Protest Alleging Improper Rejection of Proposal

The General Services Administration (GSA) issued a request for proposals (RFP) on behalf of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for an automatic data processing system to replace a multiprocessor system that operated the NLM Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System. Benchmark testing was scheduled; however, the protester's proposal was found unacceptable because it had developed a shared-work file concept as opposed to the NLM-distributed version of the program, which provided a separate set of work files for each copy of the program. This change did not comply with an appendix to the benchmark instructions, and NLM stated that benchmark results would be distorted and not reflect the true performance of the protester's system in an operational environment. The protesting firm argued that it had been improperly denied the right to perform a benchmark because NLM had misinterpreted the RFP requirements permitting the redesign of existing programs. The protester contended that the appendix was not a mandatory requirement of the RFP, and therefore its proposal was improperly rejected. GSA, deferring to the NLM technical evaluation that the protester had failed to comply with requirements, recommended that the protest be denied; however, GSA disagreed with the NLM interpretation that the appendix was totally mandatory. GSA reasoned that to read the appendix as mandatory would render meaningless the option given offerors to redesign the entire existing retrieval system, since such line-by-line compliance would require offerors to propose the same system as currently utilized by the incumbent. GAO agreed with GSA that NLM had misread the RFP to show that the appendix was a mandatory specification. The protest was sustained. It was recommended that the protester be permitted to benchmark its proposed system or, if NLM found that the RFP had failed to state its minimum needs, the RFP should be amended and offerors permitted to submit revised proposals.