TITLE: B-298888, World Wide Technology, Inc., December 1, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298888
DATE: December 1, 2006
*******************************************************
B-298888, World Wide Technology, Inc., December 1, 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: World Wide Technology, Inc.

   File: B-298888

   Date: December 1, 2006

   Stephen S. Kaye, Esq., and William E. Olson, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, for the
   protester.

   Janine S. Benton, Esq., and Kathy C. Potter, Esq., Benton & Potter, PC,
   for Government Technology Services, Inc., an intervenor.

   John R. Caterini, Esq., and Barry C. Hansen, Esq., Department of Justice,
   for the agency.

   Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   In a procurement conducted under Federal Supply Schedule procedures,
   protest challenging agency's price analysis under a solicitation that
   provided for a realism assessment of quoted fixed prices for the issuance
   of a blanket purchase agreement is denied, where the protester asserts
   that the agency failed to consider that quoted laptop computers would not
   be available throughout the agreement's base term, but the record shows
   that the source selection official in fact considered whether the laptop
   computer models quoted would be available and reasonably concluded based
   upon the information before him that the models would be available.

   DECISION

   World Wide Technology, Inc. protests the establishment of a blanket
   purchase agreement (BPA) with Government Technology Services, Inc. (GTSI)
   by the Department of Justice (DOJ) under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
   DJJL-06-RFQ-0397 for desktop and laptop computers. World Wide complains
   that the agency unreasonably evaluated the realism of GTSI's proposed
   fixed prices.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ provided for the establishment of a BPA with a 3-year base period
   and 1-year option period for desktop and laptop computers and optional
   accessories, services, and peripheral equipment. The competition was
   limited to vendors who hold contracts under schedule 70 of the General
   Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). Prospective vendors
   were informed that the agency intended (but did not guarantee) to place an
   initial order for approximately 15,000 computers and to purchase
   approximately 60,000 computers over the base period of the BPA.

   The solicitation informed vendors that quotations would be evaluated on
   the basis of four factors: proposed workstation and laptop products,
   technical/management proposal, past experience/past performance, and
   "total evaluated price," and that award would be made on the basis of a
   price/technical tradeoff. RFQ, Evaluation Factors, at 1-2. With respect to
   the price evaluation factor, the solicitation provided a pricing table, on
   which vendors were to provide their FSS contract unit prices, their prices
   offered under this BPA, and their discounts from the FSS contract prices
   for each of the required computers, accessories and peripheral equipment
   for each of the 3 years of the BPA's base period. The pricing table evenly
   spread the agency's identified estimated quantities of desktop and laptop
   computers over the 3-year base period. See RFQ amend. 4, at 6-8. Vendors
   were informed that the price evaluation factor would be evaluated as
   follows:

     Based on the proposed DOJ [BPA] unit prices times the DOJ estimated
     quantities for each line item, a Grand Total All Workstations and
     Options Amount will be calculated by the Pricing Table. In reviewing and
     verifying an Offeror's Grand Total Evaluated Amount, the Government may
     make adjustments to the pricing table for errors and omissions, or make
     other corrections as deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer. In
     addition to the aforementioned adjustments, the Government may make
     Price Realism adjustments to the Gran[d] Total Evaluated Amount, if the
     circumstances warrant.

   RFQ, Evaluation Factors, at 1.

   The RFQ also provided a "technology refreshment" provision, under which
   the vendor or the agency could propose or request product substitutions
   for a number of reasons, including that the vendor's BPA product had been
   discontinued by the manufacturer. Vendors were informed that

     discounts proposed for the initial products shall apply to all
     subsequent additions or substitutions, which must be compliant with the
     [statement of work] requirements. If DOJ agrees to a permanent
     substitution, it shall receive at least the same percentage discount
     from the GSA price of the new item that it received on the original
     item.

   RFQ, BPA, at 11.

   DOJ received quotations from a number of vendors, including World Wide and
   GTSI, whose quotations along with those of two other vendors were included
   in the "competitive range." Discussions were conducted and revised
   quotations obtained. Agency Report (AR) at 9-11.

   The final revised quotations of World Wide and GTSI, which both offered
   the same Hewlett Packard desktop and laptop computer models, received the
   following technical scores:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                            |Maximum Points |    GTSI    |  World Wide  |
   |----------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------|
   |Proposed Desktop and Laptop |      40       |     40     |      40      |
   |----------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------|
   |Technical/Management        |      40       |     36     |      40      |
   |----------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------|
   |Experience/Past Performance |      20       |     15     |      18      |
   |----------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------|
   |TOTAL                       |      100      |     91     |      98      |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab 13, Source Selection Recommendation Report, at 5. These numerical
   ratings reflected the evaluators' judgment that both firms had submitted
   "outstanding" quotations with a number of strengths and no weaknesses or
   deficiencies. See AR, Tab 16, Technical Evaluation Report, at 13-15,
   20-22.

   The firms' quoted prices were evaluated under three pricing scenarios: (A)
   where the estimated requirements were spread evenly over the 3-year BPA
   period (as provided in the solicitation's pricing table); (B) where 67
   percent of the estimated requirements were obtained in the first year and
   the remainder in the second year; and (C) where all of the estimated
   requirements were obtained in the first year of the BPA.[1] World Wide's
   and GTSI's evaluated prices under the three scenarios were found to be:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |    Scenario     |           GTSI            |        World Wide        |
   |-----------------+---------------------------+--------------------------|
   |        A        |        $42,331,130        |       $47,394,500        |
   |-----------------+---------------------------+--------------------------|
   |        B        |        $55,253,560        |       $56,538,000        |
   |-----------------+---------------------------+--------------------------|
   |        C        |        $63,110,670        |       $62,179,500        |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab 13, Source Selection Recommendation Report, at 5.

   The evaluators recommended to the source selection official (SSO) that the
   BPA be awarded to GTSI because they concluded that World Wide's point
   advantage did not reflect a significant technical advantage and that World
   Wide's evaluated price was only low under the third scenario, which the
   evaluators concluded was unlikely to occur. Id. at 7.

   The SSO accepted the evaluators' judgment that World Wide and GTSI had
   submitted outstanding quotations. With respect to the technical/management
   factor, the SSO found that World Wide's point score advantage did not
   reflect any "significant differences" between the firms' quotations. The
   SSO viewed World Wide's point score advantage under the experience/past
   performance factor as "slight." AR, Tab 6, Source Selection Decision, at
   5.

   With respect to the firms' evaluated prices, the SSO stated that, although
   both firms quoted "deep discounts" to their schedule contract prices, GTSI
   was more aggressive than World Wide with respect to that firm's pricing
   for the second and third year of the BPA, and that was the reason that
   GTSI's evaluated price was determined to be lower under scenarios A and B.
   The SSO also determined that, although World Wide's evaluated price was
   lower than GTSI's price under scenario C (which reflected the agency's
   purchase of all its estimated quantities in the first year of the BPA),
   this scenario was "most unlikely." This was so because the various DOJ
   components that will place orders under the RFP have a range of buying
   cycles that cover the 3-year contract period beyond the first year. Id. at
   6.

   Besides the above scenarios, the SSO considered the firms' proposed prices
   under a number of additional scenarios, in which, under the BPA technology
   refreshment provision, the desktops and/or laptops would be replaced by
   newer equipment. The SSO stated that although "[i]t is a common accepted
   fact that computer technology prices fall over time as new products are
   introduced to the market," it is possible that substituted equipment could
   be offered, accepted, and priced at the higher first year BPA prices, and
   not at the lower prices quoted for the second and third years of the BPA.
   Id. According to the SSO, this could happen because the BPA's technology
   refreshment provision mandates that the original offered discounts must be
   applied to substituted equipment. The SSO stated that he determined, from
   his own research done on the internet, that Hewlett Packard had announced
   a replacement for the desktop computer model offered by both World Wide
   and GTSI, and that therefore there was a reasonable possibility that the
   desktop model would be "tech refreshed out" before the third year of the
   BPA. The SSO determined, however, that the laptop computer models quoted
   by the two firms had only recently been put on the market and that there
   was a reasonable possibility that these models would still be in
   production and available in the third year of the BPA base period. Thus,
   under the additional scenarios considered by the SSO to account for
   possible substitution, the SSO first calculated the firms' evaluated
   prices for the desktop computer models for the first year of the BPA as
   applicable to the estimated quantities for total 3-year BPA contract,
   based on the assumption that if desktops were substituted it would be at
   prices equivalent to the BPA's first year prices.[2] Added to this figure
   were the prices for laptops, calculated consistent with scenarios A and B,
   based on the assumptions that either the estimated quantities of the
   laptops would be purchased in even quantities over the 3-year BPA term, or
   67 percent of the laptops would be purchased in the first year and
   33 percent in the second year. Under each of these additional scenarios,
   GTSI's evaluated price was determined to also be lower than World Wide's
   evaluated price. Id. at 6-7.

   The SSO selected GTSI's quotation for award, based upon his determination
   that GTSI's quotation provided the lowest evaluated price in almost all
   situations, with the exception of one scenario that the SSO believed was
   unlikely to occur, and that GTSI's evaluated price advantage outweighed
   World Wide's "slight" advantage under the experience/past performance
   factor. Id. at 5-7. The BPA was awarded to GTSI, and, following a
   debriefing, this protest was filed.

   World Wide challenges the SSO's price analysis, complaining that his
   analysis did not consider that the laptop computers would likely also be
   "technically refreshed" during the BPA's term. In this regard, World Wide
   contends that information available from the manufacturer would have
   established the laptop computer models (offered by both GTSI and World
   Wide) would also become unavailable after the first year of the BPA.
   Because both the desktop and laptop computers will assertedly likely be
   technically refreshed during the BPA's base period, the protester argues
   that, in calculating the vendors' evaluated prices, the SSO should have
   considered the firms' first year prices as reflecting the "realistic"
   prices quoted by the firms. See Protester's Comments at 5. Such a
   calculation is equivalent to scenario C, under which World Wide's
   evaluated price would be lower than that of GTSI's.

   Where, as here, a solicitation provides for the establishment of a BPA on
   a fixed--price basis, "realism" of vendors' proposed pricing is not
   ordinarily considered. See Systems, Studies, and Simulation, Inc.,
   B-295579, Mar. 28, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 78 at 6. However, an agency may
   provide for a price realism analysis in a solicitation that contemplates
   the issuance of a BPA against the vendors' FSS contracts for the limited
   purpose of measuring vendors' understanding of the requirements or to
   assess the risk inherent in a vendor's quotation. See OMNIPLEX World Serv.
   Corp., B-291105, Nov. 6, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 199 at 9; PHP Healthcare
   Corp., B-251933, May 13, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 381 at 5. The nature and
   extent of such a price realism analysis ultimately are matters within the
   sound exercise of the agency's discretion, and our review of such an
   evaluation is limited to determining whether it was reasonable and
   consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Citywide Managing
   Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000,
   2001 CPD para. 6 at 4-5. A price realism analysis, if conducted, may
   affect the technical evaluation, but cannot properly lead to adjustment of
   the firms' fixed prices. See Verestar Gov't Servs. Group, B-291854,
   B-291854.2, Apr. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 68 at 6 n.3.

   The agency's analysis of the firms' quoted pricing here was apparently to
   assess quotation risk focusing on the possible impact of technical
   refreshment during the BPA base period on the vendors' prices. The
   protester does not contend that this basic methodology was insufficient,
   but for the reasons stated above contends that the agency improperly
   analyzed the results of the scenarios.

   As explained below, the protester's arguments provide us with no basis to
   object to the agency's analysis of the vendors' quoted pricing. The SSO
   analyzed the vendors' quoted prices under a number of scenarios, including
   the agency's consideration of the "technology refreshment" of the firms'
   proposed desktop computers. Under all but one of these scenarios, a
   scenario not likely to occur, GTSI's evaluated prices were lower than that
   quoted by World Wide.

   Contrary to the protester's arguments that the agency did not reasonably
   consider that the laptop computer models might not be available throughout
   the BPA base term, we find that the SSO did in fact do so. That is, the
   SSO considered whether the laptop computers would be subject to
   "technology refreshment" and concluded from the information that was
   before him that the laptops would likely be available through the third
   year of the BPA. In this regard, SSO performed his own research on the
   internet, which indicated to him that the laptop computer models were
   relatively new and not likely to soon be replaced by new models. AR, Tab
   6, Source Selection Decision, at 6. The protester has provided life-cycle
   charts for the laptop computer models offered by the two firms, which its
   states it obtained from Hewlett Packard, that purportedly shows that the
   laptop computers could not be ordered after October 2007. See Protest exh.
   4; Protester's Comments, exh. 5. World Wide argues that this information
   was readily available from Hewlett Packard. However, the protester has
   failed to show how the agency would have been aware of this information or
   would know to inquire of the manufacturer as to when the laptop computers
   would be discontinued. In this regard, the protester has also not provided
   any statements or other evidence from the manufacturer to support its
   arguments. Moreover, we note that the protester's quotation included no
   information indicating to DOJ that the laptop computer models offered by
   World Wide (the same models offered by GTSI) would become unavailable or
   would be subject to "technology refreshment" before the end of the BPA's
   term.

   We deny the protest.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The agency's evaluation plan provided that, as part of the source
   selection recommendation report, a number of different pricing scenarios
   would be calculated "to test the unit prices proposed across a range of
   possibilities." AR, Tab 33, Evaluation Plan, at 7.

   [2] We are unsure of the basis for the assumption that first year prices
   are the proper way to evaluate the "realistic" prices for computers that
   will likely be refreshed during the BPA's 3-year base period. However, the
   protester has raised no concerns in this regard and has adopted this
   methodology in its protest asserting that its quotation should have been
   considered as having a lower "realistic" price.