TITLE: B-294572.3; B-294572.4, Spherix, Inc., October 20, 2005
BNUMBER: B-294572.3; B-294572.4
DATE: October 20, 2005
*******************************************************
B-294572.3; B-294572.4, Spherix, Inc., October 20, 2005

   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: Spherix, Inc.

   File: B-294572.3; B-294572.4

   Date: October 20, 2005

   Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Nathan C. Guerrero, Esq., and Scott A. Schipma,
   Esq., Winston & Strawn, for the protester.

   Joseph D. West, Esq., Robert S. Metzger, Esq., Michael K. Murphy, Esq.,
   Pepin A. Tuma, Esq., and Mary Ita Snyder, Esq., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
   for ReserveAmerica NY, Inc., the intervenor.

   Mark G. Garrett, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.

   Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protest sustained where several significant technical discriminators in
   the cost/technical tradeoff justifying award lacked a reasonable basis.

   2. Agency misled protester regarding the propriety of offering alternative
   implementation plan that did not comply with the solicitation requirements
   when it recognized a strength in the awardee's proposal for making such a
   proposal while specifically advising the protester that the required
   implementation plan was that stated in the solicitation.

   DECISION

   Spherix, Inc. protests the award of a contract to ReserveAmerica NY, Inc.
   under request for proposals (RFP) No. WO-04-06VM, issued by the Department
   of Agriculture, Forest Service, for the National Recreation Reservation
   Service (NRRS). This protest follows a decision by our Office, Spherix,
   Inc., B-294572, B-294572.2, Dec. 1, 2004, 2005 CPD para. 3, sustaining
   Spherix's protest of the agency's previous award to ReserveAmerica under
   this RFP, and the agency's subsequent request for and evaluation of
   revised proposals. Spherix's present protest challenges the agency's
   conduct of discussions, evaluation of revised proposals, and latest source
   selection decision.

   We sustain the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   Historically, the various reservation, sales, permitting and ticketing
   processes for public use of recreational facilities and activities located
   on federal lands (e.g., national parks, national monuments, recreation
   areas, wilderness areas, and historic sites) have been separate operations
   under the management of a number of federal agencies. Most recently, two
   major federal reservation systems have operated, i.e., the National Park
   Reservation Service (NPRS) under the National Park Service, Department of
   Interior, and the NRRS under the Forest Service in partnership with the
   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Land Management, Department
   of Interior. Spherix is the incumbent contractor for the NPRS and
   ReserveAmerica is the incumbent contractor for the NRRS.

   The RFP is part of an "E-Government Initiative," under which the
   government seeks to consolidate its reservation systems for all federal
   parks and federal recreation areas, facilities and activities into the
   NRRS with the goal of providing "one-stop" reservation shopping. The RFP
   seeks a solution that improves the existing reservation service through a
   contractor-developed, -provided and -operated state-of-the-art reservation
   system with a web-based portal that will include multiple sales channels
   (telephone call center, Internet, and "walk-up" at the recreation
   site/activity), providing "one-stop" reservation shopping directly to the
   public for camping, tours, tickets, permits, activities, and
   recreation-related sales, as well as providing general recreation and trip
   planning information about all federal recreation areas. The system would
   also provide administrative and field personnel of federal land management
   agencies with the ability to access and manage reservation and recreation
   information. RFP sect. C, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 64-71.[1]

   To satisfy the requirements outlined above, the PWS required the
   contractor to provide and staff a web-based central reservation system
   (CRS) that supports seamless interfacing with other portals for third
   party sales, and which includes an Internet sales channel capable of
   presenting customers with large quantities of information on participating
   recreation facilities and activities and completing reservation and other
   recreation related sales and services. RFP sect. C, at 89-91. In addition,
   the contractor is to provide an on-site "application" for field and kiosk
   sales channels that provide "secure, real-time and off-line reservation
   and other recreation related service management capability" at field
   locations. RFP sect. C, at 92. With regard to the required offline
   capability, the RFP stated:

   The contractor shall provide alternative methods for operating the field
   reservation sales channel sites during emergency and other situations that
   result in disruption of service. This offline or other capability must
   allow field sites to operate the field program independently from the CRS
   for an indefinite period of time, and to process and complete field
   transactions in an accurate, efficient and timely manner. The contractor
   shall provide the capability to receive and send data to CRS as soon as
   the emergency is resolved.

   RFP sect. C.5.2.2.2, at 92-93.

   The RFP, issued March 25, 2004, contemplated the award of a multi-year
   fixed-unit-price requirements contract with 6 yearly options. A detailed
   PWS was provided, describing the services and capabilities required. The
   stated basis for award was a cost/technical tradeoff using the following
   evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance:[2]

   1.      Technical Approach

   2.      Management Approach

   3.      Reservation System Demonstration

   4.      Past Performance

   5.      Price

   RFP sect. M, at 199. The first four factors were stated to be
   significantly more important than price, and the RFP stated that the
   government intended to make award based primarily on technical merit,
   although price would become more important as the difference in technical
   merit narrowed. Id.

   The agency received four proposals in response to the RFP, three of which
   the agency included in the competitive range. The agency conducted
   discussions with and heard oral presentations from the competitive range
   offerors, which included reservation system demonstrations. On August 9,
   2004, after evaluating final revised proposals, the agency selected
   ReserveAmerica's higher-rated proposal as the best value to the
   government, and awarded a contract to ReserveAmerica based on a
   cost/technical tradeoff at a higher price than Spherix's proposal.

   Spherix protested the award. Our Office sustained the protest because the
   agency's selection decision was based in part on an evaluated difference
   in information provided by the offerors concerning staffing and marketing
   approach that was neither requested by the RFP nor fairly considered by
   the agency, and because the agency's discussions with Spherix failed to
   address significant evaluated weaknesses in that firm's proposal. Spherix,
   Inc., supra, at 8-15. We recommended that the agency reopen the
   competition to amend the RFP, if appropriate, and reopen discussions,
   request proposal revisions, evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new
   source selection decision. Id. at 16. Additionally, we identified several
   protest-related issues for the agency to consider in implementing the
   recommended corrective action: state estimated quantities in the price
   schedule; advise the source selection authority of significant differences
   in past performance of the offerors; and revisit the evaluation of
   ReserveAmerica's proposed implementation plan. Id. at 15-16.

   The agency subsequently amended the RFP and reopened the competition with
   the three competitive range offerors. Agency Report, Tab 10, Technical
   Proposal and Analysis Report (TPAR), June 15, 2005, at 290. The agency
   conducted discussions and additional on-site reservation system
   demonstrations, and requested proposal revisions. Following its evaluation
   of revised proposals, the agency narrowed the competitive range to the
   proposals of Spherix and ReserveAmerica, conducted additional discussions,
   and requested final proposal revisions. Id. at 292.

   The source selection evaluation team (SSET) evaluated the revised final
   proposals. The SSET essentially found that both offerors proposed
   reservation system solutions were technically acceptable and considered
   "excellent/moderate risk." The primary difference in the evaluation
   ratings was under the third most important factor, the reservation system
   demonstration. Spherix received [DELETED] rating under this factor in part
   because it had not demonstrated in either of the two system demonstrations
   some aspects of the system that it had proposed to provide. ReserveAmerica
   received [DELETED] rating under this factor because it was found to have
   provided more complete demonstrations of its proposed system. Under the
   remaining factors, the SSET gave both proposals the same ratings. Overall,
   the SSET rated Spherix's proposal as "good/moderate risk" and rated
   ReserveAmerica's proposal as "excellent/low risk." Agency Report, Tab 12,
   SSET Summary Consensus Memorandum, at 392-99.

   The SSET presented its final evaluation ratings to the SSA. The
   information considered by the SSA included the technical, past
   performance, price analysis, consensus, and best value analysis reports
   prepared by members of the SSET and the contracting officer. Agency
   Report, Tab 16, Source Selection Decision, at 468. For various clearly
   stated reasons, the SSA modified the SSET's evaluation of ReserveAmerica
   under the past performance factor to lower the rating [DELETED.] Id. at
   468-69. Although this change in factor rating did not prompt the SSA to
   lower ReserveAmerica's overall technical rating, it did prompt him to
   raise the firm's overall proposal risk rating from "low" to "moderate" for
   the following reason:

   [DELETED.]

   Id. at 469.

   The final evaluation ratings, as modified by the SSA, appear below:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |        Factor         |       Spherix       |      ReserveAmerica      |
   |-----------------------+---------------------+--------------------------|
   |  Technical Approach   |      [DELETED]      |        [DELETED]         |
   |-----------------------+---------------------+--------------------------|
   |  Management Approach  |      [DELETED]      |        [DELETED]         |
   |-----------------------+---------------------+--------------------------|
   | System Demonstration  |      [DELETED]      |        [DELETED]         |
   |-----------------------+---------------------+--------------------------|
   |   Past Performance    |      [DELETED]      |        [DELETED]         |
   |-----------------------+---------------------+--------------------------|
   |        Overall        | Good/Moderate Risk  | Excellent/Moderate Risk  |
   |-----------------------+---------------------+--------------------------|
   |   Scenario A Price    |     $ [DELETED]     |       $97,226,972        |
   |                       |                     |                          |
   |  Scenario B Price[3]  |     $ [DELETED]     |       $ [DELETED]        |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Id. at 469-70.

   The source selection decision then compared the following aspects of the
   two proposals where ReserveAmerica's proposal was considered superior and
   which the SSA considered significant: (1) continuity of operations in the
   event of a service disruption at the contractor's facility; (2) offline
   operations capability at agency field locations in event of a loss in
   communications between the field and the contractor's central system; (3)
   web-based reservation services software; (4) solution for providing
   wilderness permits and quota management, especially for the Boundary
   Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW); (5) inventory management; (6)
   approach to notifying customers of emergency closure of recreation
   resources; (7) web reservation volume capability; and (8) ease of use and
   functionality of reservation system. Id. at 470-76. A recurring difference
   appearing in this comparative assessment of the proposals was that
   ReserveAmerica's proposal was for applications or capability that
   currently exists as compared to Spherix's need to develop or acquire them.
   Nevertheless, the SSA and the SSET considered this to be a very close
   competition and difficult selection decision. Hearing Transcript (Tr.)
   at 227, 421-22, 429. Ultimately, however, the SSA determined that the
   evaluated advantages of ReserveAmerica's proposal outweighed Spherix's
   lower price, and selected ReserveAmerica's proposal as representing the
   best value to the government. Agency Report, Tab 16, Source Selection
   Decision, at 477.

   On June 17, 2005, the agency awarded a contract to ReserveAmerica and,
   following a debriefing, Spherix filed this protest.[4] The protester
   stated a large number of bases supporting its protest allegation that the
   agency's evaluation was unreasonable. We find that the agency's evaluation
   was unreasonable for the reasons stated below.

   DISCUSSION

   In reviewing a protest of an agency's evaluation and source selection
   decision, we will not re-evaluate proposals, but will review the record to
   determine whether the evaluation and selection decision are reasonable and
   consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and with applicable
   procurement laws and regulations. M&S Farms, Inc., B-290599, Sept. 5,
   2002, 2002 CPD para. 174 at 6.

   Field Control of Inventory

   The agency unfairly and unreasonably evaluated the proposals on the
   feature of field control of inventory. Both offerors proposed a capability
   that would permit field locations to have full control of all types of
   inventory. Agency Report, Tab 26, ReserveAmerica's Final Revised Proposal,
   at 915-17; Tab 39, Spherix's Final Revised Proposal, at 1809-12, 1969-70.
   The agency stated that Spherix's proposed inventory management capability
   focused on campground inventory and did not address tours and ticketing.
   Agency Report, Tab 16, Source Selection Decision, at 474. That statement
   is inconsistent with the terms of Spherix's proposal, which states that
   its inventory management capability applies to both recreation facilities
   and recreation activities. Agency Report, Tab 39, Spherix's Final Revised
   Proposal, at 1809. The agency also stated that Spherix did not quantify
   how much control would be granted to field sites. Agency Report, Tab 16,
   Source Selection Decision, at 474. This also is inconsistent with the
   terms of Spherix's proposal, which stated [DELETED].[5] Agency Report, Tab
   39, Spherix's Final Revised Proposal, at 1969-70. These misstatements
   formed the basis for inventory control being one of the discriminators in
   the SSA's tradeoff analysis. Agency Report, Tab 16, Source Selection
   Decision, at 474.

   Offline Capability

   The evaluation also treated offerors unreasonably and unequally with
   respect to offline capability, another discriminator in the SSA's tradeoff
   analysis. As indicated above, there was a requirement for offline
   capability that the contractor's system had to provide for field sites in
   the event of a disruption in connection with the central system. RFP
   sect. C.5.2.2.2, at 92-93.

   The source selection decision stated that an advantage of ReserveAmerica's
   offline capabilities was that, once connectivity was re-established, there
   would be an automatic uploading of data captured during offline
   operations, which reduces the workload on agency personnel because they
   will not have to maintain a separate means to capture customer information
   or conduct business. Agency Report, Tab 16, Source Selection Decision, at
   471-72. Moreover, the SSA testified that he was under the impression that
   ReserveAmerica offered automatic uploading of data captured during offline
   operations and that Spherix did not offer automatic uploading of data. Tr.
   at 210. In fact, Spherix did offer automatic uploading of data in its
   final proposal as part of its offline solution. Agency Report, Tab 39,
   Spherix's Final Revised Proposal, at 1913-14.

   In addition, the source selection decision stated that ReserveAmerica's
   offline solution "lessened the impact on field and customers in less than
   ideal circumstances," and that this was one of several benefits that added
   value to ReserveAmerica's proposal, such that award at a higher price than
   Spherix's was justified. Agency Report, Tab 16, Source Selection Decision,
   at 477. However, the record indicates that Spherix's proposal apparently
   offered more offline capabilities than ReserveAmerica's. For example,
   ReserveAmerica's proposal for offline operations did not provide for
   recording of cash sales in the field program, but rather the agencies'
   field personnel would have to manually record cash transactions while
   offline and enter them once connection with the central system resumed.
   Intervenor's Hearing Comments at 32; Agency Report, Tab 10, TPAR, at 308;
   Tab 26, ReserveAmerica's Final Revised Proposal, at 904-906; Tr. at 26.
   Spherix's proposed offline solution did provide this capability. Agency
   Report, Tab 39, Spherix's Final Revised Proposal, at 1802-04, 1912.
   Therefore, it appears that ReserveAmerica's proposal, rather than
   Spherix's, would result in more work for agency personnel at least in this
   regard, requiring them to maintain a separate means to capture cash
   purchases and then to enter that data into the system once real-time
   connections are re-established.

   Similarly, ReserveAmerica's proposal expressly stated that it would not
   provide for the offline issuance of BWCAW permits.[6] In contrast,
   Spherix's proposal did not take exception to providing offline permit
   capability.[7] This too seemingly gives Spherix rather than ReserveAmerica
   an advantage with regard to the "impact on field and customers in less
   than ideal circumstances."[8]

   It is true that the SSA could reasonably give more credit to
   ReserveAmerica--as it did under the offline operations discriminator--to
   the extent that its system demonstrations of its offline features were
   superior to Spherix's or to the extent that it had already developed its
   offline solution and Spherix had not. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated
   above, the record otherwise shows that the SSA had an incorrect
   understanding of ReserveAmerica's and Spherix's relative strengths under
   this significant discriminator in the cost/technical tradeoff analysis.

   Alternative Implementation Plan

   ReserveAmerica, in addition to proposing to transition all participating
   agencies to its reservation system (known as the Outdoor Recreation
   Management Solution (ORMS)) by the "go-live" date, also proposed an
   alternative implementation plan under which it would [DELETED]. Agency
   Report, Tab 26, ReserveAmerica's Final Revised Proposal, at 946. The SSET
   considered this a positive aspect of ReserveAmerica's proposal and
   evaluated it as a strength. Agency Report, Tab 10, TPAR, at 298, 350. We
   noted in our prior decision that the goal of the acquisition is to
   consolidate all of the many reservations systems at the participating
   agencies into a single system, and that [DELETED] appeared inconsistent
   with the RFP. Spherix, Inc., supra, at 16. The agency did not modify any
   of the numerous corresponding terms of the RFP, nor advise offerors that
   [DELETED]. In fact, Spherix asked whether the agency was "requiring a
   one-time deployment of the entire system" or would consider a phased
   implementation, to which the agency stated the following:

   The objective of this acquisition is to provide one centralized
   reservation service that is seamless to the customer. The goal is to
   provide "one-stop" reservation shopping to the public for a wide range of
   Federal recreation areas, facilities, and services. Any proposed solution
   must meet this objective and all RFP requirements.

   As stated in RFP [sect. C.1.4.8] Project Implementation Planning, an
   implementation plan shall include phase-in of reservation services
   including transition to the "go-live" date and beyond. Offerors are
   expected to mitigate any risks associated with the delivery of the
   consolidated NRRS through their proposed implementation approach and
   strategies.

   Agency Report, Agency's Responses to Questions (Feb. 9, 2005), attach. 1,
   at 1301. In our view, Spherix reasonably interpreted this response
   [DELETED]. Protester's Hearing Comments at 119-20. While the agency states
   that it did not make an award on the basis of ReserveAmerica's alternative
   plan, the plan nevertheless was evaluated as a strength in that firm's
   final evaluation and the agency's actions misled Spherix so as to preclude
   it from obtaining a similar evaluation strength. The agency needs to
   determine what its actual needs are on this issue and take steps to ensure
   that all offerors compete on the same basis.

   Conclusion

   In sum, we sustain the protest because the agency did not fairly consider
   the relative similarities and differences in the two proposals that were
   expressly taken into account and regarded as discriminators between the
   proposals in the source selection decision. The agency has repeatedly
   acknowledged that this was a very close and difficult best-value tradeoff
   determination. Tr. at 227, 421-22, 429. Therefore, any change in the
   relative evaluation of the offerors could result in a different firm being
   selected for award. Spherix, Inc., supra, at 13. The agency needs to
   revise its evaluation and make a new source selection decision.
   Additionally, since the agency considers ReserveAmerica's alternative
   implementation plan a strength and misled Spherix in a way that prevented
   it from proposing a similar plan, the agency needs to reopen discussions
   and ensure that all offerors are competing on the same basis before
   proposal revisions are requested and evaluated. See 4th Dimension
   Software, Inc.; Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., B-251936, B-251936.2, May
   13, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 420 at 9.

   OTHER ISSUES

   The record causes some reason to question whether the agency has fairly
   stated the evaluated difference between proposals in other areas,
   particularly under the "ease of use" discriminator stated in the source
   selection decision. Agency Report, Tab 16, Source Selection Decision,
   at 475-77. The source selection decision stated that the actual solution
   proposed by Spherix is "unknown" because the screens and features that
   Spherix would ultimately customize for the agency were not demonstrated.
   Id. at 476. Spherix's proposal essentially stated [DELETED]. Agency
   Report, Tab 39, Spherix's Final Revised Proposal, at 1765-75. At the
   hearing, the software consultant retained by ReserveAmerica confirmed that
   this type of customization was simple, once the basic system, such as the
   infrastructure and database, was in place. Tr. at 368-69, 372-73. He
   compared the difficulty of changing the look and operation of an existing
   screen that is seen by the end-user to picking which shirt or tie to wear,
   and that to give much consideration to this superficial aspect of the
   system was "silly." Tr. at 369. Thus, it appears on this record that the
   source selection decision may have exaggerated ReserveAmerica's relative
   strength in this area. In this regard, it appears that, as the incumbent
   NRRS contractor, ReserveAmerica was permitted to customize its ease-of-use
   features during the incumbent contract, which may explain the agency's
   greater appreciation for the general look and feel of that firm's system.
   See Protester's Hearing Comments, attach. 17, Government Computer News
   Article (Jan. 27, 2003).

   The record also reflects confusion about the requirement for offline
   capability. The protester essentially alleges that the solicitation
   required that all field program capabilities that can be performed
   independent from the CRS be available while offline. The agency and
   intervenor state that the offline capability requirement is minimal and
   that the contractor's offline system must only be able to process and
   complete local sales with no requirement for a capability for other normal
   field operations. While the solicitation is not entirely clear on this
   point, we believe that the protester's interpretation is the more
   reasonable one. In this regard, the RFP establishes a requirement without
   limitation that "the field program" for this application have the
   capability of operating offline, that is, independently from the CRS,
   during disruptions in service for an indefinite period of time, and to
   "process and complete field transactions." Among the requirements that
   could be accomplished offline are the capability to "record cash/check
   purchases" and to "print and/or distribute, permits and tickets." RFP
   sect. C.5.2.2.2, at 93. As discussed previously, ReserveAmerica did not
   provide the former capability, and took exception to the latter capability
   for BWCAW permits, whereas Spherix provided for these capabilities in its
   offered offline approach. Since we otherwise sustain the protest, we need
   not resolve this issue, but we believe that the agency should examine its
   actual needs and revise the RFP to clearly state its offline requirements.

   RECOMMENDATION

   We recommend that the agency reopen discussions, request revised
   proposals, and make a new source selection decision. If an offeror other
   than ReserveAmerica is selected for award, the agency should terminate
   ReserveAmerica's contract and make award to that other firm.[9] We also
   recommend that the agency reimburse the protester its cost of pursuing
   this protest, including reasonable attorney's fees. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)
   (2005). The protester should submit its certified claim for costs,
   detailing the time expended and the costs incurred, directly to the
   contracting agency within 60 days of receipt of this decision. 4 C.F.R.
   sect. 21.6(f)(1).

   The protest is sustained.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Pages in documents contained in the agency's report have been stamped
   with sequential numbering, which is used in our citations to these
   documents as well.

   [2] For each technical evaluation factor, the RFP identified numerous
   subordinate evaluation criteria, which were stated to be of equal
   importance to each other. RFP sect. M, at 199.

   [3] As was the case during the previous protest, the RFP requested price
   proposals for two different pricing scenarios: Scenario A had separate
   unit prices for call center and Internet reservations while Scenario B had
   the same unit price applicable to both types of reservations; however,
   award would be made for only one scenario. RFP amend. 1, sections B.2,
   B.5, at 231-32. Here, the agency made award under Scenario A. Agency
   Report, Tab 16, Source Selection Decision, at 477.

   [4] The protest was filed within 5 days of a required debriefing, and, as
   required by the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 31 U.S.C.
   sect. 3553(d)(3), (4) (2000), the agency suspended contract performance.
   Subsequently, the agency prepared a written determination that performance
   of the contract during the pendency of the protest was in the best
   interests of the United States. 31 U.S.C. sect. 3553(d)(3)(C).

   [5] Spherix indicated that [DELETED]. Agency Report, Tab 39, Spherix's
   Final Revised Proposal, at 1969-70. Although both offerors recommended
   against implementing full field control of inventory (which would bypass
   quality control safeguards that both offerors proposed, such as central
   review of field changes prior to activation of those changes), Spherix
   additionally addressed mitigating the risks of implementing field control.
   Compare id. at 1810, 1969-70 with Tab 26, ReserveAmerica's Final Revised
   Proposal, at 917.

   [6] ReserveAmerica's proposal stated the following:

   Due to the multiple geographic locations for the BWCAW Permit issuing
   stations, the requirements for offline capability have not been included
   within our response. Should offline capability be desired, it would
   require additional discussion to further define user specification of
   needs. We will work with the NRRS to determine the specific functionality
   required and a timeframe for delivery.

   Agency Report, Tab 26, ReserveAmerica's Final Revised Proposal, at 910
   (emphasis added).

   [7] Elsewhere, the source selection decision specifically recognized the
   significance of the BWCAW requirements in the overall contract in stating,
   "Although the number of overall permit transactions for the BWCAW is
   small, when compared to the overall number of NRRS transactions, the
   impact to customers seeking to use this protected wilderness could be
   extensive without a fully developed and operational permit management
   service for all NRRS sales channels." Agency Report, Tab 16, Source
   Selection Decision, at 473.

   [8] As is apparent from our discussion here, and our discussion below
   regarding the interpretation of the offline requirement, Spherix proposed
   more offline capabilities than ReserveAmerica. However, the agency's
   evaluation did not identify this apparent advantage in Spherix's proposal.

   [9] Consistent with the requirement of CICA regarding the impact of an
   agency's decision to override the automatic stay of performance on "best
   interests" grounds, as occurred here, our recommendation is made "without
   regard to any cost or disruption from terminating, recompeting, or
   reawarding the contract." See 31 U.S.C. sect. 3554(b)(2).