS software would not meet all of the RFP
requirements initially because all vendors would have to perform some
software configuration.  Specifically, concerning Mobiam*s proposed
solution, the SSEB*s deliberations contained the following discussion:

   Evaluator A:  Well, they said that they [Mobiam] would customize to our
requirements, but they would include it in their supportable COTS
product.  All they do is add it to their program.
Evaluator B:  Go back to their demonstration guys. Did they or did they
not do what we asked them to do?  With the product out of the box?
Evaluator C:  Yes, yes.
Evaluator B:  Did Cerner do that?
Evaluator C:  Yes.
Evaluator B:  Almost all of them did that or else they wouldn*t have
gotten to where they are right now.  The ones who failed miserably--we*ve
already kicked them out.  These guys have met most of the requirements up
until this point out of the box.
AR, Tab 13.10, SSEB Minutes, Day 2, at 16-17. 
    
Thus, the record shows that the SSEB considered the COTS issue during its
deliberations and concluded, based on proposal submissions, references,
and product demonstrations, that Mobiam proposed a COTS product.  On this
record, we have no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency*s
acceptance of Mobiam*s software as a COTS product.[6] 
    
Proposal Evaluation
    
Cerner next argues that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria
and failed to follow the stated evaluation criteria.  Specifically, Cerner
maintains that although there was no requirement in the RFP for a specific
approach, the record shows that the agency had an unannounced preference
for a web-based solution, which prejudiced Cerner.[7]
The agency concedes that during the course of the evaluation, the
evaluators recognized that web-based products offered significant
advantages, but denies that there was an unstated agency preference or
requirement for web-based products.  The agency points out that the SSA
did not disqualify Cerner because it offered a client-server approach, but
rather, concluded that Mobiam*s web-based approach offered the best value.
The agency further points out that Cerner was ranked third in line for
award and its lower priced proposal was considered in the SSA*s
cost/technical tradeoff.
    
Here, the RFP specifications were primarily stated in terms of functional
or performance requirements, which permitted an offeror to propose its own
unique approach.  In particular, the solicitation was silent with respect
to whether the software should be web-based or client-server-based, or
some combination of the two, and we see no legal defect in that.  While
the RFP thus left it to the offeror to propose what it believed to be the
best approach for satisfying the RFP requirements, there was no guarantee
that the agency would consider different approaches to be equally
effective.  Moreover, the agency was not required to advise a technically
acceptable offeror during discussions that it considered another approach
to be superior to that proposed by the offeror.  See Canadian Commercial
Corp./Canadian Marconi Co., B‑250699.4, Mar. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD P:251
at 7.
    
Rather than any predetermined preference for a web-based solution, the
record shows that the agency concluded, after evaluating the competing
solutions, that Mobiam*s web-based solution was more advantageous than
Cerner*s client-server approach under an RFP that permitted either
solution.  To the extent Cerner asserts that it was unaware that the
agency would consider a web-based approach, its position is untenable. 
For example, in one of the technical questionnaires that offerors were
required to address, the following questions were asked:

   1.      Is the application a Web application or client/server?
2.      If Web based, is the application a fat or thin client?[8]
3.      If Web based, what browsers, (and browser versions) does the
    application support?
    
RFP attach. 2, at 34.
    
In addition, the following question and answer (Q and A) was included in
amendment No. 0003:
    
Q.  Is Citrix XP a supported method of thin-client solutions for DOD or
are you looking for browser-based applications exclusively?
A.  We are looking for the best value solution to the requirements.
In our view, given the technical questionnaires and the above Q and A, we
believe the protester reasonably was on notice that the agency anticipated
proposals using web-based solutions.  There is no support in the record
for Cerner to assert that it was unaware that the RFP requirements could
be met by web-based solutions or that such a solution could be considered
the best value to the government. [9]
    
As far as the evaluation of technical proposals is concerned, that is
primarily the responsibility of the contracting agency; the agency is
responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating
them, and must bear the burden of any difficulties resulting from a
defective evaluation.  Federal Envtl. Servs., Inc.,
B-260289, B-260490, May 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD P: 261 at 3.  In reviewing
protests challenging an agency*s evaluation of proposals, we will not
substitute our judgment for that of the agency regarding the merits of
proposals; rather, we will examine the agency*s evaluation only to ensure
that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation*s evaluation
criteria and with procurement statutes and regulations.  Honolulu Marine,
Inc., B-245329, Dec. 27, 1991, 91-2 CPD P: 586 at 3. 
A protester*s mere disagreement with the agency*s evaluation does not
render it unreasonable.  CORVAC, Inc., B-244766, Nov. 13, 1991, 91-2 CPD
P: 454 at 5. 
    
Cerner maintains that the evaluation factors set out in the RFP were not
followed and that at least one, *how closely the Offeror*s software
matches the requirements in the Statement of Work without configuration or
alteration of the base COTS product,* was ignored.  Protester*s
Supplemental Protest at 4.
    
The record contains extensive documentation of the agency*s evaluation of
proposals.  These documents, including a transcript of the SSEB
deliberations and the SSA award memorandum, demonstrate that the agency
did follow the RFP evaluation criteria and fully evaluated whether the
proposals satisfied the functional and technical requirements of the RFP. 
This evaluation was summarized in the SSA*s award memorandum, which shows
that the evaluation included consideration of all stated evaluation
factors.  AR, Tab 13.13, SSEB/SSA Award Memorandum.  For example, the
record establishes that proposals were evaluated to determine if the
offeror*s software met the functional and technical requirements of the
SOW.  Proposals were evaluated for meeting RFP requirements, including
those concerning outpatient appointment scheduling, registration,
inpatient admissions, discharge and transfer, and operating room
management.  In addition, the agency evaluated software architecture, ease
of integration, configuration, quality control and security, and past
performance.  In our view, the record documents that the agency evaluated
proposals consistent with the RFP evaluation criteria.
    
With respect to the reasonableness of the evaluation and selection
decision, we conclude that the agency*s concerns relating to specific
elements of Cerner*s proposal and its overall assessment of the software
performance of the competing products were reasonably based.
    
For example, Cerner argues that the agency improperly downgraded its
proposal for the use of Citrix when Cerner only recommended, but did not
require, the use of Citrix.  The record shows that during discussions,
Cerner was advised that the Navy medical facilities could not run a
program that uses Citrix; Cerner was asked if its program could run using
a different system.  Cerner replied as follows:
    
Yes.  Fat Client/Server can be used to support these facilities.  Citrix
is recommended because it uses less bandwidth.  
AR, Tab 12.1, Cerner*s Final Revised Proposal, vol. II, at 17.  We think
that under these circumstances, the agency reasonably could conclude that
the use of Citrix, while not mandatory, was nevertheless desirable with
Cerner*s proposal.  Further, while Cerner may disagree, it was the
evaluators* position that to get the best results from any client-server
solution, the use of Citrix was necessary.  AR, Tab 13.13, SSEB/SSA Award
Memorandum, at 3.  The protester does not meaningfully establish that the
agency*s view that Citrix would essentially be required in conjunction
with the performance of Cerner*s solution was unreasonable.
    
Cerner also argues that its proposal was improperly evaluated on
scalability, which was not a stated evaluation factor.  The agency states
that while scalability was not a specifically stated evaluation factor or
subfactor, scalability was reasonably and logically encompassed under the
software architecture subfactor.  We agree with the agency.  Moreover,
even if this were not the case, during discussions, Cerner was asked about
the maximum number of users its application could be scaled to support. 
Cerner, as well as the other offerors, addressed the scalability of its
application in its final revised proposal.  AR, Tab 12.1, Cerner*s Final
Revised Proposal, vol. II, attach. D, at 16.  Thus, Cerner was on notice
that scalability was a concern of the agency with respect to software
architecture.  We agree with the agency that based on the discussions,
Cerner was aware that the agency was considering in the evaluation the
scalability of the firm*s proposed solution.
    
Further, to the extent Cerner objects to the agency*s view that Mobiam*s
solution was more advantageous in the area of scalability, the record
shows that the evaluators relied on the claims of scalability provided by
each offeror.  Mobiam claimed the highest number of concurrent users, with
over [DELETED], which was significantly higher than the [DELETED]
concurrent users which Cerner identified in one of its later proposal
submissions.[10]   We have no basis to disagree with the agency*s
evaluation that Mobiam*s solution was more advantageous than Cerner*s
solution with respect to scalability.
    
Cerner also contends that the past performance evaluation was unreasonable
because the agency developed a risk mitigation plan in the event of an
award to Mobiam because of Mobiam*s size and lack of experience in the
marketplace.  As explained above, Mobiam was ranked second with respect to
past performance and Cerner was ranked third.  The solicitation stated
that past performance would be evaluated on the basis of a number of
factors, including an offeror*s performance, risk, and performance
confidence.  RFP P: M.4.  The record shows that although Cerner provided
good past performance references, Cerner*s implementation of the current
operating room management application had problems and, in the agency*s
view, the firm*s performance had not met some of the government*s
expectations.  AR, Tab 13.13, SSEB/SSA Award Memorandum, at 10.  The SSEB
specifically listed past performance as a weakness, stating that Cerner
had *[DELETED].*  Id. at 5.  In contrast, the record shows that Mobiam
provided three references in its proposal that were highly favorable.  In
addition, research by the SSEB showed that Mobiam*s current customer base
was highly satisfied with its performance.  The agency reports that a risk
mitigation plan was developed for Mobiam in order to manage risks that
were of concern to a few of the SSEB members, but that it was the
consensus of the SSEB that award to Mobiam represented the least amount of
risk to the government.  On this record, we have no basis to question the
reasonableness of the agency*s past performance evaluation or Mobiam*s
ranking.  
    
Finally, Cerner challenges the SSA*s best value determination and argues
that the agency improperly made upward adjustments to Cerner*s price and
did not make any adjustments to Mobiam*s price. 
    
Where the agency contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract, an
agency is not permitted to make adjustments for cost elements, since the
fixed price is the price the awardee is obligated to perform at and the
price the government is bound to pay.  Further, while a source selection
official may in the price/technical tradeoff quantify the effects of any
technical concerns, for example, the risk of schedule slippage, the
quantification must be rationally based and consistent with the RFP. 
Marquette Med. Sys., Inc., B-277827.5, B-277827.7, Apr. 29, 1999, 99-1 CPD
P: 90 at 6.  Here, the agency states that it made adjustments to certain
offerors* proposed prices in order to accurately assess the total cost to
the government of the proposed solutions, in light of risks and
assumptions in these offerors* proposals.  AR, Tab 13.13, SSEB/SSA Award
Memorandum, at 13.  The record reflects that the SSA believed that
Cerner*s price did not represent the total cost that would be incurred by
the government if Cerner*s solution were selected, e.g., the government
would incur additional costs associated with hardware and licenses to
support the use of Citrix and other in-house costs related to Cerner*s
[DELETED] deployment schedule, which exceeded the agency*s projected
[DELETED]-week schedule.  We see nothing improper in the agency*s
considering the cost impact of offerors* differing technical
approaches.[11]  
    
Where, as here, the RFP indicates that technical considerations are more
important than price considerations in determining the best value to the
government, the selection of a technically superior, higher priced
proposal is proper where the agency reasonably concludes that the price
premium was justified in light of the proposal*s technical superiority. 
Dynamics Research Corp., B-240809, Dec. 10, 1990, 90-2 CPD P: 471 at 2. 
The record shows that among the reasons for selecting Mobiam*s proposal
for award was that the firm proposed web-based technology that did not
require Citrix and that was also intuitive, easy to navigate, and more
scalable.  While Cerner*s price may have been significantly less than
Mobiam*s price, the SSA found, among other things, that Cerner*s solution
required the addition of Citrix software to satisfy the agency*s needs,
proposed a longer implementation period, and would require a database
software upgrade during deployment.  Cerner also had a less satisfactory
past performance record.  AR, Tab 13.13, SSEB/SSA Award Memorandum, at
14.  On this record, we have no basis to question the agency*s
determination to pay a price premium by awarding the contract to Mobiam,
the firm whose higher technically rated, higher priced proposal was deemed
to represent the best value to the government.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    
    
      
    
    
    
                  
    
    
    

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

   [1] This decision addresses the primary arguments presented in Cerner*s
protest submissions.  In addition, Cerner raised a number of collateral
issues that we have considered and find without merit, but which do not
warrant detailed analysis or discussion.
[2] The RFP provided for the following rating system with respect to the
technical factors:  blue--an exceptional proposal which contains
significant strengths and no significant or only a few minor weaknesses;
green--a good proposal, which contains significant strengths, which
clearly outweigh the minor weaknesses; yellow--an acceptable proposal in
which the strengths and significant weaknesses are essentially equal;
orange--a marginal proposal in which the significant weaknesses outweigh
strengths; and red--an unacceptable proposal which contains numerous
significant weaknesses and deficiencies and no, or even minor, strengths.
[3] The SSA*s award memorandum includes the SSEB*s evaluation, rankings,
and award recommendation.
[4] In the context of this procurement, scalability concerns the ability
of the proposed solution to handle a large number of users concurrently.
[5] The other reference involved the use of Mobiam*s software in a state
criminal justice environment, which links over 500 systems serving 35,000
internal users.
[6] With respect to the protester*s argument that Mobiam*s software
product could not be considered COTS because it has only been used in less
extensive healthcare environments than the one covered by this
procurement, we note that while the RFP requirements may be more
extensive, we think the agency could reasonably conclude that the Mobiam
software, as discussed above, was COTS and could satisfy these RFP
requirements with minimal configuration.
[7] Cerner also argues, in its supplemental protest, that Mobiam was
unfairly allowed to exceed the RFP page limitation for initial technical
proposals.  The record shows that Mobiam did exceed the 60-page limitation
imposed by the RFP in its initial proposal.  While we believe it was
improper for the agency to waive this page limitation for Mobiam without
affording other offerors the same opportunity to exceed the page
limitation for their respective initial proposals, we do not believe that
Cerner has demonstrated prejudice.  As a result of the initial evaluation,
Cerner*s proposal was rated good and Mobiam*s proposal, even exceeding the
page limitation, was rated acceptable.  The record shows, however, that
prior to the submission of final revised proposals, both offerors were
given the same opportunities to demonstrate the capabilities of their
products through live demonstrations and video presentations, as well as
during discussions and the submission of final revised proposals (without
a page limitation).  Given the opportunities for Cerner to demonstrate the
superiority of its product, with no limitation on the amount of
information it could provide during discussions and in the final revised
proposal, we do not see how Cerner has been prejudiced by the agency*s
waiver of the page limit for Mobiam*s initial proposal.  See Parmatic
Filter Corp., B-285288, Aug. 14, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 185 at 8.
[8] *Fat client* is a term for the client machine (the individual personal
computer) in a client/server environment that performs most or all of the
application processing, with little or none of the processing performed in
the server.  As a result, when the application is updated or changed, each
machine that runs the application must be updated or changed.  A fat
client requires a more expensive computer to run the software and large
amounts of data must be transferred between the individual client computer
and the server.  In contrast, a *thin client* architecture reduces
hardware, software, and infrastructure costs.  When a thin client
application is changed, only the central application must be changed, that
is, individual personal computers do not have to be changed.  AR, Tab 1,
Memorandum from SSA to GAO, at 11.
[9] Cerner maintains that it has a web-based version of its existing
software that will be available in time to meet the agency*s requirements
and, had it known of the agency*s interest in a web-based solution, as
opposed to a client-server/Citrix solution, it could have demonstrated a
version of its web-based software at the live demonstration.  Protester*s
Supplemental Protest at 8.  Consistent with the RFP, as discussed above,
if Cerner had a web-based solution at the time of its product
demonstration, nothing precluded Cerner from proposing such a solution at
that time.
[10] Cerner argues that the agency ignored its explanation that its
application had been *tested* with [DELETED] concurrent users.  Cerner
indicates in its proposal, however, that this was a lab result and not an
actual performance environment.
[11] In this regard, we note that the RFP provided that the agency would
conduct a risk assessment to focus on potential for:  disruption of
schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, need for increased
government oversight, and likelihood of unsuccessful performance.  RFP S:
M.2.4.