TITLE: B-297959; B-297959.2, NCR Government Systems LLC, May 12, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297959; B-297959.2
DATE: May 12, 2006
**************************************************************
B-297959; B-297959.2, NCR Government Systems LLC, May 12, 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: NCR Government Systems LLC

   File: B-297959; B-297959.2

   Date: May 12, 2006

   E. Sanderson Hoe, Esq., Jason N. Workmaster, Esq., and Jeniffer M. De
   Jesus, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester.

   Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., Elizabeth W. Newsom, Esq., John E. McCarthy,
   Jr., Esq., and Peter J. Eyre, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for IBM
   Corporation, an intervenor.

   JoAnn W. Melesky, Esq., and William Mayers, Esq., Defense Information
   Systems Agency, for the agency.

   Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protest challenging agency's acceptance of a late revision to awardee's
   proposal is denied where the agency reasonably accepted revision as a
   modification to an otherwise successful proposal.

   2. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of compliance of awardee's
   proposed equipment with solicitation requirements is denied where awardee
   stated that equipment met requirements and its proposal provided no reason
   for agency to conclude otherwise.

   3. Protest challenging agency's technical evaluation of proposals is
   denied where agency reasonably distinguished between offerors' proposals
   and protester was not otherwise prejudiced by the evaluation.

   DECISION

   NCR Government Systems LLC protests the award of a contract to IBM
   Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) HC1013-05-R-2006, issued by
   the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Information Technology
   Contracting Organization for the Commissary Advanced Resale Transaction
   System (CARTS). The protester contends that the agency improperly accepted
   a late proposal revision from IBM, waived a material RFP requirement for
   equipment for IBM, unreasonably evaluated offerors' technical proposals,
   and made an improper best-value award determination.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The agency sought proposals for the CARTS program, which will provide the
   Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) with its requirements for store sales
   operations. CARTS is intended to replace existing point-of-sale (POS)
   commissary systems with an updated commercial off-the-shelf system that
   includes sales hardware, associated software, technical refresh
   capabilities and maintenance. The CARTS solicitation requires provision of
   all personnel, supervision, management, training, materials and equipment
   for approximately 272 DeCA stores worldwide. The RFP anticipated award of
   an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price
   delivery orders with a base performance period of 5 years with five 1-year
   option periods.

   The RFP advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of
   three non-price factors--technical, management, and present and past
   performance--each of which had several subfactors and elements within the
   subfactors. RFP at 60-63. The technical and management factors were of
   approximately equal weight, and were each more important than past and
   present performance, which was more important than cost/price. RFP at 57.
   Each evaluation subfactor and element was of approximately equal weight.
   Id. For purposes of the award determination, the RFP stated that the
   non-cost/price factors, when combined, were "significantly" more important
   than cost/price. Id. Award would be made to "the offeror whose proposal
   contains the combinations of factors offering the best overall value to
   the Government . . . [which] means the expected outcome of an acquisition
   that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall
   benefit in response to the requirement." Id.

   Four offerors submitted proposals by the initial closing date, three of
   which were included in the competitive range. The agency conducted
   discussions with each competitive range offeror by providing written
   clarification and discussions questions. Offerors were required to respond
   to the written discussions and clarification questions, and were then
   given the opportunity to submit revised proposals.

   As relevant to this protest, the agency evaluated the offerors' revised
   proposals as follows:[1]

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                     |       NCR       |      IBM       |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |1.0 Technical                        |    Green/Low    |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |1.1 Keep Pace With Grocery Industry  |    Green/Low    |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |1.1.1 Customer Checkout              |    Green/Low    |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |1.1.2 Back Office                    |    Green/Low    |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |1.1.3 Capabilities Demonstration     |      Pass       |      Pass      |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |1.2 Improve Business Functionality   |    Green/Low    |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |1.2.1 Telecommunications/            |    Green/Low    |    Blue/Low    |
   |                                     |                 |                |
   |Transport                            |                 |                |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |1.3 Security                         | Green/Moderate  |   Green/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |1.4 Flexible Open System Architecture|    Green/Low    |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |2.0 Management                       | Green/Moderate  |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |2.1 POS Implementation and Management| Green/Moderate  | Blue/Moderate  |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |2.1.1 Program Management             | Green/Moderate  |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |2.1.2 CARTS Training                 | Green/Moderate  | Blue/Moderate  |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |2.1.3 Deployment                     | Yellow/Moderate | Green/Moderate |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |2.1.4 Incentive Structure            |    Blue/Low     | Green/Moderate |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |2.2 POS System Availability          | Green/Moderate  |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |2.2.1 Maintenance                    | Green/Moderate  |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |2.2.2 Help Desk                      |    Green/Low    |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |2.2.3 Configuration Management       |  Blue/Moderate  |   Green/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |2.2.4 Technical Refresh              | Green/Moderate  |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |3.0 Present and Past Performance     |    Green/Low    |   Green/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |3.1 Cost Control                     |    Blue/Low     |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |3.2 Schedule                         | Yellow/Moderate |   Green/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |3.3 Mission Requirements             |    Green/Low    |   Green/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |3.4 Quality                          |    Green/Low    |   Green/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |3.5 Management                       |    Green/Low    |   Green/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |3.6 Business Relations               |    Blue/Low     |    Blue/Low    |
   |-------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------|
   |4.0 Cost/Price                       |    [deleted]    |  $148,107,429  |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab 11, Final Evaluation Report, 3-1-3-3. Based on IBM's higher-rated
   technical proposal and lower cost/price, the agency selected IBM's
   proposal for award. AR, Tab 13, Source Selection Decision (SSD). Following
   its debriefing, NCR filed this protest.

   LATE SUBMISSION OF IBM'S CATALOG

   NCR contends that the agency improperly accepted a late proposal revision
   from IBM, and that IBM's proposal should have been rejected as
   unacceptable. The RFP required offerors to provide a cost/price proposal
   consisting of five elements: a price schedule, a priced solution, a
   catalog, a deployment schedule, and a summary report. RFP at 36-38. The
   price schedule required "contract line item numbers/sub contract line item
   numbers (CLINs/SLINs) of the major component unit prices that will be used
   for evaluating and ordering purposes." RFP at 10. The catalog is a "price
   list which is a detailed list of all commercial items that are included in
   the proposed Price Schedule's CLINs and SLINs." Id. at 37. The catalog was
   required to "cross-reference to the offeror's proposal and/or GSA catalog"
   and "will be used for ordering [miscellaneous] individual items that are
   bundled under other CLINs/SLINs." Id.

   IBM's initial proposal included all of the required cost/price proposal
   elements, including the catalog, and was submitted by the initial closing
   date for proposals. See AR, Tab 5, IBM Proposal. Following discussions,
   the agency informed offerors that final proposal revisions (FPR) could be
   submitted by November 21, 2005. In its FPR, however, IBM did not submit a
   revised catalog. On November 22, a member of the cost/price evaluation
   team noted that IBM's FPR did not have a revised catalog and so advised
   the contracting officer. Agency Cost/Price Evaluator Decl. para. 6. The
   contracting officer then contacted IBM, informing the firm that the agency
   had not received a revised catalog. Id. IBM responded that the catalog had
   been omitted by mistake, and submitted a revised catalog on November 22.
   AR, Tab 5, IBM FPR, Vol. V, E-mail from IBM to Agency Cost/Price
   Evaluator, Nov. 22, 2006.

   The agency argues that the catalog was not required for the evaluation of
   proposals, and that, in any case, the acceptance of the late catalog was
   proper as "a late modification of an otherwise successful proposal."
   Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and the "Instructions to
   Offerors--Commercial Items" clause incorporated into the RFP state that
   late modifications "that make [the proposal's] terms more favorable to the
   Government, will be considered at any time it is received and may be
   accepted." FAR sections 15.208(b)(2), 52.212-1(f)(2)(ii). An otherwise
   successful proposal is one that would result in the award of the contract
   to the offeror regardless of the late modification. Seven Seas Eng'g &
   Land Surveying, B-294424.2, Nov. 19, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 236 at 4.

   The protester primarily contends that IBM's failure to submit its revised
   catalog with its FPR rendered its proposal unacceptable, and that the
   agency could not have awarded the contract to IBM without conducting
   discussions. The protester asserts that, therefore, IBM was not an
   "otherwise successful offeror" whose late modification could be accepted.
   In this regard, the protester argues that, based on two clarification
   questions and responses, the agency required IBM to revise its catalog and
   IBM indicated that it would do so in its FPR. Thus, the protester
   concludes, IBM's initial proposal, as it relates to the catalog, was
   effectively revoked, and IBM's failure to submit a revised catalog
   rendered its proposal unacceptable. We disagree with the protester's
   characterization of the record and its legal conclusions.

   First, as NCR acknowledges, offerors were not required to resubmit their
   entire proposals in response to the agency's request for FPRs; rather,
   offerors were permitted to submit only those portions of their proposals
   they wished to change. See Protester's Supplemental Comments, Apr. 10,
   2006, at 3. Thus, the fact that IBM did not resubmit its catalog with its
   FPR did not, on its own, render IBM's entire proposal unacceptable.

   Next, NCR incorrectly claims that the agency found IBM's initial catalog
   unacceptable or otherwise required a revised catalog. The agency's
   questions regarding the catalog were "clarification" items, rather than
   "discussions" items, a distinction which indicates that there were no
   deficiencies that needed to be addressed in order for the proposal to be
   considered acceptable. See FAR sect. 15.306. More importantly, the
   clarification items cited by NCR do not identify any areas where the
   agency indicated that IBM's catalog was unacceptable or required revision.

   More specifically, the first clarification item requested that IBM address
   differences between prices in its catalog and its price schedule:

   Request the offeror review Catalog pricing for C0091 Server and C0092 Disk
   System Model and compare to unit prices provide[d] for 0044AA Hardware
   Service Centers. . . . The unit price in the Priced Solution should be the
   sum of items bundled in the Catalog for a given CLIN/SLIN. Request the
   offeror explain differences in unit prices between the Catalog and the
   Price Schedule.

   AR, Tab 7A, IBM Items for Clarification/Discussion, CET No. 14, at 23.

   In its written response, IBM explained that, in its view of the RFP,
   "[t]here was no RFP requirement for the rolled up catalog prices to equal
   the bundled CLIN prices. Id. at 23-24. IBM further stated:

     Along with the current catalog items for CLIN 0044AA, there are also
     several other components that we will include as additional catalog
     items. We will also add configuration components to the end items
     currently provided in the catalog to allow DeCA to procure identical
     servers and storage devices to those used in the Server Centers. This
     will result in an increase in current catalog prices for these items.

   Id. at 24.

   Nothing in this exchange indicated that IBM's catalog was deficient or
   required revision; rather, IBM indicated that it would add additional
   items to its catalog. In this regard, IBM stated in its response to the
   second of the clarification items cited by NCR that there was nothing in
   the price proposal, which details all of the prices for IBM's technical
   solution, that was not also in the catalog: "(3) There are no items listed
   in the Catalog that are not included in the Price Solution." Id., CET No.
   36,
   at 60. To the extent that IBM stated that additional items would be added,
   this revision had nothing to do with making its proposal acceptable.

   In the second clarification item, the agency requested that IBM respond to
   the following request: "Price all CLINs and SLINs in the proposal solution
   in the Catalog. Prices in the Priced Solution should be a sum of the items
   bundled in the catalog." Id. at 58. IBM responded that its response to the
   first clarification item, discussed above, applied here as well:

     Please see our response to CET 14. As explained, we followed the RFP
     instructions and included major end items in the catalog. Also explained
     in that response are several reasons that the sum of items in the
     catalog for each CLIN may not equal the price of the bundled CLIN.

   Id. at 60.

   The record shows that the agency evaluated the offerors' proposed
   cost/price based on the agency's calculations of proposals' "total
   discounted life-cycle cost" (DLCC), and that the agency did not rely on
   the catalog for evaluating offerors' proposed cost/prices.[2] In this
   regard, the agency's final evaluation of offerors' proposals determined
   that both IBM and NCR's cost/price proposals were complete, including
   catalogs. AR, Tab 10C, Final Cost Evaluation Report, sections 2.1.2 (NCR),
   2.1.3 (IBM). The agency noted, however, that neither offeror's catalog
   corresponded completely with its cost/price proposal. Id. In the final
   evaluation, the agency concluded with regard to both IBM's and NCR's
   cost/price proposals: "All requirements were priced, and figures correctly
   calculated, and presented in a clear and useful format."
   AR, Tab 11, Final Evaluation Report, at 2-74, 2-116. Therefore, even if
   IBM had not resubmitted its catalog, the agency's original concern
   regarding the mismatch between catalog and proposal prices would not have
   posed a barrier to award; indeed, both IBM's and NCR's FPR catalogs failed
   to completely address this issue.

   In sum, we conclude that nothing in the exchanges between IBM and the
   agency indicated that IBM's original catalog was unacceptable; thus, the
   agency could have awarded the contract to IBM without receiving the
   revised catalog. In these circumstances, the fact that a revised version
   was requested and received does not change this fact, and we conclude that
   the agency could properly consider a revised catalog from IBM as the
   otherwise successful proposal.[3] On this record, therefore, we deny this
   ground of protest.

   AUTOMATED COIN WRAPPER

   The protester next argues that the agency improperly waived an RFP
   requirement for an automated coin wrapper that it contends was missing
   from IBM's proposal. The "back office" element of the "keep pace with
   grocery industry" subfactor of the technical evaluation factor required
   offerors to demonstrate their ability to provide "functions in accordance
   with the SOO [statement of objectives] and its attachments. (Performance
   Specification 3.1.2)." RFP at 60, sect. 1.1.2. System performance
   specification (SPS) sect. 3.1.2 listed several required components for the
   back office, including a cash management system, which was defined as
   "cash/coin counting machines that interface with the front-end cashier
   closeout settlement process whereby . . . cash/coins are loaded and
   processed." RFP, SPS sect. 3.1.2.2.1. The hardware requirements in the SPS
   identified the following requirement for the cash management system: "The
   cash management system hardware shall be comprised of a bill and coin
   counter/sorter, an integrated printer, and automated coin wrapper." Id.
   sect. 3.2.2.7.

   IBM's proposal described the coin sorter that would be provided to meet
   the back office function hardware requirements:

     The [deleted] is a rugged, easy-to-use coin sorter that can handle every
     US coin, from the penny to the Susan B. Anthony Golden Dollar. This coin
     sorter is able to handle the coinage volumes at large a DeCA commissary,
     with processing speeds of to [deleted] coins per minutes. The accuracy
     rating on the [deleted].

   AR, Tab 5, IBM FPR, Vol. II, at 91.

   During discussions, the agency requested that IBM confirm that its
   proposed equipment met the RFP requirements in the following clarification
   item during discussions:

     Information Required from the offeror: Request the offeror confirm
     0013AD/0014AD Cash Management System includes the following in
     accordance with the RFP: bill and coin counter/sorter, integrated
     printer, and automated coin wrapper.

     Response: IBM's Cash Management System, CLINs 0013AD/0014AD includes
     bill and coin counter/sorter and automated coin wrapper.

   AR, Tab 7B, IBM Items for Clarification/Discussion, at 38.

   The protester argues that the product literature for the proposed IBM
   equipment demonstrates that the [deleted] model does not provide automated
   coin wrapping. NCR contends that the description for the [deleted] coin
   wrapping function indicates that a user must [deleted].

   The agency argues that the RFP did not provide specific standards for
   evaluating the term "automated coin wrapper." Moreover, the agency notes,
   product literature regarding offerors' proposed equipment was not
   required. Aside from the description of the [deleted], quoted above, and a
   picture of the equipment, IBM's proposal did not provide product
   information and did not submit the brochure.

   We conclude that nothing in the narrative description or pictures in IBM's
   proposal or IBM's clarification response put the agency on notice that the
   equipment would not meet the RFP requirement for an automated coin
   wrapper; to the contrary, IBM's response to the clarification item
   affirmatively stated that its proposed equipment met the automated coin
   wrapper requirement.[4] Where an solicitation has no requirement for
   product literature or other detailed descriptions of the equipment, where
   the awardee has not submitted such information, and where the agency has
   no basis to question the representation of the offeror, a post-award
   challenge to an awardee's compliance with a solicitation requirement based
   on product literature that was not submitted with the awardee's proposal
   does not render the agency's determination unreasonable. TransAtlantic
   Lines, LLC, B-296245, July 14, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 147 at 4; Rockwell
   Elec. Commerce Corp., B-286201 et al., Dec. 14, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 65 at
   10-11.

   In any case, the protester does not demonstrate that it was prejudiced by
   the agency's actions. To succeed in its protest, the protester must
   demonstrate not only that the agency failed to evaluate proposals in
   accordance with the solicitation and applicable regulations, but also that
   the failure could have materially affected the outcome of the competition.
   McDonald Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see
   Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). NCR
   does not demonstrate that it would or could have materially improved its
   competitive position had it been given an opportunity to submit a
   different coin sorter. See Northrop Grumman Tech. Servs., Inc.; Raytheon
   Tech. Servs. Co., B-291506 et al., Jan. 14, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 25 at 35.
   On this record, therefore, we deny this ground of protest.

   TECHNICAL EVALUATION

   NCR next argues that the agency improperly evaluated the offerors'
   technical proposals, for example by finding strengths in IBM's proposal or
   weaknesses in NCR's proposal in areas where NCR contends the offerors'
   proposals were similar or identical. In reviewing a procuring agency's
   evaluation of an offeror's technical proposal, our role is limited to
   ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms
   of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. L-3
   Communications Westwood Corp., B-295126, Jan. 19, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 30
   at 5. Our Office will not question an agency's evaluation judgments absent
   evidence that those judgments were unreasonable or contrary to the stated
   evaluation criteria. Kay & Assocs., Inc., B-291269, Dec. 11, 2002, 2003
   CPD para. 12 at 4.

   The RFP advised offerors that non-cost/price factors would be evaluated by
   assessing the strengths and weaknesses of proposals. RFP at 59. Proposal
   elements would be assigned significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses,
   significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. Id. Evaluation ratings were not
   averages of the individual evaluators' scores, but rather consensus
   determinations by the evaluation teams based on proposals' overall
   strengths and weaknesses. See Agency Memorandum of Law at 12.

   We discuss below each of the five evaluation areas that NCR claims were
   misevaluated.[5]

   (1) Maintenance

   The "maintenance" element of the "POS system availability" subfactor of
   the management evaluation factor required offerors to "describe
   maintenance procedures for the various types of system failures such as
   critical, non-critical, and routine failures . . . [and] [d]escribe levels
   of maintenance support (on-site user, customer engineer, off-site depot)
   and procedures for unscheduled and scheduled or preventative maintenance."
   RFP at 62, sect. 2.2.1; SOO Maintenance Plan, at 193-94.

   The agency credited IBM with a "significant strength" for proposing to
   "provide full [deleted] maintenance [deleted] for all CARTS components at
   all DeCA CARTS sites." AR, Tab 11, Final Evaluation Report, at 2-54. NCR
   contends that IBM's proposal did not propose [deleted], but rather
   provided for [deleted]. Supplemental Protest at 7. The protester cites as
   evidence IBM's proposal to [deleted] as indicated by the following
   statement in its proposal: "IBM's solution is an optimized, cost effective
   solution that contains devices whose maintenance [deleted]." AR, Tab 5,
   IBM FPR, Vol. III, at 65.

   The agency responds that IBM's proposal described [deleted] maintenance of
   equipment, and that the proposal's description of the IBM's [deleted]
   referred to the repair of equipment that [deleted] maintenance. The
   complete context of the proposal provision cited by the protester explains
   that IBM's approach to [deleted] involves reports to a Help Desk, which
   arranges for [deleted] location for [deleted] repair/maintenance. As IBM's
   proposal explains, "[u]pon receipt of the replacement part, the [deleted]
   POC [point of contact] will remove the replacement part from the shipping
   container, exchange the failed one with the new one and return the failed
   unit back to IBM in the replacement part's shipping container using the
   prepaid shipping label included with the replacement part." AR, Tab 5, IBM
   FPR, Vol. III, at 65. The agency considered IBM's proposal to provide
   [deleted] maintenance because any [deleted] work would occur only where
   the equipment was [deleted] because of the [deleted] maintenance. Agency
   Supp. Memorandum of Law at 15.

   We conclude that the agency's determination that IBM's proposal merited a
   "significant strength" for this issue based on its maintenance approach
   was reasonable and that the protester has provided no basis to challenge
   the evaluation.

   (2) Automated Store Close Procedure

   The "customer checkout" element of the "keep pace with grocery industry"
   subfactor of the technical factor required offerors to demonstrate:

     system capabilities to perform customer checkout in accordance with the
     SOO and its attachments . . . [and] to provide for pickups and loans
     inherent to the cashier balancing and register closeout functions,
     including approach to ensuring data integrity of sales and financial
     data and exchange with other POS business processes and data systems.

   RFP at 60, sect. 1.1.1.

   The agency assigned IBM a "significant strength" for proposing "an
   automated store close procedure that runs the end of day (EOD) for the
   cash office." AR, Tab 11, Final Evaluation Report, at 2-34. NCR contends
   that its proposed system provided a similar feature, but was not given
   credit for it.

   IBM's proposal stated that its software provides:

     [A]utomated store close functionality to eliminate the need for store
     personnel [deleted] the store close, thus eliminating mistakes that may
     occur during this process. Store personnel no longer [deleted]. In this
     same way, the automated store close feature will help DeCA reduce store
     labor expense, and improve the accuracy of the data tracked across all
     commissaries.

   AR, Tab 5, IBM FPR, Vol. II, at 36.

   With respect to store closing procedures, NCR's proposal stated that its
   software

     can [deleted].

   AR, Tab 6, NCR FPR, Vol. II, at II.1.2-5.

   The agency says it interpreted NCR's proposal to provide for [deleted].
   Agency Supp. Memorandum of Law at 17-18; AR, Tab 6, NCR FPR, Vol. II, at
   II.1.2-7. Thus, the agency contends, NCR's proposal is different from
   IBM's proposed approach, as the latter's end of day closing procedure
   occurs [deleted], thereby eliminating risks of [deleted]. Id. NCR argues
   that the agency's distinction between the two systems is a fine one, in
   that the agency is crediting IBM for having an [deleted] process as
   compared to NCR's process, which appears to require little [deleted] to
   initiate. We do not conclude on this record that the agency's evaluation
   was unreasonable for drawing this distinction, even though NCR believes it
   is a fine one. In this regard, our Office will not substitute our own
   judgment where the agency's conclusions are reasonable. See International
   Marine Prods., Inc., B-296127, June 13, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 119 at 6.

   In any event, there appears to be no possibility of prejudice to NCR for
   this evaluation because IBM's evaluated advantage over NCR under the
   customer checkout element was so large. In this regard, IBM received the
   highest rating (blue) and based on 14 significant strengths (including
   automated store close procedure), 13 strengths, and no weaknesses; in
   contrast, NCR received the second-highest rating (green), based on 1
   significant strength, 12 strengths, and no weaknesses. AR, Tab 11, Final
   Evaluation Report, at 2-34, 2-79. Even if we were to agree with NCR's
   argument on this protest issue, there does not appear to be any reasonable
   basis to conclude that NCR's evaluation score or relative standing to IBM
   could improve under this evaluation element.

   (3) Encryption of Electronic Shelf Label Transmitted Data

   The RFP required offerors to "comply with DoD and DeCA telecommunications
   requirements" under the "telecommunications/transport" element of the
   "improve business functionality" subfactor of the technical evaluation
   factor. RFP at 61, sect. 1.2.1. The performance specifications for this
   requirement stated:

     Air Fortress: Secure wireless support shall be required for wireless
     registers and hand held terminals. To achieve secure wireless
     transmission of data, CARTS shall interoperate with DeCA's wireless
     security solution and be adaptable to other emerging Wireless Local Area
     Network (WLAN) security solutions.

     Electronic Shelf Labels (ESLs): ESL technology that relies on wireless
     [radio] communications shall be secure from compromise as required by
     DoDD [Department of Defense Directive] 8100.2. If the existing
     commissary wireless infrastructure is used to support ESL, the CARTS ESL
     equipment shall integrate with DeCA's secure wireless infrastructure and
     utilize the implemented encryption technology.

   RFP, SPS sections 3.4.12.1, 3.4.12.4.

   The agency assigned NCR's proposal a weakness for failing to propose data
   encryption for wireless transmissions of electronic shelf label (ESL)
   data. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably assigned a
   weakness to NCR in this regard, despite the fact that IBM also did not
   propose ESL encryption.

   The agency determined that NCR's proposal for an ESL wireless transmission
   "does not encrypt transmitted data using DeCA's Air Fortress
   infrastructure or any alternative mechanism." AR, Tab 11, Final Evaluation
   Report, at 2-83. NCR does not dispute that it did not propose to use the
   Air Fortress infrastructure to encrypt data, but contends that IBM did not
   do so either, yet was not assessed a similar weakness.

   As the agency and intervenor note, IBM's proposal stated that it viewed
   the Air Fortress infrastructure requirements as not applying to IBM's
   proposed ESL transmission equipment. AR, Tab 5, IBM FPR, Vol. II, at 59.
   IBM's proposal explained that it relied on ESL equipment that [deleted]
   were exempt under the DoDD 8100.2 provisions for [deleted].[6] Id. The
   agency states that it relied upon this proposal language to determine that
   IBM's approach to ESL, which [deleted] DoDD 8100.2, was acceptable. Agency
   Supp. Memorandum of Law at 19. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
   we believe that the agency could reasonably rely upon IBM's proposal's
   assurance that it was not required to use the AirFortress infrastructure.
   We conclude, therefore, that the agency's evaluation here was
   reasonable.[7]

   (4) Support for Internet Protocol Version 6

   The RFP required offerors to meet the following requirement under the
   telecommunications/transport element:

     Internet Protocol Version 6: CARTS shall be fully operational in a
     Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) networking
     environment and compatible with Internet Protocol Version (IPv) 6. CARTS
     shall be IPv6 capable (in addition to maintaining interoperability with
     IPv4 system/capabilities). DeCA's network configuration at the time of
     initial deployment will rely on IPv4 and CARTS shall be re-configurable
     to support IPv6 when DeCA transitions its entire network infrastructure.

   RFP, SPS sect. 3.4.1.

   The agency assigned NCR's proposal a "key risk" under this element based
   on NCR's failure to provide Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
   functionality at deployment. NCR contends that IBM lacked this capability
   as well, and was not assessed a similar risk. The agency determined that
   "[s]ince the NCR CARTS solution is not IPv6 compatible at initial
   deployment, DeCA cannot predict the impact of transition between IPv4 and
   IPv6." AR, Tab 11, Final Evaluation Report, at 2-83. NCR notes, and the
   agency acknowledges, that neither IBM nor NCR proposed IPv6 capabilities
   at the time of initial deployment. Agency Supp. Memorandum of Law at 21.

   There does not appear, however, to be any possibility that NCR was
   prejudiced by this evaluation. Despite the "key risk" finding, the agency
   still rated NCR, overall, as "low risk" for the
   telecommunications/transport element, the same risk rating IBM received
   for this element. AR, Tab 11, Final Evaluation Report, at 2-40, 2-84.
   Thus, eliminating this risk for NCR or assigning IBM an equal risk would
   not have improved NCR's risk rating vis-`a-vis IBM in a manner that could
   have improved NCR's prospects for award.[8] That is, there is no
   indication in the record that the risk evaluation under this technical
   element influenced the subfactor or factor ratings in a manner that
   potentially prejudiced NCR or was in any way a basis to discriminate
   between the offerors' proposals. Thus, we conclude, that there is no
   possibility of prejudice to NCR under this evaluation.

   (5) Monitoring Software

   The agency assigned a strength to IBM under the
   telecommunications/transport element for proposing "a suite of monitoring
   software . . . that [deleted]." AR, Tab 11, Final Evaluation Report, at
   2-20. NCR argues that its proposal provided the same monitoring software
   feature, and that the evaluation was therefore unequal.

   The agency contends that were substantive differences between the
   proposals, most notably, that IBM's software provided monitoring for
   [deleted]. Agency Supp. Memorandum of Law at 22. The agency concluded that
   IBM's proposal exceeded the RFP requirements. In contrast, the agency
   concluded that NCR's proposal met, but did not exceed, the RFP
   requirements. In particular, the agency found that NCR's monitoring
   support was limited to [deleted]. Id. On this record, we conclude that the
   agency reasonably found that IBM's proposed monitoring software was a
   strength as compared to NCR's proposed software.

   In any event, there is no potential prejudice to NCR under this evaluation
   as well. Overall, for this technical evaluation element, the agency found
   that IBM's proposal warranted three significant strengths, four strengths
   and no weaknesses; NCR's proposal warranted two strengths and one
   weakness. Even if the agency had considered the offerors equal with regard
   to monitoring software, an additional strength for NCR or one less
   strength for IBM would not have clearly resulted in a different rating
   under this element.

   In sum, we conclude that the agency's evaluation for all of these
   technical issues provides no basis to sustain the protest.

   BEST VALUE DETERMINATION

   NCR argues that the alleged evaluation errors discussed above renders the
   best value determination and source selection decisions unreasonable.
   Because we find no basis to challenge the agency's evaluation of offerors,
   there is no basis to challenge the source selection decision (SSD). [9] 

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The proposals were assigned color ratings for each factor, subfactor
   and element: blue/exceptional, green/satisfactory, red/unacceptable, and
   white/not applicable. RFP at 58. A risk rating of low, moderate, or high
   risk was also assigned for each evaluation factor and subfactor.
   Cost/price was not scored. Id. at 59.

   [2] The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated based on their DLCC.
   RFP
   at 63-64. The RFP explained that "[t]he DLCC will be determined based on
   the Priced Solution, which is based on the offeror's proposed prices
   contained in the Price Schedule and quantities provided in Attachment 5
   Evaluation Quantities, over a 120-month period." Id. at 63. The RFP does
   not describe any role for the catalog for cost/price evaluation purposes.

   [3] The protester contends that our decision in CCL. Inc., B-251527,
   B-251527.2, May 3, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 354, is germane to the present
   protest. In CCL, we sustained the protest because the agency improperly
   accepted a late proposal revision by the awardee. CCL is distinguishable
   from the circumstances here, however, because the awardee's proposal in
   CCL had expired based on its own terms prior to the time for receipt of
   best and final offers (BAFO), and the awardee did not extend its prior
   proposal or timely submit a new one. Thus, when the awardee's proposal was
   received after the time for receipt of BAFOs, the agency could neither
   make award based on the prior, expired proposal, nor accept the new,
   untimely BAFO. NCR argues that submission of IBM's FPR revoked its prior
   proposal. The act of submitting an FPR here, however, did not revoke the
   entirety of the prior proposal because, as discussed above, offerors were
   permitted to submit FPRs consisting of changes to certain portions of
   their proposal, rather than resubmitting an entirely new proposal. In the
   absence of a defect in the original catalog, nothing prevented the agency
   from making award based on an FPR from IBM that did not include a revised
   catalog; the late revision to the catalog was therefore properly accepted
   as a modification of an otherwise successful proposal.

   [4] IBM and the agency contend that the [deleted] does in fact provide
   automated coin wrapping capabilities that meet the RFP's requirements.
   Because we conclude that there was no reason for the agency to further
   scrutinize IBM's proposal, we need not resolve whether IBM's equipment is
   unacceptable under NCR's interpretation of the RFP requirement for an
   "automated coin wrapper."

   [5] The supplemental agency report provides additional explanations as to
   why IBM was evaluated as having strengths under the five technical
   evaluation issues cited by the protester. Although the explanations for
   the strengths provided by the agency are more detailed than the evaluation
   summaries in the contemporaneous record, we conclude in each case that
   they are consistent with the contemporaneous evaluation and IBM's
   proposal. Therefore we do not conclude, as NCR's suggests, that the agency
   has provided improper post hoc or conflicting information as compared to
   the contemporaneous record.

   [6] Department of Defense Directive, Use of Commercial Wireless Devices,
   Services, and Technologies in the Department of Defense (DoD) Global
   Information Grid (GIG) "[e]stablishes policy and assigns responsibilities
   for the use of commercial wireless devices, services, and technologies in
   the DoD GIG." DoDD 8100.2, available at:
   http://http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf.d81002_
   041404/d81002p.pdf. The Directive states: [deleted].

   [7] The protester also argues that it was unfairly evaluated because its
   proposal stated that the Air Fortress requirements were inapplicable
   because NCR intended to use [deleted]. AR, Tab 6, NCR FPR, Vol. II,
   II.2.1-3-4. However, NCR's proposal did not propose a clear alternative to
   the RFP requirements or a basis for exemption under DoDD 8100.2; rather,
   it simply stated that [deleted] that NCR intended to use. Id. at 2.1-4.

   [8] The agency's evaluation of IBM did not address IPv6. The agency
   assigned one key risk to IBM for [deleted], and a risk for dependence on
   [deleted]. AR, Tab 11, Final Evaluation Report, at 2-40. For NCR, the
   agency listed two key risks for IPv6 [deleted]. AR, Tab 11, Final
   Evaluation Report, at 2-83-84. NCR does not challenge the latter key risk.

   [9] The protester has raised other challenges to the agency's evaluation
   of proposals in relation to the various issues discussed above. For
   example, NCR alleges that the agency has demonstrated a general pattern of
   unequal treatment and bias against NCR. We have reviewed all of NCR's
   protest allegations and find none of them warrants sustaining the protest.