Skip to main content

B-211119.5, APR 17, 1984

B-211119.5 Apr 17, 1984
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

DIGEST: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION IS DENIED WHERE PROTESTER DOES NOT SHOW ANY ERROR OF LAW OR FACT IN THE DECISION THAT WARRANTS REVERSAL. THAT DECISION WAS RENDERED IN RESPONSE TO AN EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN CONNECTION WITH CIVIL ACTION NO. 83-1610. WE DISMISSED THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE MATERIAL ISSUES WERE BEFORE THE COURT AND THE COURT HAD NOT EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION. WE HELD THAT THE AIR FORCE PROPERLY FOUND THE AWARDEE'S BEST AND FINAL OFFER MET THE MANDATORY SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND THAT THE AWARDEE WAS ENTITLED TO AN ON SITE DEMONSTRATION VERIFYING THAT COMPLIANCE.

View Decision

B-211119.5, APR 17, 1984

DIGEST: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION IS DENIED WHERE PROTESTER DOES NOT SHOW ANY ERROR OF LAW OR FACT IN THE DECISION THAT WARRANTS REVERSAL.

A.B. DICK COMPANY:

A.B. DICK COMPANY (A.B. DICK) REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION IN A.B. DICK COMPANY, B-211119.3, SEPTEMBER 22, 1983, 83-2 CPD 360. THAT DECISION WAS RENDERED IN RESPONSE TO AN EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN CONNECTION WITH CIVIL ACTION NO. 83-1610. A.B. DICK FILED A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THAT DECISION ON OCTOBER 11, 1983. BY DECISION, A.B. DICK COMPANY - RECONSIDERATION, B-211119.4, NOVEMBER 4, 1983, 83-2 CPD 526, WE DISMISSED THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE MATERIAL ISSUES WERE BEFORE THE COURT AND THE COURT HAD NOT EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION. ON FEBRUARY 15, 1984, WE RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM THE COURT THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION.

A.B. DICK'S PROTEST INVOLVED THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR WORD PROCESSING UNITS TO COMPUCORP BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE (AIR FORCE) UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. F41689-82-R-0014. IN OUR INITIAL DECISION, WE HELD THAT THE AIR FORCE PROPERLY FOUND THE AWARDEE'S BEST AND FINAL OFFER MET THE MANDATORY SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND THAT THE AWARDEE WAS ENTITLED TO AN ON SITE DEMONSTRATION VERIFYING THAT COMPLIANCE.

A.B. DICK REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE AIR FORCE PROPERLY FOUND THAT COMPUCORP'S BEST AND FINAL OFFER MET MANDATORY SPECIFICATIONS. A.B. DICK AGAIN CONTENDS THAT COMPUCORP'S BEST AND FINAL OFFER DID NOT PROVIDE A SYSTEM "ABLE TO DELETE A CHARACTER, WORD, LINE, SENTENCE, PARAGRAPH OR SPECIFIED BLOCK," AS REQUIRED UNDER ONE SPECIFICATION. A.B. DICK ALSO REASSERTS ITS CONTENTION THAT COMPUCORP FAILED TO MEET A REQUIREMENT THAT CHARACTERS BE VISIBLE ON THE DISPLAY. A.B. DICK REFERS TO THE RFP CLAUSE WHICH ADVISES THAT "ALL MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET IN ORDER FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL TO RECEIVE FURTHER CONSIDERATION" AND ASSERTS THAT SINCE COMPUCORP'S OFFER DID NOT SATISFY THESE MANDATORY SPECIFICATIONS, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED. ACCORDINGLY, A.B. DICK CONCLUDES THAT THE SUBSEQUENT ON SITE DEMONSTRATION OF COMPUCORP'S EQUIPMENT AND DISCUSSIONS WHICH WE HELD NOT TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY OF THE OFFER WERE IMPROPER.

WE AFFIRM OUR INITIAL DECISION.

AS WE STATED IN THAT DECISION, WE WILL NOT DISTURB AN AGENCY'S DETERMINATION OF A PROPOSAL'S TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY ABSENT A CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE DETERMINATION WAS ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE. ITEL CORPORATION, B-192139.7, OCTOBER 18, 1979, 79-2 CPD 268. A.B. DICK DISAGREES WITH OUR DETERMINATION THAT COMPUCORP MET THE DELETION REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT BELIEVES THE RFP SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT WAS INTERPRETED BY THE AIR FORCE DURING NEGOTIATIONS TO REQUIRE DELETION BY SINGLE KEY STROKE AND TO PROHIBIT THE "BLOCK DELETE" BY MULTIPLE STEPS APPROACH OFFERED BY COMPUCORP. THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED AND CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION, AND WE FOUND THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS DID NOT REQUIRE SINGLE KEY STROKE DELETION CAPABILITY. A.B. DICK HAS ADDED NOTHING NEW IN THIS REGARD OTHER THAN THE ASSERTION THAT WE GAVE NO CONSIDERATION TO A.B. DICK'S STATEMENT THAT DATAPRO, A WORD PROCESSING TRADE PUBLICATION USED BY THE AIR FORCE IN EVALUATING PROPOSALS, SHOWS COMPUCORP'S PRODUCT DID NOT HAVE SINGLE KEY STROKE DELETE CAPABILITY. HOWEVER, AS NOTED ABOVE, WE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT UNDER THE RFP FOR SINGLE KEY STROKE DELETION CAPABILITY. ACCORDINGLY, THIS DATAPRO ARTICLE IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.

A.B. DICK ALSO ARGUES THAT OUR CONCLUSION THAT COMPUCORP MET THE REQUIREMENT, ADDED BY AMENDMENT, THAT "THE WORD PROCESSOR BE ABLE TO SHOW CHARACTERS IN DIFFERENT PITCH AND/OR PROPORTIONAL SPACING ON THE DISPLAY" WAS INCORRECT. WE ACCEPTED AS REASONABLE THE AIR FORCE INTERPRETATION THAT THIS AMENDED PROVISION WAS LISTED UNDER PRINTER STATION FEATURES AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO REQUIRE VARIABLE PROPORTIONAL SPACING TO BE VISIBLE ON THE DISPLAY.

WE CONCLUDED THAT:

"THE LOCATION OF THE AMENDED PROVISION UNDER PRINTER STATION FEATURES CONVINCES US THAT THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE THIS ON THE PRINTER ALONE MET THE REQUIREMENT. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT THERE IS A SEPARATE SECTION STATING MANDATORY SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DISPLAY."

A.B. DICK CLAIMS THAT THE AMENDMENT DID NOT REFERENCE OR CONTAIN A HEADING FOR "PRINTER STATION FEATURES" AND, THUS, REASONS THE AMENDMENT PROVISION WAS NOT INTENDED TO AMEND THE PRINTER STATION FEATURES, BUT WAS INTENDED TO ADD A SEPARATE DISPLAY REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, THE AIR FORCE CORRECTLY POINTS OUT THAT THE AMENDMENT REFERS TO SPECIFICATION SECTION 2.1.2.2 AND THE PRINTER STATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED UNDER 2.1.2. THE DISPLAY STATION REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT FOUND HERE, BUT ARE LISTED SEPARATELY UNDER 2.1.1. ACCORDINGLY, WE AFFIRM OUR PRIOR HOLDING IN THIS REGARD.

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT A.B. DICK HAS NOT SHOWN ANY ERROR OF LAW OR FACT WHICH WOULD WARRANT REVERSAL OF OUR DECISION THAT COMPUCORP'S BEST AND FINAL OFFER MET THE MANDATORY SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AT ISSUE AND THAT THE AWARDEE WAS ENTITLED TO AN ON SITE DEMONSTRATION VERIFYING COMPLIANCE. SEE 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.9 (1983).

OUR INITIAL DECISION IS AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs