TITLE: B-297535.2; B-297535.3; B-297535.4, SAP Public Services, Inc., February 10, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297535.2; B-297535.3; B-297535.4
DATE: February 10, 2006
********************************************************************************
B-297535.2; B-297535.3; B-297535.4, SAP Public Services, Inc., February 10, 2006

   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: SAP Public Services, Inc.

   File: B-297535.2; B-297535.3; B-297535.4

   Date: February 10, 2006

   David S. Cohen, Esq. and John J. O'Brien, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP; Richard B.
   Oliver, Esq., Alison L. Doyle, Esq., and Kevin J. Slattum, Esq., McKenna,
   Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester.

   Rand L. Allen, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., William J. Colwell, Esq.,
   Daniel P.  Graham, Esq., and Kevin J. Plummer, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding
   LLP, for Oracle Corporation, an intervenor.

   Maj. Derek S. Sherrill, Maj. Michael S. Martin, and Lt. Col. Michaelisa M.
   Tomasic-Lander, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protest that awardee's quotation was "noncompliant" with solicitation
   requirements regarding commercial availability of software is denied where
   the procurement record indicates that awardee's quotation complied with
   the solicitation requirements and protester expressly acknowledges that it
   has "no proof" to support its allegation.

   2. Protester's disagreement with the agency's subjective assessments of
   the protester's and awardee's quotations with regard to non-price
   evaluation factors do not provide a basis for sustaining the protest where
   agency evaluation is supported by the record.

   3. Where solicitation stated that agency's evaluation of vendors'
   quotations would include risk assessments regarding, among other things,
   the potential for increased costs, agency's "best value" determination
   properly considered such risk assessments without quantifying the
   potential impact on vendors' costs.

   4. In making a "best value" determination, agency properly performed a
   cost/technical tradeoff based on the evaluated prices that were calculated
   consistent with the solicitation's provisions.

   DECISION

   SAP Public Services, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award
   of a contract to Oracle Corporation under request for quotations (RFQ)
   No. FA8770-04-Q-0061 to provide software, licenses, technical support, and
   training for the expeditionary combat support system (ECSS) program.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   On March 3, 2005, the Air Force issued the RFQ to obtain competitive
   quotations pursuant to the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal
   Supply Schedule (FSS).[1] The solicitation sought quotations for a
   commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software product (or suite of products),
   licenses, technical support and training for a new expeditionary combat
   support system (ECSS) which is intended to improve weapon systems
   availability by improving the effectiveness of U.S. Air Force
   logistics.[2] RFQ at 2. The solicitation stated that "to the greatest
   extent possible, [ECSS will] replace Air Force retail and wholesale
   logistics legacy systems with commercially available products," and that
   the products sought "will consist of a core COTS ERP product and any
   necessary COTS bolt-on products that provide specific capabilities that
   are not available or robust enough in the ERP software."[3] RFQ at 7.

   Vendors were advised that award would be made on the basis of a "best
   value" determination considering the following evaluation factors--mission
   capability,[4] quote risk,[5] and price[6]--and that the non-price
   factors, when combined, would be significantly more important than price.
   RFQ attach. 6, at 1. With regard to the agency's evaluation under the
   non-price evaluation factors, the solicitation stated: "Since COTS
   products are being procured for ECSS, the Government acknowledges that the
   COTS products may not meet all of the stated functional and technical
   requirements. Consequently, the vendor's [quotations and demonstrations]
   will be evaluated to determine how well the quoted products comply with
   the [functional and technical] requirements." Id.

   With regard to price, vendors were instructed that "[p]rices shall be
   based upon the Projected Cumulative Concurrent ECSS Users set forth in
   Table 3-1 of the RFQ." RFQ attach 1, Instructions to Vendors, at 17. The
   referenced table identified the projected number of concurrent users, by
   contract period, for which software licenses would be required, stating
   that a total of 250,000 users was anticipated over the 7-year life of the
   contract. RFQ at 9. Vendors were further advised, within the RFQ section
   titled "Selection Factors for Award," that "[t]he price evaluation will be
   conducted on the total quoted price including all options." [7] RFQ
   attach. 6, at 6. Finally, the RFQ provided a pricing template, titled
   "Total Price Summary," that sought vendors' fixed prices for user
   licenses, maintenance/upgrades, technical support/training, travel, and
   other direct costs for the base period and for each of the six option-year
   periods.[8] RFQ attach. 1, app. A.

   On April 4, Oracle and SAP each submitted quotations responding to the
   solicitation. Oracle's quotation offered a software package comprised of
   software owned by three vendors--Oracle, Xelus, Inc., and Industrial
   Financial Systems (IFS); SAP's quotation offered a software package
   comprised of software owned by two vendors--SAP and Manugistics, Inc.
   Thereafter, SAP and Oracle conducted product demonstrations.[9] Agency
   Report, Tabs 5, 11. Following the demonstrations, the agency conducted
   discussions and sought quotation revisions. Upon receipt of final
   revisions, the agency evaluated the vendors' quotations with the following
   results:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                |        SAP        |      Oracle       |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Mission Capability              |     [deleted]     |        (X)        |
   |                                |                   |                   |
   |Functional Capability           |     [deleted]     |   Moderate risk   |
   |                                |                   |                   |
   |Technical Compatibility         |     [deleted]     |        (X)        |
   |                                |                   |                   |
   |                                |     [deleted]     |     Low risk      |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Price                           | [deleted]million  |   $91.2 million   |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report, Tab 17b, at 107.

   The non-price evaluation ratings were supported by a detailed narrative
   discussion of each vendor's submission with regard to the various
   evaluation factors, subfactors, areas and elements. Agency Report, Tab 16.
   Overall, the agency viewed SAP's quotation as superior to Oracle's with
   regard to the non-price evaluation factors. Specifically, the primary
   evaluated difference between the two quotations was that SAP's quotation
   was rated [deleted] with regard to the functional capability subfactor;
   that is, SAP's quotation was evaluated as "exceeding specified minimum
   performance or capabilities in a way beneficial to the Air Force" with
   "little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or
   degradation of performance." Agency Report, Tab 16, at 10. In contrast,
   Oracle's quotation was rated "P" with "Moderate" risk under the functional
   capability subfactor; that is, Oracle's quotation was evaluated as
   "[m]eet[ing] specified minimum performance or capability requirements"
   with "potential[] [to] cause some disruption of schedule, increased cost
   or degradation of performance." Agency Report, Tab 16, at 34.

   The agency's evaluation of the vendors' total prices was based on each
   vendor's quotation for the costs associated with a total of 250,000
   licensed users, as projected by RFQ table 3-1. Both quotations were
   evaluated as being reasonable, complete and realistic. The substantial
   difference between the two total prices was caused, in large part, by
   [deleted]. SAP's quotation reflected a price of [deleted] per licensed
   user; Oracle's quotation reflected a price of $135 per licensed user.
   Agency Report, Tab 17b, at 67, 100; SAP Comments on Supplemental Agency
   Report, Jan. 23, 2006, at 2.[10]

   On October 17, the agency's "best value decision authority" (BVDA)
   selected Oracle's quotation for award. In his source selection document
   supporting Oracle's selection, the BVDA summarized and compared the
   evaluated ratings of each vendor's quotation with regard to the various
   non-price evaluation factors and subfactors, noted the significant price
   differential between the two quotations, and concluded that Oracle's
   quotation offered the best value to the government, stating:

   CONCLUSION: In arriving at my conclusion, I remained mindful that the
   Mission Capability (inclusive of Functional and Technical subfactors, in
   descending order) and Quote Risk factors (in descending order), when
   combined, are significantly more important than Price. However, based upon
   the stated evaluation criteria, it was apparent that the SAP offer did not
   provide sufficient additional benefits to justify paying an approximate
   additional [deleted] over an otherwise acceptable, though slightly higher
   risk solution offered by Oracle. After examining the details of SAP's
   higher ratings in the Functional Capability areas and factoring in the
   assessed Quote Risks, SAP's combined advantages were not sufficient to
   overcome this significant price differential. Even when considering the
   evaluated benefits associated with the requirements evaluated as "Check
   Plus" in SAP's Product Suite, Oracle's proposed price represents a
   significant advantage to the government over the contract period. I also
   note that two risk elements in the Technical Compatibility areas favored
   Oracle. SAP did have a lower risk rating in the more important evaluation
   sub-factor of Functional Capability, but as indicated above, the
   significant differential in price caused me to conclude that assuming the
   Moderate Risk rating for Oracle in the Functional Capability sub-factor
   was an appropriate risk that could be overcome, Oracle's solution, costing
   less than [deleted] of SAP's solution meets the Government's needs and
   provides the best value to the Government.

   Agency Report, Tab 18, at 2-3.

   A contract was awarded to Oracle on October 20. SAP's various protest
   submissions followed.

   DISCUSSION

   SAP submitted its initial protest on October 28, 2005; thereafter, it
   submitted supplemental protests on November 4, November 14, and December
   19. In these submissions, SAP challenges virtually every aspect of the
   agency's source selection process. We have reviewed all of the issues
   raised by SAP in its various protest submissions, as well as SAP's
   arguments in comments addressing the agency's responses to each of SAP's
   protest submissions. As discussed in more detail below, we find no basis
   for sustaining any portion of SAP's protest.

   Oracle's Compliance with the Solicitation's "Generally Available"
   Requirement

   In its October 28 and November 4 protest submissions, SAP challenged the
   basic acceptability of Oracle's quotation, arguing that Oracle's
   integrated software package was not COTS software and, thus, was
   "noncompliant with mandatory RFQ requirements." Protest, Oct. 28, 2005, at
   12; Protest, Nov. 4, 2005, at 12. In this regard, SAP refers to a portion
   of the RFQ's "Instructions to Vendors" which provided that each vendor's
   product demonstrations must reflect the functionality contained in the
   "generally available release" of the software being demonstrated. RFQ
   attach. 1, at 7.[11]

   Although SAP does not dispute that each of the software modules
   incorporated into Oracle's solution complies with the solicitation's
   "generally available" requirement, SAP maintains that this requirement
   also applied to the interface code between the software modules, and that
   Oracle's quotation failed to comply with the requirement. SAP asserts that
   "to the best of SAP's knowledge the combination of Oracle-Xelus-IFS, with
   its attendant `bolt-on' software has never been installed at any customer
   site, nor implemented by any integrators," concluding that, "for this
   reason alone, the award to Oracle must be terminated." Protest, Oct. 28,
   2005, at 14; Protest, Nov. 4, 2005, at 14.

   The agency responds that SAP is erroneously interpreting the solicitation
   requirements, and provides a detailed discussion of the solicitation
   provisions that relate to the "generally available" requirement,
   explaining that this requirement applies to the "releases" of individual
   COTS software products that are incorporated in both vendors' integrated
   solutions[12]--not to the interfaces between modules. Contracting
   Officer's Statement at 8-14. Moreover, the agency (and Oracle)
   categorically maintain that, even if the "generally available" requirement
   were considered applicable to interfaces, Oracle's integrated solution,
   including interfaces, has, in fact, been implemented by more than two
   commercial users and, thus, would comply with that requirement.
   Contracting Officer's Statement at 13; Agency Report, Tab 11, Oracle
   Quotation, para. 4.3.1; Oracle Comments on Agency Report, exh. 2,
   Declaration of Oracle Program Manager, paras. 7-8.

   In its comments responding to the agency report, SAP offers no rebuttal to
   the agency's discussion regarding the proper interpretation of the
   solicitation requirements. Further, SAP offers no support for its initial
   allegation that Oracle's integrated solution has not been previously
   installed or implemented. To the contrary, SAP expressly acknowledges that
   it "has no proof" to support this allegation. SAP Comments on Agency
   Report, Dec. 22, 2005, at 37. Nevertheless, SAP states that it "is not
   withdrawing this protest count because the case is still developing, and
   additional evidence may be produced." Id.

   In general, a protester bears the burden of proof with regard to
   allegations that an agency's procurement actions are improper. See, e.g.,
   Piezo Crystal Co., B-236160, Nov. 20, 1989, 89-2 CPD para. 477 at 9. In
   its various protest submissions following its initial allegation on this
   matter, SAP has presented no evidence of any kind indicating that Oracle's
   quotation fails to comply with the solicitation's "generally available"
   requirement. On this record, there is no basis to sustain SAP's protest
   that the agency unreasonably concluded that Oracle's quotation met the
   "generally available" requirement.

   Non-Price Evaluation Factors

   Next, SAP protests various aspects of the agency's evaluation of SAP's
   and/or Oracle's quotations under the non-price evaluation factors. Among
   other things, SAP complains, generally, that "the Air Force rated SAP as a
   `P' in a number of areas where it should have received a `P+'."[13]
   Protest, Nov. 4, 2005, at 30. For example, SAP complains that, with regard
   to the "in-service support" (ISS) area, although the agency's evaluation
   recognized 2 "elements" within this evaluation area in which SAP's
   quotation exceeded the solicitation requirements, SAP's quotation was only
   rated "P" for the ISS area. Similarly, with regard to the "supply chain
   management" (SCM) evaluation area, SAP complains that, although the
   agency's evaluation recognized 6 "elements" within this area in which
   SAP's quotation exceeded requirements; SAP's quotation was only rated as
   "P" for the SCM area. Id. at 31. In short, SAP apparently believes that
   whenever at least some elements within an evaluation area were recognized
   as exceeding solicitation requirements, the agency was required to rate
   SAP's quotation as "P+" for the entire evaluation area.

   In responding to this protest allegation, the agency notes that, although
   the agency's evaluation did, indeed, recognize 2 elements within the ISS
   evaluation area in which SAP's quotation exceeded the minimum solicitation
   requirements, the solicitation established a total of 314 elements that
   would be considered under the ISS area. Similarly, although the agency's
   evaluation did, indeed, recognize 6 elements within the SCM evaluation
   area in which SAP's quotation exceeded the minimum solicitation
   requirements, the RFQ established a total of 1,021 elements for
   consideration in assessing the SCM area. Contracting Officer's Statement,
   Nov. 30, 2005, at 26; RFQ attachs. 3, 4. The agency further notes that the
   final ratings with regard to the various evaluation areas reflected the
   evaluators' consensus judgment regarding whether a vendor's quotation
   exceeded the solicitation requirements in a meaningful way in the context
   of all the requirements relevant to a particular area, and that, in the
   evaluators' collective judgment, SAP's quotation did not exceed the
   solicitation requirements in a meaningful way when taking into
   consideration all of the elements under the ISS and SCM evaluation areas.

   In reviewing protests of agency evaluations, we will not reevaluate
   proposals; rather, we will review the record to ensure that the evaluation
   and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the
   terms of the solicitation and with procurement statutes and regulations.
   Matrix Gen., Inc., B-282192, June 10, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 108 at 3. A
   protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does not make the
   evaluation unreasonable. United HealthServ Inc., B-232640 et al., Jan. 18,
   1989, 89-1 CPD para. 43.

   On the record here, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency's judgment
   that, in the context of all the elements considered under the ISS and SCM
   areas, the comparatively few elements in which SAP's quotation exceeded
   the minimum requirements did not warrant a "P+" rating applicable to an
   entire evaluation area. SAP's protest in this regard merely reflects
   disagreement with the agency evaluators' collective judgment in this
   regard.[14]

   Price Evaluation and Best-Value Determination

   Next, SAP's protest submissions challenge various aspects of the agency's
   price evaluation and/or the best-value determination. For example, SAP
   references various positive comments made by the agency in evaluating
   SAP's quotation under the non-price evaluation factors, maintaining that
   such positive comments reflect "cost savings" associated with SAP's
   quotation,[15] and asserting that the agency "violated regulatory and
   statutory requirements by ignoring the substantial cost savings
   [associated with the agency's assessments under the non-price evaluation
   factors]." Protest, Nov. 4, 2005, at 17-22. In short, SAP complains that
   the agency's cost/technical tradeoff failed to reflect a downward
   adjustment of SAP's evaluated price to reflect "cost savings" identified
   during the agency's evaluation of non-price factors. Id.

   The agency responds that, although it did not quantify the "cost savings"
   that SAP maintains are reflected in the agency's evaluation of non-price
   evaluation factors, the agency did, in fact, consider all of the various
   positive elements of SAP's quotation when the best-value determination was
   made. Specifically, in the agency's source selection decision document,
   the BVDA acknowledged that SAP's quotation was superior to Oracle's
   quotation with regard to various non-price factors, stating with regard to
   the functional capability subfactor: "The evaluation team's overall
   assessment of each quoted solution indicated that SAP's quoted solution
   exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way
   beneficial to the Air Force and the Oracle quoted solution meets specified
   minium performance or capability requirements," and further noting that
   "SAP's quoted solution had more `Exceeds' and fewer `Does not Clearly
   Meet' evaluations than Oracle." Agency Report, Tab 18, at 1. With regard
   to quote risk under this subfactor, the decision document further
   acknowledged, "The overall quote risk evaluation for SAP was determined to
   be Low" and that "the overall quote risk rating for [the] Oracle quoted
   solution . . . was determined to be Moderate." Id. at 1-2.

   To the extent SAP is asserting that the agency was required to quantify
   these assessments, and adjust the vendors' evaluated prices for purposes
   of the cost/technical tradeoff, we disagree. The solicitation did not
   provide that vendors' quoted prices would be adjusted for cost benefits
   identified in the evaluation of the firm's technical approach and, in
   fact, it is not clear that there would be any reasonable way to quantify
   such costs.[16] As noted above, the solicitation provided that the agency
   would make risk assessments with regard to the non-price evaluation
   factors, expressly advising the vendors that such risk ratings would
   address the extent to which a quotation presented the risk of increased
   cost. As also noted above, in assessing SAP's quotation, the agency
   concluded that there was "low" risk of increased cost, whereas, in
   assessing Oracle's quotation as presenting "moderate" risk, the agency
   concluded that the quotation had some potential for increased cost.
   Accordingly, it is clear that the agency did, in fact, consider--but did
   not quantify or assign a particular dollar value to--the "cost savings"
   associated with SAP's higher-rated quotation, along with the potential
   cost increases associated with Oracle's lover-rated quotation.
   Accordingly, we find no merit in SAP's assertion that the agency's price
   evaluation and best-value determination "ignore[ed]" the "cost savings"
   reflected in the agency's positive assessments of SAP's quotation under
   the non-price evaluation factors.[17]

   In a similar vein, SAP asserts that the agency's price evaluation and/or
   best-value determination were flawed because the agency's cost/technical
   tradeoff failed to incorporate consideration of alternative licensing "buy
   out" options that SAP included with its quotation.

   As discussed above, the solicitation advised vendors, under the heading
   "Total Price Summary," that "prices shall be based on the Projected
   Cumulative Concurrent ECSS Users set forth in Table 3-1 of the RFQ." RFQ
   attach. 1, Instructions to Vendors, at 17. The referenced Table 3-1
   identified the total number of concurrent users, by contract period, for
   which software licenses would be required. RFQ at 9.[18] The solicitation
   also stated, within the section titled "Selection Factors for Award," that
   "[t]he price evaluation will be conducted on the total quoted price
   including all options." RFQ attach. 6, at 6. Finally, the solicitation
   provided a pricing template, titled "Total Price Summary," that sought the
   vendor's fixed prices for user licenses, maintenance/upgrades, technical
   support and training, travel, and other direct costs for the base period
   and for each of the six option-year periods. RFQ attach. 1, app. A. Both
   vendors submitted their quotations with the "Total Price Summary" template
   completed, Agency Report, Tabs 5, 11, and it was these total price
   quotations that the agency evaluated with regard to reasonableness,
   completeness, and realism, and on which the agency relied in performing
   its cost/technical tradeoff.

   SAP maintains that, because, in addition to the above, the agency
   requested information regarding the terms and conditions under which the
   agency could implement an enterprise license agreement authorizing an
   unlimited number of licensed users, the agency was obligated to
   incorporate that information into the evaluated price on which its
   cost/technical tradeoff was based. We disagree.

   As noted above, it is not the function of our Office to evaluate
   proposals. Rather, we will examine an agency's evaluation only to ensure
   that it was reasonably consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and
   applicable statutes and regulations. Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrications,
   Inc., B-279793, July 23, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 29 at 3-4. Agency
   acquisition officials have broad discretion in establishing the evaluation
   factors that will be applied to a particular acquisition. RMS Indus.,
   B-247233, B-247234, May 1, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 412.

   Here, as discussed above, it is clear that the vendors were advised that
   the agency's price evaluation, on which the best-value determination would
   be based, would reflect the vendors' total price for 250,000 licensed
   users, along with associated maintenance, technical support, training and
   travel, for a base period and six option-year periods. SAP's post-award
   protest assertions that, in performing the cost/technical tradeoff, the
   agency was obligated to rely on an evaluated price that differed from the
   definition of evaluated price established under the terms of the
   solicitation is without merit.[19] Protest, Dec. 19, 2005, at 3-9.

   Solicitation Provision Regarding Agency's Total User Requirements

   Finally, following receipt of the agency report responding to its initial
   protests, SAP filed a supplemental protest that essentially challenges the
   validity of the solicitation's projection of 250,000 licensed users. As
   discussed above, the solicitation stated that prices were to be based on
   the agency's projection of 250,000 users, as broken down by contract
   period in RFQ Table 3-1. The solicitation further indicated that a "user"
   could be either "man or machine." RFQ at 3. Consistent with the
   solicitation provisions, Oracle's quotation [deleted].[20]

   In its December 19 protest submission, SAP makes various arguments related
   to Oracle's [deleted]. SAP maintains that, due to this provision in
   Oracle's quotation, the number of licenses the agency will be required to
   acquire pursuant to Oracle's contract will exceed 250,000.[21] In this
   regard, SAP is effectively protesting either the solicitation provision
   that placed vendors on notice that a "user" could be "man or machine" or,
   alternatively, the reasonableness of the solicitation's projection of
   250,000 licensed users on the basis that it understates the government's
   actual requirements. See Protest, December 19, 2005, at 3-14.

   Our Bid Protest Regulations require that protests based on alleged
   solicitation defects or improprieties which are apparent prior to the
   closing time for receipt of initial proposals must be filed prior to that
   time. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21,1(a)(1) (2006). Engelhard Corp., B-237824, Mar.
   23, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 324. As discussed above, the solicitation advised
   vendors that either a "man or machine" accessing the software would be
   considered a "user,"[22] and that the agency's price evaluation would be
   based on a projected 250,000 licensed users. SAP did not challenge either
   solicitation provision prior to submitting its quotation. Accordingly, its
   protest regarding this matter is not timely filed.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The solicitation provided that vendors holding a Department of Defense
   enterprise software initiative blanket purchase agreement (BPA) were also
   permitted to submit a quotation.

   [2] The solicitation elaborated as follows: "To meet the ever-changing
   needs of the warfighter, Air Force logistics processes must significantly
   change. The Air Force can no longer view logistics processes in terms of
   functional areas but as a single integrated logistics enterprise." RFQ at
   3. The solicitation further provided that the product sought must include
   "core enterprise resource planning (ERP) capability and robust advance
   planning and scheduling (APS) capability," RFQ attach. 6, at 2, and stated
   that the ECSS program is intended to "encompass the full scope of U.S. Air
   Force Logistics operations," including: materials management and
   contracting; facilities management; configuration and bill of materials;
   document management; repair and maintenance; quality control; distribution
   and transportation; advanced planning and scheduling; customer
   relationship management and order management; decision support; and
   budgeting. RFQ at 4.

   [3] The solicitation noted, "It is anticipated that some limited Air Force
   logistics functions will not be covered by the COTS products (i.e.
   `go-to-war' functions) and this may require interfacing of a few
   associated legacy systems with the COTS products." RFQ at 7. Vendors were
   also advised that the Air Force intends to provide the selected software
   solution to a follow-on contractor for system integration activities to be
   performed pursuant to a separate solicitation and contract.

   [4] The RFP established two subfactors under mission
   capability--functional capability and technical compatibility; under each
   of these subfactors, the solicitation identified multiple "areas" for
   consideration. RFQ attach. 6, at 4-5. Within each evaluation "area," the
   agency considered multiple "elements" of capability. Id; Contracting
   Officer's Statement, Nov. 30, 2005, at 27; RFQ attachs. 3, 4. The mission
   capability subfactors and evaluation "areas" were assessed under the
   following rating system: (P+) "Exceeds specified minimum performance or
   capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Air Force"; (P) "Meets
   specified minimum performance or capability requirements"; (P-) "Does not
   clearly meet some specified minimum performance or capability
   requirements"; and (F) "Fails to meet specified minimum performance or
   capability requirements." RFQ attach. 6, at 3.

   [5] The RFQ provided that quote risk would be assessed with regard to each
   of the two mission capability subfactors, applying ratings of "High,"
   "Moderate," or "Low" risk. RFQ attach. 6, at 4, 6. "High" risk was defined
   as "Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, significant
   increased cost or significant degradation of performance." "Moderate" risk
   was defined as "Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule,
   increased cost or degradation of performance." "Low" risk was defined as
   "Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or
   degradation of performance." RFQ attach. 6, at 4.

   [6] With regard to price, the RFQ provided that the agency would assess
   the reasonableness, completeness and realism of each vendor's "total
   quoted price including all options." RFQ attach. 6, at 6.

   [7] The RFQ provided that the Air Force intends to issue a delivery order
   for a base period with six 1-year option periods. RFQ at 2.

   [8] For travel and other direct costs, the vendors were to use estimated
   values specified in the RFQ. RFQ attach. 6, at 6; RFQ attach. 5.

   [9] SAP conducted its demonstrations from April 18 through April 22;
   Oracle conducted its demonstrations from April 25 through April 29.
   Contracting Officer's Statement, Nov. 30, 2005, at 2. Each vendor was
   required to conduct its demonstrations responding to various scenarios
   established in the solicitation.

   [10] The per-user license prices have been rounded to the nearest whole
   dollar.

   [11] The RFQ defined "generally available" software as:

   a)     Code that is in production-level use (already in a deployed state,
   not development, testing, or initial implementation) at 2 or more clients;
   [and]

   . . . . .

   d)     Code that has been implemented by at least 2 commercial (not
   vendor) systems integrators;

   RFQ attach 1, at 7.

   [12] As noted above, SAP's own solution was similarly comprised of various
   software modules, owned by SAP and [deleted], which similarly required
   "bolt-on" interface code.

   [13] As noted above, the solicitation advised vendors that, in evaluating
   the mission capability subfactors, the agency would make assessments with
   regard to various "areas" within those subfactors (including, for example,
   supply chain management, maintenance repair and overhaul management, force
   support planning, infrastructure management, in-service support, personnel
   and organization management, and financial/cost accounting). RFQ attach.
   6, at 4. The solicitation further provided that assessments would be made
   with regard to "element[s]" within the evaluation areas. Id.

   [14] SAP's multiple protest submissions also challenge various other
   aspects of the agency's evaluation under the non-price factors,
   subfactors, areas, and elements. For example, SAP complains that Oracle's
   quotation should have been rated as "High" risk, rather than "Moderate"
   risk under the functional capability subfactor; that, in areas where both
   quotations were rated as "Did Not Clearly Meet [requirements]," the
   agency's source selection process failed to properly recognize the
   different extent to which the quotations "did not clearly meet" the
   requirements; and that, overall, the agency failed to properly recognize
   the extent to which SAP's quotation was superior to Oracle's quotation. We
   have reviewed all of SAP's allegations, along with the agency's responses
   and the contemporaneous procurement record, and find no basis to sustain
   SAP's protest.

   [15] For example, an agency briefing slide that summarizes the evaluation
   of SAP's quotation under the non-price mission capability factor states,
   among other things, "Improved Transportation Processes - Full integration
   across the functional areas," "Ability to analyze spend patterns to
   facilitate cost effective purchasing decisions along with spend analysis
   capability by multiple characteristics," and "Superior transportation
   optimization and `what if' capability to ensure carrier efficiency
   resulting in reduced costs." Agency Report, Tab 17a, at 31.

   [16] We note that neither SAP's quotation nor its post-award protest
   submissions identify any particular amount of cost savings that should
   have been associated with SAP's technical approach.

   [17] SAP makes a similar argument regarding the agency's evaluation of
   Oracle's quotation, maintaining that with regard to agency assessments of
   relative weaknesses under the non-price evaluation factors, such
   assessments should have resulted in a high evaluated cost for purposes of
   the cost/technical tradeoff. We reject this argument on the basis, as
   discussed above, that the solicitation's evaluation criteria did not
   provide for the type of adjustments that SAP now asserts the agency was
   required to make.

   [18] This table provided that, by the end of the 7-year contract period, a
   total of 250,000 users was contemplated. Id.

   [19] SAP also presents other arguments challenging the price evaluation
   and/or the best value determination, intertwining assertions that the
   amount of the price differential (approximately [deleted]) referenced in
   the BVDA's source selection document was erroneously calculated, with
   arguments that the weight the BVDA afforded the price differential was
   inconsistent with the solicitation provisions that made non-price factors
   more important than price, and arguments that the best value decision was
   inadequately documented. We have considered all of SAP's arguments and
   find no basis for sustaining its protest.

   [20] SAP acknowledges that Oracle's quotation does not [deleted].

   [21] SAP maintains that, under its own quotation, the agency will not
   incur licensing costs for [deleted].

   [22] Our review of publicly available information on the Internet is
   consistent with Oracle's and the agency's position that requiring licenses
   for independently operated machines is not a novel concept.