B-197000, AUG 8, 1980

B-197000, AUG 8, 1980

DIGEST: 1. PROTEST THAT AGENCY SHOULD HAVE SOUGHT PLUG-TO-PLUG COMPATIBLE DISK MEMORY IN LIEU OF SPECIFIED SOFTWARE IS DENIED WHERE AGENCY POSITION IS NOT SHOWN TO BE UNREASONABLE. 2. PROPOSAL WHICH DOES NOT SATISFY AGENCY'S LEGITIMATE NEED FOR SPECIFIED SOFTWARE REQUIREMENT IS PROPERLY REJECTED AS UNACCEPTABLE.

INTERSCIENCE SYSTEMS, INC.:

INTERSCIENCE SYSTEMS, INC. PROTESTS THE SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) DAAH03-80-R-0036 AND THE REJECTION OF ITS PROPOSAL AS UNACCEPTABLE UNDER THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THE SOLICITATION WAS ISSUED BY THE U. S. ARMY MISSILE COMMAND (ARMY) FOR A UNIVAC MODEL 8433 DISK SYSTEM, OR EQUAL. THE PROTEST CONCERNS THE ARMY'S SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS (SO-CALLED "DIAGNOSTIC ROUTINES") TO BE USED TO TEST THE DISK SYSTEM IN VARIOUS SPECIFIED OPERATING MODES.

INTERSCIENCE VIEWS THE ARMY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR DIAGNOSTIC ROUTINES AS UNDULY RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITION AND BELIEVES THE ARMY SHOULD HAVE MET ITS NEEDS BY SIMPLY SOLICITING FOR PLUG-TO-PLUG COMPATIBLE DISK MEMORY OF PROVEN RELIABILITY AND ACCEPTING EACH VENDOR'S COMMERCIAL DIAGNOSTIC SOFTWARE. INTERSCIENCE ALSO ARGUES THAT ITS PROPOSAL WAS IMPROPERLY EVALUATED. WE FIND THE PROTEST TO BE WITHOUT LEGAL MERIT.

THE ARMY REPORTS THAT THE EQUIPMENT BEING PURCHASED WILL BE USED TO VERIFY A PRIME CONTRACTOR'S DATA ON A MISSILE SYSTEM, WHERE THE PRIME IS UPDATING ITS COMPUTER TO A UNIVAC 1100/81 CONFIGURATION, AND EXPLAINS THE NEED FOR THE SPECIFIED SOFTWARE AS FOLLOWS:

"DIAGNOSTICS ARE SOFTWARE AND, BECAUSE OF THIS USER'S UNIQUE FUNCTION, ARE INDIRECTLY AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE HARDWARE INVOLVED IN THIS SOLICITATION. IF A PRIME CONTRACTOR COULD BLAME ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN HIS DATA AND THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT ON A DIFFERENCE IN FUNCTION BETWEEN HIS EQUIPMENT AND THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT, AN EXTENSIVE AND VERY EXPENSIVE RE-VERIFICATION AND REVALIDATION OF THE PRIME CONTRACTOR'S DATA WOULD HAVE TO BE PERFORMED BY THE GOVERNMENT. *** IF SUCH DISCREPANCIES WERE FREQUENT, VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION WOULD VERY SHORTLY BECOME PROHIBITED BY COST, AND THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NO LONGER BE ASSURED OF A RELIABLE AND EFFECTIVE WEAPONS SYSTEM."

CONSEQUENTLY, THE ARMY BELIEVES IT MUST HAVE DIAGNOSTIC SOFTWARE THAT WILL OPERATE IN THREE SPECIFIED MODES - ON-LINE, IN-LINE, AND OFF LINE.

WE FIND NO BASIS FOR TAKING EXCEPTION TO THE ARMY'S POSITION. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ARMY VIEWS DIAGNOSTIC CAPABILITY IN THE THREE OPERATING MODES SPECIFIED AS NECESSARY TO PERMIT IT TO DETECT, CORRECT, OR AVOID A MALFUNCTIONING COMPONENT. WHILE THE PROTESTER BELIEVES THE ARMY CAN OBTAIN THE REQUISITE RELIABILITY WITHOUT IN-LINE DIAGNOSTIC SOFTWARE, IT HAS NOT SHOWN THE ARMY'S POSITION IS UNREASONABLE.

THE ARMY VIEWED THE INTERSCIENCE PROPOSAL AS UNACCEPTABLE FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. WHILE WE HAVE RESERVATIONS WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THOSE REASONS, WE THINK IT IS CLEAR THAT WITH RESPECT TO "IN-LINE DIAGNOSTIC" THE PROPOSAL WAS UNACCEPTABLE. THE ARMY'S REQUIREMENTS IN THIS CONNECTION WERE STATED IN THE RFP AND EXPLAINED DURING COMPETITIVE RANGE DISCUSSIONS. BASED ON INTERSCIENCE'S MANUALS AND ANSWERS PROVIDED DURING DISCUSSIONS, THE ARMY CONCLUDED THAT THE PROTESTER COULD NOT MEET THE DIAGNOSTIC REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THE TEST BUTTON ON THE INTERSCIENCE SYSTEM CONTROL UNIT DISABLES THE INTERSCIENCE DISK SYSTEM FOR THE DURATION OF THE TEST AND BECAUSE ITS DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURES DID NOT PROVIDE FOR A COMPLETE TEST OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM DURING NORMAL OPERATION. SINCE THIS WAS INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE ARMY WAS SEEKING - A TEST WHICH COULD BE INITIATED FROM THE DISK DRIVE CONTROL UNIT AND WHICH WAS COMPRISED OF SOFTWARE ROUTINES WHICH WOULD BE PERFORMED WITHOUT INTERRUPTING NORMAL OPERATION - THE REJECTION OF INTERSCIENCE'S PROPOSAL WAS NOT IMPROPER.

THE PROTEST IS DENIED.