B-196286, MAY 12, 1980, 59 COMP.GEN. 444

B-196286, MAY 12, 1980, 59 COMP.GEN. 444

CONTRACTS - SPECIFICATIONS - TESTS - BENCHMARK - REQUIREMENTS - STATUS TO PROTEST AGENCY AND INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR ARGUE THAT MERITS OF PROTEST REGARDING BENCHMARK SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED SINCE PROTESTER DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN BENCHMARK AND SINCE AT LEAST ONE RETRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IF REQUIRED. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WILL CONSIDER MERITS OF PROTEST BECAUSE (1) NEITHER REGULATORY GUIDANCE NOR EXPRESS AGENCY COMMITMENT GUARANTEED ANY PARTICIPANT A SECOND BENCHMARK ATTEMPT, (2) COMPETITION IS NOT MAXIMIZED BY FORCING VENDOR TO ATTEMPT BENCHMARK IT CANNOT COMPLETE SUCCESSFULLY, AND (3PROTESTER'S PARTICIPATION IN BENCHMARK, WHICH IT BELIEVED TO BE DEFECTIVE, MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN SUBSEQUENT UNTIMELY PROTEST. CONTRACTS - SPECIFICATIONS - TESTS - BENCHMARK - STRUCTURE - PROPRIETY PROTESTER CONTENDS THAT (1) BENCHMARK NARRATIVE DOES NOT FULLY DESCRIBE COMPLETE FUNCTIONS TO BE PERFORMED, (2) SYSTEM-CONTROLLED VARIABLES TESTED IN BENCHMARK ARE NOT SET OUR IN MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS, (3) ONE RUNSTREAM IS NOT DOCUMENTED HAVING NONINCUMBENT OFFERORS GUESSING HOW TO ACCOMPLISH IT, AND (4) CONVERTING RELATIVELY LARGE AMOUNT OF UNDOCUMENTED PROPRIETARY CODE IS AN UNDUE RESTRICTIVE BURDEN. CONTENTIONS ARE MERITORIOUS. RECOMMENDATION IS MADE THAT APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION BE TAKEN. CONTRACTS - SPECIFICATIONS - RESTRICTIVE - MINIMUM NEEDS REQUIREMENT - ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION REASONABLENESS PROTESTER'S OBJECTIONS-- TO FIVE MINOR BENCHMARK REQUIREMENTS ON GROUND THAT THEY PROVIDE INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR UNDUE ADVANTAGE-- ARE WITHOUT MERIT, SINCE (1) THESE ITEMS DO NOT PROHIBIT PROTESTER FROM COMPETING, (2) THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT REQUIREMENTS ARE IN EXCESS OF AGENCY'S MINIMUM NEEDS OR UNREASONABLE, AND (3) THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT INCUMBENT GAINED ANY ADVANTAGE THROUGH UNFAIR GOVERNMENT ACTION OR PREFERENCE.

MATTER OF: ADP NETWORK SERVICES, INC., MAY 12, 1980:

ADP NETWORK SERVICES, INC. (ADP), PROTESTS, THE PROPOSED PROCUREMENT BY THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) OF TELEPROCESSING SERVICES UNDER THE TELEPROCESSING SERVICES PROGRAM'S MULTIPLE AWARD SCHEDULE CONTRACTS.

UNDER THIS PROGRAM, USER AGENCIES WHICH HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA), AS SBA HAS HERE, MAY PLACE ORDERS FOR TELEPROCESSING SERVICES AGAINST SCHEDULE CONTRACTS AFTER THE USER AGENCY (1) EVALUATES THE TECHNICAL SERVICE FEATURES OF THOSE VENDORS WITH SCHEDULE CONTRACTS, (2) ELIMINATES FROM CONSIDERATION THOSE THAT DO NOT MEET ITS REQUIREMENTS, AND (3) SELECTS THE VENDOR'S SCHEDULE CONTRACT OFFERING THE LOWEST SYSTEM LIFE COST, PRICE AND OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED.

THE SBA ISSUED A NOTICE OF MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS AND ADP RESPONDED; SBA NOTIFIED ADP THAT ALL MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS HAD BEEN MET AND ADVISED ADP THAT A BENCHMARK WOULD BE HELD. ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1979, BENCHMARK MATERIALS WERE TRANSMITTED TO ADP AND ADP WAS ADVISED THAT ITS BENCHMARK WOULD BE PERFORMED ON OCTOBER 5, 1979. ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1979, SBA AND ADP PARTICIPATED IN AN INFORMATIONAL CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE BENCHMARK PACKAGE AND THAT DAY ADP FILED A PROTEST WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. SEPTEMBER 28, 1979, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED ADP THAT BENCHMARKS WOULD PROCEED AS SCHEDULED. FOUR DAYS LATER, ADP PROTESTED HERE.

ADP ESSENTIALLY REQUESTS: (1) THE ELIMINATION OF ALL UNNECESSARY PROPRIETARY CODE FROM THE BENCHMARK; (2) THE POSTPONEMENT OF 30 DAYS TO ALLOW COMPETING VENDORS TO DEVELOP FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENTS FOR ALL INCUMBENT VENDOR PROPRIETARY CODE THAT CANNOT BE ELIMINATED OR DOCUMENTED; (3) ELIMINATION OF ALL BENCHMARK REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT MANDATORY; AND (4) PERMISSION FOR VENDOR PERSONNEL TO ATTEND THE BENCHMARK TO ASSIST SBA PERSONNEL IN CASE THEY ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE VENDOR'S SYSTEM.

IN RESPONSE, SBA CONTENDS THAT IT HAS ADHERED TO GSA GUIDANCE FOR ACQUIRING COMMERCIAL TELEPROCESSING SERVICES AND IT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OR DECISIONS. SBA REPORTS THAT THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THINGS NOT IN THE BENCHMARK AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BENCHMARK WHICH COULD HAVE CAUSED ADP TO FAIL, WHICH WERE NOT DEEMED MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS. SBA ARGUES THAT GSA REGULATIONS INDICATE THAT IF A CONCERN ATTEMPTS TO BENCHMARK AND FAILS, AT LEAST ONE RETRIAL AT A REASONABLE INTERVAL IS TO BE PROVIDED; IN THE INSTANT CASE, HOWEVER, ADP CHOSE NOT TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THIS GSA REQUIREMENT. IT IS SBA'S OPINION THAT ITS DETERMINATION TO ELIMINATE ADP FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION DUE TO ITS FAILURE TO BENCHMARK IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR DECISIONS AND GSA REGULATIONS.

THE INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR, COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (CSC), NOTES THAT GSA GUIDELINES PROVIDE THAT AT LEAST 20 CALENDAR DAYS BE ALLOWED FOR VENDORS WHO HAVE ALREADY MET THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS TO PREPARE FOR THE BENCHMARK DEMONSTRATION AND THE PROTESTER WAS ALLOWED 23 DAYS; ADDITIONALLY, AT LEAST ONE RETRIAL IS ALLOWED. APPLYING THESE PRINCIPLES TO THIS PROTEST, CSC ARGUES THAT ADP WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IF IT WERE UNABLE TO COMPLETE THE DEMONSTRATION THE FIRST TIME. IN CSC'S VIEW, ADP HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE SBA REQUIREMENTS ARE UNDULY RESTRICTIVE AND ADP HAS NOT SHOWN THAT SBA WAS ARBITRARY IN THE LISTING OF ITS MINIMAL NEEDS. CSC ALSO STATES THAT SBA'S ACTIONS ARE REASONABLE BECAUSE "ADP WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM COMPETING ON A COST BASIS, ASSUMING IT HAD MET THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS, HAD IT NOT SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE BENCHMARK."

AT THE OUTSET, WE MUST REJECT SBA'S AND CSC'S CONTENTION THAT ADP'S FAILURE TO ATTEMPT THE BENCHMARK WHEN SCHEDULED FORECLOSES ITS FURTHER PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCUREMENT. FIRST, SBA'S AND CSC'S BELIEF THAT ADP OR ANY VENDOR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO A SECOND ATTEMPT TO ACCOMPLISH THE BENCHMARK IS NOT SUPPORTED. THE GSA GUIDANCE BOTH RELY ON FOR SUPPORT, GSA HANDBOOK, TELEPROCESSING SERVICES PROGRAM, FPMR 101- 36, OCTOBER 1978, STATES WITH REGARD TO BENCHMARKS THAT:

RECOMMENDED PRACTICES. THE FOLLOWING PRACTICES ARE TO ASSIST SELECTING ACTIVITIES IN ORGANIZING THEIR BENCHMARK EFFORTS * * *. THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION IS TO ACHIEVE A BENCHMARK WHICH IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SELECTING ACTIVITY'S ACTUAL WORKLOAD AT MINIMUM COST. THESE ARE SUGGESTED PRACTICES, NOT HARD AND FAST RULES. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO CONVEY CONCEPTS, SPECIFIC DETAILS OF APPLICATION ARE LEFT TO THE SELECTING ACTIVITY.

THUS, IN VIEW OF THE NONMANDATORY NATURE OF GSA'S GUIDANCE, ABSENT AN EXPRESS PROMISE OF A SECOND BENCHMARK ATTEMPT (TYMSHARE, INC., B-192987, AUGUST 28, 1979, 79-2 CPD 158), NO VENDOR WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A SECOND ATTEMPT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. HERE, THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE THAT SBA EXPRESSLY GUARANTEED ADP A SECOND ATTEMPT.

SECOND, IN VIEW OF THE RELATIVE COST ASSOCIATED WITH BENCHMARKING ($20,000 TO $40,000) AS COMPARED TO THE PROJECTED VALUE OF THE PROCUREMENT ($400,000), IT WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE TO REQUIRE A VENDOR TO ATTEMPT A BENCHMARK WHICH IT KNEW IT COULD NOT SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISH. SUCH A REQUIREMENT WOULD NOT TEND TO MAXIMIZE COMPETITION.

THIRD, IF ADP HAD OBJECTIONS TO THE BENCHMARK AND PARTICIPATED WITHOUT PROTEST, A SUBSEQUENT PROTEST TO OUR OFFICE MIGHT HAVE BEEN UNTIMELY. SEE, E.G., COMSHARE, INC., B-192927, DECEMBER 5, 1978, 78-2 CPD 387 (FAILURE TO PROTEST WITHIN 10 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF BENCHMARK PACKAGE OR, AT THE VERY LATEST, WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE ACTUAL BENCHMARK TEST); TYMSHARE, INC., B-190822, SEPTEMBER 5, 1978, 78-2 CPD 167 (FAILURE TO PROTEST WITHIN 10 DAYS OF NOTICE THAT AGENCY WOULD NOT CHANGE BENCHMARK AS REQUESTED BY PROTESTER); INFORMATION INTERNATIONAL, INC., B-191013, MAY 31, 1978, 78-1 CPD 406 (FAILURE TO PROTEST WITHIN 10 DAYS OF NOTICE OF AGENCY'S FAILURE TO CORRECT BENCHMARK PACKAGE AS REQUESTED BY PROTESTER).

ACCORDINGLY, WE WILL NOT SUMMARILY DENY ADP'S PROTEST; INSTEAD, WE WILL CONSIDER THE MERITS OF ADP'S SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE BENCHMARK PACKAGE.

ADP OBJECTS TO BENCHMARK REQUEST I.A.-- "(EXECUTE THE RUNSTREAM IN EXHIBIT 1A"-- BECAUSE THAT RUNSTREAM IS AN UNDOCUMENTED PROPRIETARY RUNSTREAM OF THE INCUMBENT; IT INCLUDES THE INFONET (A CSC COMPONENT) SYSTEM VARIABLE #V, A CAPABILITY NOT REQUIRED BY SBA'S NOTICE OF MANDATORY REQUIREMENT. OTHER THAN SBA'S GENERAL DENIAL OF ANY IMPROPRIETIES, THE RECORD CONTAINS NO SBA EXPLANATION OR REBUTTAL. CSC, HOWEVER, DID RESPOND TO THIS OBJECTION BY EXPLAINING THAT THE RUNSTREAM IS WRITTEN IN STANDARD GENERAL PROGRAM SUBSYSTEM (GPS) COMMAND LANGUAGE, FULLY DOCUMENTED BY INFONET AND IS SIMILAR TO A NUMBER OF OTHER WIDELY USED COMMAND LANGUAGES. IN CSC'S VIEW, THE NARRATIVE INCLUDED IN THE BENCHMARK PACKAGE FULLY DESCRIBES THE FUNCTIONS TO BE PERFORMED.

WE HAVE REVIEWED THE FACTUAL DISPUTE CONCERNING WHETHER THE BENCHMARK NARRATIVE FULLY DESCRIBES THE FUNCTIONS TO BE PERFORMED BY EXHIBIT 1A. CONCLUDE THAT THE BENCHMARK NARRATIVE IS NOT SELF DOCUMENTING AND REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THE INFONET SYSTEM FUNCTIONS AS WELL AS THE INFONET SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION. IN PARTICULAR, WE FIND THE FOLLOWING: (1) LINE 50 IS CONFUSING BECAUSE IT HAS NO APPARENT FUNCTION; AND (2) THERE IS A SPECIAL FEATURE (LINES 51-60, AND LINE 30) IN THE BENCHMARK REQUIREMENT THAT IS NOT APPARENT FROM SBA'S NOTICE OF MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ASPECT OF ADP'S PROTEST HAS MERIT.

ADP ALSO OBJECTS TO THE BENCHMARK REQUIREMENTS ID.3, "(SET AND INTERNAL VARIABLE," BECAUSE INTERNAL VARIABLES ARE NOT REQUIRED BY SBA'S NOTICE, AND I.D5, "(INTERRUPT THE COBOL PROGRAM AND SET #V8 TO 0610 AND BEGIN EXECUTION WITH A GO STATEMENT," BECAUSE SYSTEM VARIABLES ARE NOT REQUIRED BY SBA'S NOTICE AND THE "GO" STATEMENT IS INFONET SPECIFIC. ADP NOTES THAT THE PROGRAM WP1.CT INCLUDES THE INFONET SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTIC OF SETTING A SYSTEM VARIABLE (#V0) FOR TESTING OUTSIDE OF THE PROGRAM; FURTHER, THE JOB CODE LANGUAGE (JCL) TESTS THE SYSTEM VARIABLE #V0 AFTER EXECUTION; AND SYSTEM VARIABLE #V8 IS SET BY THE JCL PRIOR TO EXECUTING PROGRAM E2. IN ADP'S VIEW, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE SBA NOTICE FOR SETTING AND TESTING SYSTEM VARIABLES AND THESE CHARACTERISTICS ARE INCUMBENT-SPECIFIC GRANTING INFONET AN UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.

IN REPLY, CSC EXPLAINS THAT (1) SYSTEM VARIABLES SUCH AS #V0 AND V8 ARE COMMON TO A NUMBER OF TIME-SHARING SYSTEMS AND ARE NOT SPECIFIC TO INFONET, (2) SBA'S NOTICE REQUIRES USER ADDRESSABLE VARIABLES SUCH AS THE RETURN OR CONDITION CODE, AND (3) IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENT FOR "PROMPTING, TESTING AND BRANCHING" THAT THE VALUE ENTERED BY THE USER MUST BE PLACED IN AN AREA WHICH IS ADDRESSABLE AND THAT THE CONTENTS OF THIS AREA REFLECTS THE VALUE ENTERED-- IN OTHER WORDS, A VARIABLE. CSC CONTENDS THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR VARIABLES ADDRESSABLE AT THE COMMAND LEVEL IS OBVIOUS.

WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS FACTUAL DISPUTE ALSO. IN OUR VIEW, THE REQUIREMENT FOR VARIABLES ADDRESSABLE AT THE COMMAND LEVEL IS NOT OBVIOUS. HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE IT IS INFERRED FROM THE "PROMPTING, TESTING AND BRANCHING" REQUIREMENT WHICH WOULD BE MEANINGLESS WITHOUT SUCH VARIABLES. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EXPRESS REQUIREMENT FOR THE CAPABILITY TO QUERY A SYSTEM- CONTROLLED VARIABLE LIKE "#V0." THAT REQUIREMENT COULD BE MET BY MOST MAJOR TIME-SHARING VENDORS, BUT NOT ALL VENDORS' SYSTEMS WOULD PERMIT THE SYSTEM VARIABLE TO BE READ DIRECTLY AS THE BENCHMARK REQUIRED. ACCORDINGLY, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PORTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS PORTION OF THE BENCHMARK SHOULD BE BETTER EXPLAINED BY SBA AND SBA'S MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS AND BENCHMARK REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE MADE CONSISTENT.

NEXT, CSC EXPLAINS THAT THE "GO" STATEMENT IS USED TO RESUME A PROGRAM AFTER IT HAS BEEN INTERRUPTED, A CONCEPT UNIVERSAL AMONG COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND ADP SHOULD HAVE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THIS FUNCTION SINCE ITS COMMAND LANGUAGE CONTAINS TWO COMMANDS WHICH ACCOMPLISH THE SAME FUNCTION: CONTINUE AND REENTER. IN CSC'S VIEW, THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION IS IMMATERIAL BECAUSE THE RUNSTREAM IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SELF-VARIABLES ARE ALSO EASILY ACHIEVED BY SETTING RETURN CODES AND BY READING THE VALUES FROM A FILE.

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE RUNSTREAM IS NOT SELF-DOCUMENTING BECAUSE THE CAPABILITIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMANDS ARE NOT APPARENT ON THEIR FACE. INITIALLY, OFFERORS WOULD NEED THE DOCUMENTATION LINKING FILE NAMES USED IN THE RUNSTREAM TO THE BENCHMARK PROGRAMS. IN ADDITION, THE RUNSTREAM REQUIRES A PROGRAM WRITTEN IN PROPRIETARY LANGUAGE AND ANALYSIS OF THAT PROGRAM'S FUNCTIONS WOULD REQUIRE AN EXPERT IN THAT LANGUAGE. THAT REGARD, THE BENCHMARK INSTRUCTIONS ARE USELESS; THEY LACK CLARITY AND SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN WHAT IS EXPECTED. THEREFORE, THIS ASPECT OF THE BENCHMARK SHOULD BE REVISED.

ADP OBJECTS TO TWO OTHER BENCHMARK REQUIREMENTS: (1) "EXHIBIT 4E"-- ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS AN UNDOCUMENTED PROPRIETARY JCL RUNSTREAM THAT TESTS A RETURN CODE WHEREAS ONLY COBOL IS REQUIRED TO TEST A RETURN CODE BY THE SBA NOTICE; AND (2) "EXHIBIT 5B, 5C AND 5D"-- ON THE GROUND THAT THESE PROGRAMS REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY 1,400 LINES OF PROPRIETARY ALADIN CODE, REQUIRING CONVERSION OF AN ENTIRE SYSTEM IN ORDER TO BENCHMARK, BUT THE DOCUMENTATION SUPPLIED IS INSUFFICIENT IN SYSTEM LOGIC, FLOW AND DETAIL, THUS NOT SATISFYING GSA REQUIREMENTS RELATIVE TO CONVERTING PROPRIETARY CODE.

IN RESPONSE TO (1) ABOVE, CSC AGAIN NOTES THAT THE GPS COMMAND LANGUAGE IS FULLY DOCUMENTED AND IS SIMILAR TO COMMAND LANGUAGES IMPLEMENTED BY OTHER VENDORS; ALSO, THE ABILITY TO SET A RETURN CODE FROM EITHER COBOL OR A COMMAND IS REQUIRED BY THE SBA NOTICE AND EMPHASIZED IN A LETTER OF CLARIFICATION. NEITHER SBA NOR CSC SPECIFICALLY RESPONDED TO (2) ABOVE.

OUR CONCERN IS WHETHER EXHIBITS 4E, 5B, 5C AND 5D CONSTITUTE AN UNDUE BURDEN OF CONVERTING UNDOCUMENTED CODE. THESE EXHIBITS ARE ALL WRITTEN IN PROPRIETARY CODE; THUS, A NONINCUMBENT CONTRACTOR MUST START FROM SCRATCH WHEN ATTEMPTING TO EXECUTE THESE PROGRAMS. THE TASK IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT THAN CONVERSION FROM STANDARD LANGUAGES AND THE DOCUMENTATION SUPPLIED IS MINIMAL WHEN COMPARED TO THE TASK. THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION ON THE INTERNAL LOGIC OF THE PROGRAMS OR OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO ONE ANOTHER. THERE IS NO SAMPLE OUTPUTS TO USE IN THE TASK; FURTHER, EXAMPLE REPORTS ARE NOT CORRELATED TO EXHIBITS. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETE SAMPLE OUTPUT AND TEST DATA FOR EVERY PROGRAM USED IN THE BENCHMARK. FINALLY, THE BENCHMARK IS STRUCTURED SO THAT THE GREATEST EXPENSE IS DIRECTED TOWARD AREAS THAT COUNT THE LEAST. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND THIS ASPECT OF ADP'S PROTEST TO BE MERITORIOUS.

ADP ALSO OBJECTS TO THE FOLLOWING FIVE BENCHMARK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRIMARY REASON THAT THEY PROVIDE THE INCUMBENT AN UNDUE ADVANTAGE: (1) "READ FILES FROM CASSETTE OR FLOPPY DISK"-- SPECIFIC HARDWARE INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS ARE RESTRICTIVE; (2) "REFORMAT"-- THIS IS A PROPRIETARY ALADIN PROCEDURE; (3) "NUMBER TYPES"-- THE INCUMBENT'S SYSTEM DOES THIS BUT THE REQUIREMENT IS NOT IN THE SBA NOTICE; (4) "DISPLAY DATA BASE NAME, PAGES OF OVERFLOW"-- OVERFLOW PAGES ARE A FEATURE OF THE INCUMBENT'S ALADIN SYSTEM, WHICH IS NOT COMMON TO OTHER SYSTEMS; AND (5) "BLIND BENCHMARK"-- SBA PERSONNEL ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH NONINCUMBENT VENDORS' EQUIPMENT TO THE SAME DEGREE AS INCUMBENT'S AND ANY INCUMBENT BIAS CANNOT BE PREVENTED OR DETECTED. IN RESPONSE, CSC NOTES THAT: (1) SBA'S NOTICE CALLS FOR THE ABILITY TO ACCESS DATA RESIDING ON A DATA CASSETTE DEVICE AND ADP'S COMMAND "READ" PERFORMS THE FUNCTION OF TRANSFERRING DATA FROM A PAPER-TYPE DEVICE TO ANOTHER FILE; (2) SBA SUPPLIED A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE INPUT FILE FORMAT AND A LISTING OF THE REFORMATTED OUTPUT FILE; THE INCLUSION OF THE ALADIN LANGUAGE PROGRAM LISTING DOES NOT PREVENT THE VENDOR FROM REFORMATTING THE DATA AND (3) THE NUMBER OF TAPES ASSIGNED TO A USER BECOMES AN IMPORTANT ITEM IN DETERMINING THE RESOURCES CONSUMED BY THE USER FOR BILLING PURPOSES. NEITHER CSC NOR SBA EXPRESSLY RESPONDED TO ADP'S ITEMS (4) AND (5) ABOVE.

WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ARGUMENTS REGARDING THESE FIVE OBJECTIONS AND NOTE AT THE OUTSET THAT NONE OF THESE ITEMS WOULD PREVENT ADP FROM COMPETING. ADP COULD SATISFY ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FROM A FUNCTIONAL OR PERFORMANCE STANDPOINT. WHILE CERTAIN SYSTEM ADJUSTMENTS MAY BE NECESSARY ON ADP'S PART, THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE SBA REQUIREMENTS ARE IN EXCESS OF ITS MINIMUM NEEDS. ALTHOUGH THE INCUMBENT PROBABLY HAD AN ADVANTAGE, THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT CSC OBTAINED THAT ADVANTAGE THROUGH UNFAIR GOVERNMENT ACTION OR PREFERENCE. FURTHER, WE HAVE NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE UNREASONABLE. SEE INFORMATICS, INC., B-190203, MARCH 20, 1978, 78-1 CPD 215, AFFIRMED SUB NOM., 57 COMP.GEN. 615(1978), 78-2 CPD 84. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ASPECT OF ADP'S PROTEST IS DENIED.

IN CONCLUSION, THE PROTEST IS SUSTAINED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. LETTER OF TODAY, WE ARE FORWARDING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF SBA.