B-182397, MAR 27, 1975

B-182397, MAR 27, 1975

1. UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF IMPROPER NEGOTIATIONS AFTER RECEIPT OF BEST AND FINAL OFFERS WITH PROPOSER WHO WAS AWARDED CONTRACT WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH RFP SPECIFICATIONS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CONCLUSION THAT IMPROPER DISCUSSIONS DID, IN FACT, OCCUR; AND RECORD DISCLOSES THAT AGENCY DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF INCONSISTENCY UNTIL AFTER PROTEST WAS FILED. 2. FACT THAT PROTESTER IS CORRECT IN ESTABLISHING THAT ERROR EXISTS IN PROCUREMENT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY GUARANTEE RELIEF REQUESTED, SINCE PRIOR DECISION CONCLUDED THAT NO COMPELLING REASON EXISTED WARRANTING TERMINATION OF CONTRACT.

DATA 100 CORPORATION:

IN MATTER OF DATA 100 CORPORATION, B-182397, FEBRUARY 12, 1975, WE CONCLUDED THAT THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY HONEYWELL INFORMATION SYSTEMS (HIS) DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) WITH REGARD TO THE OPTIONAL ON-CALL, PER CALL MAINTENANCE PLAN. HOWEVER, SINCE THIS OPTIONAL MAINTENANCE PLAN WAS NEITHER EVALUATED FOR AWARD PURPOSES NOR COULD WE CONCLUDE THAT BY OFFERING THE NONCONFORMING OPTIONAL MAINTENANCE PLAN HIS WAS ABLE TO UNDERPRICE DATA 100, THERE EXISTED NO COMPELLING REASON WARRANTING TERMINATION OF THE HIS CONTRACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECOMMENDED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE THAT THE OPTIONAL MAINTENANCE PLAN SHOULD NOT BE SELECTED FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACTED FOR MAINTENANCE PERIOD.

BY LETTER DATED MARCH 3, 1975, DATA 100 HAS REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF OUR FEBRUARY 12 DECISION.

DATA 100 FIRST CONTENDS THAT THE AIR FORCE APPEARED TO IMPROPERLY CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE RFP WITH HIS BEYOND THE REQUESTED AUGUST 19, 1974, DATE FOR BEST AND FINAL OFFERS. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD BEFORE OUR OFFICE TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CONTENTION, NOR HAS DATA 100 PROVIDED OUR OFFICE WITH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION. MOREOVER, THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE AIR FORCE DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE HIS OPTIONAL MAINTENANCE PLAN AND THE SPECIFICATIONS CONTAINED IN THE RFP UNTIL AFTER DATA 100 FILED THE PROTEST. ACCORDINGLY, WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF, OUR OFFICE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT ANY IMPROPER NEGOTIATIONS OCCURRED.

DATA 100 NEXT ALLEGES THAT DIGEST NO. 3 OF OUR FEBRUARY 12 DECISION CONTRADICTS THE LANGUAGE OF AMENDMENT 0012 OF THE RFP. THE ONLY MENTION OF AMENDMENT 0012 IN THE DIGEST WAS AS FOLLOWS:

"SINCE OPTIONAL MAINTENANCE PLAN WAS NOT EVALUATED FOR AWARD PURPOSES

AMENDMENT 0012 REQUESTED THAT OFFERORS SUBMIT A SEPARATE ON-CALL, PER CALL REMEDIAL MAINTENANCE PLAN AND THAT EACH OFFEROR DESIGNATE WHICH MAINTENANCE PLAN (THE ON-CALL PLAN OUTLINED IN THE RFP OR THE OPTIONAL ON- CALL, PER-CALL OUTLINED IN AMENDMENT 0012) WAS TO BE USED IN EVALUATION FOR AWARD PURPOSES. HIS ELECTED TO HAVE ITS ON-CALL PLAN, NOT THE OPTIONAL ON-CALL, PER-CALL PLAN, EVALUATED FOR AWARD PURPOSES. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FAIL TO SEE THE CONTRADICTION ALLEGED BY DATA 100.

FINALLY, DATA 100 STATES THAT:

"IT IS *** DIFFICULT *** TO UNDERSTAND BOTH THE U.S. AIR FORCE AND THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE ADMITTING THE ERROR IN THE HONEYWELL CONTRACT, YET NOT ATTEMPTING TO CORRECT THE POOR JUDGMENT."

THE FACT THAT AN ERROR HAS BEEN UNCOVERED IN A PROCUREMENT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY RESULT IN THE RELIEF SOUGHT. IN THE INSTANT SITUATION, AS DISCUSSED IN THE DECISION, NO COMPELLING REASON WARRANTING TERMINATION OF THE HIS CONTRACT EXISTED, AS OUR OFFICE DETERMINED THAT THE ERROR PLAYED NO PART IN THE EVALUATION WHICH LED TO THE AWARD.

ACCORDINGLY, OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 12, 1975, IS AFFIRMED.