Skip to main content

Protest of Procurement for Teleprocessing Services

B-193703 Published: Sep 04, 1979. Publicly Released: Sep 04, 1979.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

The procurement for teleprocessing services was conducted pursuant to the Teleprocessing Services Program. Under this program, Tymshare, Boeing Computer Services (BCS) and other companies hold Multiple Award Schedule Contracts (MASC). The contracting agency reviewed 38 MASC's to determine which contractors could meet the technical requirements, and found that Tymshare, BCS, and one other company did. BCS and Tymshare responded to the agency's "Memorandum for Teleprocessing Services Vendor." Both companies passed the benchmark tests. A delivery order was placed with BCS and Tymshare protested to GAO on the same date. The main issue in this case involved the interpretation of the solicitation requirements. Tymshare contended that the solicitation clearly established a mandatory requirement that vendors propose basic hardware which had been in operation for a minimum of 12 months, and noted that the IBM 3033 central processing unit proposed by BCS could not possibly meet this requirement because it was not available from IBM until several months prior to the solicitation. The agency maintained that vendors were not precluded from offering upgraded or enhanced versions of the basic hardware which had not been in operation for 12 months; the agency interpretation was supported by the language of the solicitation and GAO cannot conclude it lacked reasonable basis. The protester initially asserted that the vendor, to receive the order under MASC, was nonconforming in one technical requirement. After receiving the agency report, including a copy of the successful proposal evaluation, the protester asserted that the contractor's MASC showed nonconformity in two additional areas. As the protester failed to diligently pursue information which would have revealed later grounds for protest, protests were untimely. Additional protest grounds were based upon the contractor's publicly available MASC; the contractor's proposal did not depart from MASC, and the record indicated no attempt by the protester to obtain a copy of the proposal from the agency. The protest was denied.

Full Report

Office of Public Affairs