B-175317, SEP 8, 1972, 52 COMP GEN 118

B-175317: Sep 8, 1972

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

THE OFFEROR SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PERFORM THE LIVE BENCHMARK/DEMONSTRATION TEST THAT WOULD MEASURE THE PROPOSED SYSTEM'S NETWORK CAPABILITIES AND COST EFFECTIVENESS WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL FAILED TO OFFER FOR BENCHMARKING THE SYSTEM TO BE DELIVERED AND USED IN PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. 1972: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (CSC) BY THE FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE. A LIVE BENCHMARK/DEMONSTRATION TEST WAS ALSO CALLED FOR TO MEASURE NETWORK CAPABILITIES AND COST EFFECTIVENESS AFTER AN OFFEROR'S PROPOSAL HAD BEEN FOUND TO MEET SPECIFIED MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS. OFFERORS WERE ADVISED THAT TECHNICAL MODIFICATIONS WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AFTER JANUARY 25.

B-175317, SEP 8, 1972, 52 COMP GEN 118

EQUIPMENT - AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS - LEASES - EVALUATION - BENCHMARK/DEMONSTRATION TEST THE DETERMINATION THAT AN OFFER EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA AND ASSIGNED WEIGHTS CONTAINED IN A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS DID NOT MEET THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR RENTAL OF NATIONWIDE COMPUTER NETWORK FACILITIES BY MEANS OF A COMMERCIALLY MARKETED SYSTEM CALLED "FULL- SERVICES TELEPROCESSING" WITH ACCESS TO A COMMON DATA BASE AND, THEREFORE, THE OFFEROR SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PERFORM THE LIVE BENCHMARK/DEMONSTRATION TEST THAT WOULD MEASURE THE PROPOSED SYSTEM'S NETWORK CAPABILITIES AND COST EFFECTIVENESS WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL FAILED TO OFFER FOR BENCHMARKING THE SYSTEM TO BE DELIVERED AND USED IN PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, WHEREAS THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR, OPERATING A NATIONAL NETWORK AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING ITS PROPOSAL, MET THE EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP.

TO THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1972:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (CSC) BY THE FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. FTPH-L-28587-71.

THE SUBJECT RFP, ISSUED NOVEMBER 8, 1971, SOLICITED PROPOSALS FOR RENTAL OF NATIONWIDE COMPUTER NETWORK FACILITIES BY MEANS OF A COMMERCIALLY MARKETED SYSTEM CALLED "FULL-SERVICES TELEPROCESSING" WITH ACCESS TO A COMMON DATA BASE FOR THE PERIOD FROM DATE OF AWARD THROUGH JUNE 30, 1973, WITH OPTIONS FOR THREE YEARLY RENEWALS. THE RFP PROVIDED FOR EVALUATION ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIED CRITERIA AND ASSIGNED WEIGHTS. A LIVE BENCHMARK/DEMONSTRATION TEST WAS ALSO CALLED FOR TO MEASURE NETWORK CAPABILITIES AND COST EFFECTIVENESS AFTER AN OFFEROR'S PROPOSAL HAD BEEN FOUND TO MEET SPECIFIED MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS.

EIGHT FIRMS SUBMITTED TIMELY PROPOSALS BY THE DECEMBER 17, 1971, CLOSING DATE. A STAFF OF 29 SPECIALISTS FROM GSA AND OTHER AGENCIES EVALUATED THE PROPOSALS AND OBTAINED CLARIFICATIONS FROM THE EIGHT OFFERORS. TELEGRAM DATED JANUARY 21, 1972, OFFERORS WERE ADVISED THAT TECHNICAL MODIFICATIONS WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AFTER JANUARY 25, 1972. THEREAFTER, THREE OF THE FOUR OFFERORS INVITED TO BENCHMARK DID SO SUCCESSFULLY. WAS NOT ALLOWED TO PERFORM THE BENCHMARK BECAUSE GSA HAD DETERMINED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO MEET CERTAIN MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS. PROPOSALS OF THE THREE SUCCESSFUL OFFERORS WERE REEVALUATED AS TO TECHNICAL COMPETENCE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS. CSC RECEIVED THE HIGHEST OVERALL RATING AND WAS AWARDED THE CONTRACT ON MARCH 21, 1972.

BASICALLY, IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT GE, ON TECHNICALLY DUBIOUS AND MINOR GROUNDS, HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY AND UNFAIRLY DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BENCHMARK ITS PROPOSED SYSTEM AND THAT THE REAL ISSUE IS THE NECESSITY FOR THE DEMAND THAT GSA PERSONNEL BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN GE'S COMPUTER ROOM DURING THE BENCHMARKING. YOU ARGUE THAT GSA'S DETERMINATION THAT YOUR PROPOSAL DID NOT MEET CERTAIN MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS RESULTS FROM ITS CONFUSION AND IMPRECISION IN STATING ITS NEEDS. WITH REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESS TO A COMMON DATA BASE IN BOTH INTERACTIVE AND REMOTE BATCH MODES, IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT GE'S INITIAL PROPOSAL COMPLIED BY PROPOSING AS A TEMPORARY ARRANGEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1, 1972, BOTH ITS MARK II AND RESOURCE SYSTEMS TO ACCOMMODATE DIFFERENT TERMINALS THAT WOULD ACCESS ONLY ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE TWO COMPUTERS. WHILE THIS ARRANGEMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF TWO MAINFRAMES, YOU CONTEND THAT THIS WAS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE RFP AND GSA WRONGFULLY INSISTED UPON THE USE OF ONE MAINFRAME. AS A RESULT GE WAS COMPELLED TO ABANDON THE PROPOSED COMBINED USE OF BOTH SYSTEMS AND TO PROPOSE ONLY ITS RESOURCE SYSTEM TO RUN THE BENCHMARK AND FOR USE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1, 1972.

SINCE THE RESOURCE SYSTEM WILL NOT SUPPORT NONPROGRAMMABLE HIGH SPEED TERMINALS, GSA CONCLUDED THAT GE FAILED TO MEET THIS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, YOU CONTEND THAT WHILE THE RFP REQUIRED SUPPORT OF HIGH SPEED TERMINALS, OF WHICH RESOURCE IS CAPABLE, GSA ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED THE REQUIREMENT AS INCLUDING NONPROGRAMMABLE TERMINALS. IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE REQUIREMENT IN THE BENCHMARK DOCUMENTATION FOR SUPPORTING "IBM 2780 OR EQUIVALENT" TERMINALS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT A HIGH SPEED TERMINAL MUST BE NONPROGRAMMABLE TO BE "EQUIVALENT" SINCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF 2780 EQUIVALENTS ARE PROGRAMMABLE.

FURTHERMORE, YOU CONTEND THE BENCHMARK DOCUMENTATION WAS RECEIVED SO LATE THAT THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TIME TO SEEK CLARIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR PROPOSAL. YOU POINT OUT THAT 2 DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE RFP AN AMENDMENT ADVISED OFFERORS THAT THE CRUCIAL BENCHMARK MATERIAL WOULD BE SUPPLIED LATER AND THAT GE DID NOT RECEIVE IT UNTIL THE DUE DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS. ALSO, YOU POINT OUT THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE CLOSING DATE WAS DENIED. THEREFORE, YOU CONTEND THAT OFFERORS DID NOT KNOW PRECISELY WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTED OR WHAT TO PROPOSE UNTIL THE DAY PROPOSALS WERE DUE. IN THIS CONNECTION, YOU STATE THAT BY MODIFICATION OF FEBRUARY 1, 1972, GE COMMITTED ITSELF TO HAVE MARK II SUPPORT NONPROGRAMMABLE HIGH SPEED TERMINALS BY THE TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE TESTING, 90 DAYS AFTER AWARD.

WITH REGARD TO GSA'S REQUIREMENT OF JANUARY 18, 1972, FOR ON-SITE COMPUTER INSPECTION, YOU SAY THAT NO SUCH REQUIREMENT WAS CALLED FOR IN THE RFP BENCHMARK DOCUMENTATION AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO TEST THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM. FURTHERMORE, YOU CONTEND THAT THE REQUIREMENT WOULD VIOLATE GE'S SECURITY PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF ITS COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS' FILES. ALSO, YOU POINT OUT THAT GE WAS WILLING TO WORK OUT AN ALTERNATE PROCEDURE SUCH AS CLOSED- CIRCUIT TV MONITORING.

FINALLY, YOU CONTEND THAT COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION FAILED TO MEET MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING A FULL SERVICE NETWORK, INTERACTIVE FORTRAN, AND SECURITY FEATURES. YOU POINT OUT THAT THE RFP REQUIRED THAT ANY PROPOSED NETWORK BE AN OPERATING, TRIED AND PROVEN NATIONAL FULL SERVICE NETWORK AND THAT PROSPECTIVE VENDORS MUST HAVE HAD AT LEAST 1 YEAR'S EXPERIENCE IN PROVIDING COMMERCIAL TELEPROCESSING SERVICES AND 6 MONTHS PRIOR OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED BASIC HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE IN A TELEPROCESSING ENVIRONMENT. YOU ARGUE THAT CSC COULD NOT HAVE COMPLIED WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE AT THE TIME PROPOSALS WERE DUE ITS SYSTEM, INFONET, CONSISTED OF FIVE UNCONNECTED UNIVAC 1108S WHICH COULD NOT PRACTICABLY PROVIDE ACCESS TO A COMMON DATA BASE. YOU SAY THAT ALTHOUGH CSC HAD A FORTRAN COMPILER WHICH WAS CONVERSATIONAL, IT DID NOT OFFER COMMERCIALLY INTERACTIVE EXECUTION AS REQUIRED.

IT IS GSA'S POSITION THAT GE'S FUNDAMENTAL DEFICIENCY WAS ITS FAILURE TO OFFER FOR BENCHMARKING THE SYSTEM IT PROPOSED TO DELIVER AND USE IN PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. IT IS CLEAR FROM YOUR PROPOSAL AS INITIALLY SUBMITTED, AND AS MODIFIED, AND FROM YOUR CORRESPONDENCE SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROTEST, THAT GSA IS CORRECT IN THIS REGARD. AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, YOU OFFERED THE RESOURCES SYSTEM FOR BENCHMARKING, THE ADDITION OF THE MARK II SYSTEM BY ACCEPTANCE TIME, AND THE MARK III SYSTEM FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PERFORMANCE TIME.

OBVIOUSLY, REQUIRING BENCHMARKING ON THE SYSTEM PROPOSED FOR PERFORMANCE IS JUSTIFIED TO DETERMINE ITS CAPABILITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS. FURTHERMORE, WE SEE NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT YOUR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT RESULTED FROM ANY "CONFUSION OR IMPRECISION" IN THE RFP, WHICH WAS DESCRIBED IN YOUR FEBRUARY 4, 1972, LETTER TO GSA AS "EXTREMELY EXPLICIT AND IN FACT, ONE OF THE BEST DOCUMENTED SOLICITATIONS WE HAVE REVIEWED."

WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENTION THAT, CONTRARY TO THE RFP, GSA COMPELLED YOU TO ABONDON YOUR INITIAL PROPOSAL BY DEMANDING THE USE OF ONE MAINFRAME, WE NOTE THAT GSA'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION CLEARLY ASKED HOW YOU PROPOSED TO SUPPORT "ACCESS TO THE SAME COMMON DATA BASES WHEN REQUIRED (ON A DEMAND BASIS) REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE TWO MODES OF OPERATION ARE SUPPORTED ON THE SAME MAINFRAME OR NOT." ACCORDING TO GSA, THE QUESTION WAS RAISED NOT BECAUSE YOU PROPOSED THE USE OF TWO MAINFRAMES BUT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHAT METHOD WOULD BE USED TO TRANSFER INFORMATION BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE CLEARLY REQUIRED COMMON DATA BASE AND WHAT DELAYS THE PROCEDURE WOULD IMPOSE ON THE USE OF ALL OF THE INFORMATION. WE BELIEVE THE RECORD SUPPORTS GSA'S POSITION.

HOWEVER, YOUR RESPONSE WAS TO PROPOSE USE OF ONLY THE RESOURCE SYSTEM. GSA CONCLUDED THAT THE RESOURCE SYSTEM DID NOT MEET THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR SUPPORT OF NONPROGRAMMABLE TERMINALS. IN THIS CONNECTION, GSA POINTS OUT THAT THE REQUIREMENT DID NOT FIRST APPEAR IN THE BENCHMARK DOCUMENTATION ISSUED ON DECEMBER 10, 1972, AS YOU CONTEND, BUT WAS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH A-203 OF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING PERTINENT PROVISIONS:

A.

(1) THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-SPEED REMOTE BATCH TERMINALS WHICH MUST BE SUPPORTED ARE LISTED BELOW; HOWEVER, ALL OF THE FEATURES LISTED MAY NOT BE INCLUDED IN A SINGLE TERMINAL. THE TERMINALS FOR WHICH SUPPORT IS REQUIRED INCLUDE THOSE:

(F) WHICH MAY BE PROGRAMMED TO PERFORM MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS SUCH AS EDITING AND SERVING AS CONTROLLERS FOR MULTIPLE LOW-SPEED TERMINALS. SUPPORT OF NON-PROGRAMMABLE TERMINALS IS ALSO REQUIRED.

C. VENDORS WHOSE PROPOSALS MEET ALL OTHER MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE OPERATION OF BOTH HIGH AND LOW SPEED TERMINALS SUPPORTED DURING THE BENCHMARK. TERMINALS USED IN THE BENCHMARK DEMONSTRATION WILL BE THOSE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON.

WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIFICATION OF "IBM 2780 OR EQUIVALENT" IN THE BENCHMARK DOCUMENTATION, GSA OFFERS THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION:

IT SHOULD BE NOTED IN THIS CONNECTION THAT THE RFP REQUIRES NON PROGRAMMABLE TERMINALS, BUT NOT THE TERMINALS OF A PARTICULAR VENDOR. FACT, THE EQUIPMENT OF THREE DIFFERENT VENDORS, OTHER THAN IBM, WAS USED DURING THE BENCHMARK TESTS. THE BENCHMARK DOCUMENTATION REFERENCE TO IBM 2780 OR EQUAL IS MERELY AN EMPHASIS OF THE NON-PROGRAMMABLE CHARACTERISTIC DESIRED. THERE ARE PERHAPS A DOZEN OTHER MANUFACTURERS WHOSE EQUIVALENT EQUIPMENT IS USED BY THE GOVERNMENT. NON-PROGRAMMABLE TERMINALS ARE NOT AN IBM PRESERVE. HOWEVER, SINCE SOME OF THE OTHER EQUIPMENT CAN ACT AS PROGRAMMABLE OR NONPROGRAMMABLE, LISTING THE EQUIPMENT BY NAME WOULD HAVE INTRODUCED A CERTAIN AMBIGUITY. WHEN SUCH EQUIPMENT IS REFERRED TO BY ITSELF, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD TO BE NECESSARILY NON-PROGRAMMABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, EVEN GE ADMITS THE IBM 2780 IS NOT PROGRAMMABLE IN ANY WAY

GSA ALSO SAYS THAT THE BENCHMARK DOCUMENTATION WAS RELEASED TO GE'S MR. DEARBORN ON DECEMBER 10, 1971, AND NOT ON THE CLOSING DATE FOR PROPOSALS. FURTHER, GSA POINTS OUT THAT GE'S MODIFICATION OF FEBRUARY 1, 1972, REINTRODUCING MARK II TO COMPLY WITH THE NON-PROGRAMMABLE REQUIREMENT WAS NOT TIMELY AND, IN ADDITION, DID NOT OFFER TO COMPLY UNTIL ACCEPTANCE TESTING OR 90 DAYS AFTER AWARD.

IN VIEW OF OUR CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE FOREGOING WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE OTHER POINTS RAISED AS TO THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE GE PROPOSAL.

SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE ACCEPTED PROPOSAL IT IS GSA'S POSITION THAT CSC MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP INCLUDING NETWORK, FORTRAN AND SECURITY CAPABILITIES. WITH REGARD TO THE LATTER TWO REQUIREMENTS, GSA HAS FURNISHED OUR OFFICE COPIES OF THE APPLICABLE PARTS OF CSC'S PROPOSAL AND ITS EVALUATION THEREOF. ON THE BASIS OF OUR EXAMINATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS, IT APPEARS THAT CSC CLEARLY MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. GSA FOUND THAT CSC COMPLIED WITH THE OTHER MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS IN THAT (1) IT HAS PROVIDED COMMERCIAL TELEPROCESSING SERVICES MORE THAN THE REQUIRED YEAR (SINCE 1969), (2) THE BASIC HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE PROPOSED HAD BEEN IN OPERATION MORE THAN THE REQUIRED 6 MONTHS AND (3) ITS PROPOSED INFONET SYSTEM WAS AN OPERATING NATIONAL FULL-SERVICE TELEPROCESSING NETWORK AS REQUIRED BY THE RFP. IN THIS CONNECTION, GSA HAS FURNISHED OUR OFFICE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION OF CSC'S PROPOSED NETWORK:

THE COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION PROPOSED TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS WITH ITS INFONET NETWORK. THE INFONET NETWORK AS IT WAS THEN CONFIGURED WAS A SYSTEM OF FIVE (5) REGIONAL COMPUTER CENTERS, THREE (3) OF WHICH WERE LINKED BY DEDICATED, CONDITIONED INTER-REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS LINES. THE NETWORK WAS COMPOSED OF THREE MAJOR PARTS:

1. COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK

2. HARDWARE (U 1108)

3. SOFTWARE

THE COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK PERMITTED DATA TRANSMISSION AT SPEEDS UP TO 4800 BPS AND WAS CAPABLE OF EXPANSION TO HIGHER SPEEDS. IT SUPPORTED INTERACTIVE AND REMOTE BATCH PROCESSING AT THE FIVE COMPUTER CENTERS.

THE CENTER AT EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, WAS INTERCONNECTED WITH THE CENTERS AT OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS AND SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND WITH DEDICATED, CONDITIONED LINES. WITH DEDICATED, CONDITIONED COMMUNICATIONS LINES IN PLACE, THE CAPABILITY EXISTED FOR, AND OAK BROOK ACTUALLY DID SUPPORT, NOT ONLY ITS OWN AREA BUT THE WESTERN DISTRICT AS WELL, AT THE TIME THE PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED. IN LIKE MANNER, THE CAPABILITY EXISTED FOR SILVER SPRING TO SUPPORT THE WESTERN DISTRICT OR FOR EL SEGUNDO TO SUPPORT THE MID-WESTERN AND/OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT.

ACCESSIBILITY TO THE NETWORK FROM WASHINGTON, PHILADELPHIA, DALLAS, CHICAGO, DENVER, LOS ALTOS, LOS ANGELES AND HOUSTON (INSTALLATION IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME THE PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED) WAS ACCOMPLISHED USING ON SITE MULTIPLEXING AND CONCENTRATING HARDWARE AT CSC BRANCH OFFICES IN THOSE CITIES.

IN ADDITION, ACCESSIBILITY TO THE NETWORK FROM BALTIMORE, PITTSBURGH, MILWAUKEE, SANTA ANA AND SANTA MONICA WAS ACHIEVED VIA FOREIGN EXCHANGE OR DEDICATED HIGH SPEED LINES FROM OTHER BRANCH OFFICES IN THOSE CITIES. TOLL FREE SERVICE WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO AND FROM 32 OTHER CITIES. THE NETWORK DID, IN FACT PROVIDE SERVICES THROUGHOUT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AS INDICATED BY THE SHADED PORTION OF THE ATTACHED MAP. ALSO ATTACHED ARE THESE CIRCUITS IN BEING AT EL SEGUNDO, OAK BROOK AND SILVER SPRING AT THE TIME OF THE SUBMISSION OF CSC'S PROPOSAL. THE HARDWARE PORTION OF THE NETWORK CONSISTED OF ONE UNIVAC 1108 AT ALL SITES EXCEPT EL SEGUNDO WHERE TWO WERE INSTALLED.

THE NETWORK AT THAT TIME WAS OPERATIONAL USING TWO VERSIONS OF THE CSC OPERATING SYSTEM. MOST OF THE NETWORK WAS USING THE VERSION CALLED CSCX. THIS VERSION SUPPORTED INTERACTIVE AND REMOTE BATCH PROCESSING CONCURRENTLY TO OFFER FULL SERVICE TELEPROCESSING SUPPORT. IN USE IN THE EL SEGUNDO CENTER WAS A NEWER VERSION OF THE CSC OPERATING SYSTEM CALLED CSTS. THIS VERSION WAS DEVELOPED BY CSC AND BECAME OPERATIONAL ON MARCH 14, 1971, AT WHICH TIME BLOCK TIME WAS SCHEDULED FOR EXTERNAL APPLICATIONS DEVELOPMENT.

CSC PROPOSED TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS WITH THE INFONET NETWORK USING THE CSTS VERSION OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM. THE EL SEGUNDO CENTER WAS PROPOSED TO BE THE NATIONAL CENTER WHICH WOULD CONNECT TO EACH FEDERAL DATA PROCESSING CENTER AREA AS REQUIRED BY THE RFP.

ACCORDINGLY, CSC HAD AN OPERATING NATIONAL NETWORK AT THE TIME OF THE SUBMISSION OF THEIR PROPOSAL. THEIR CENTERS WERE LINKED TO ONE ANOTHER BY DEDICATED, CONDITIONED COMMUNICATIONS LINES FROM COAST TO COAST.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR OUR OFFICE TO OBJECT TO THE AWARD TO COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION.