THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN REDACTED FORM ON MARCH 14, 1994 _________________________________ GRANTED: March 26, 1991 _________________________________ Protests of : Federal Computer Corporation : GSBCA No. 11053-P 2745 Hartland Road : Falls Church, VA 22043 : : ICF Severn, Inc. : GSBCA No. 11065-P 4640 Forbes Boulevard : Lanham, MD 20706 : : Technology Applications, Inc. : GSBCA No. 11066-P 6101 Stevenson Avenue : Alexandria, VA 22304 : : Solicitation No. D90-4 : Granted : Appearances for : Gerard F. Doyle, Esq. Protester/Intervenor, : G. Lindsay Simmons, Esq. Federal Computer Corporation : James D. Bachman, Esq. : Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq. : Sarah J. Gaston, Esq. : Doyle, Simmons & Bachman : 919 Eighteenth Street, N.W. : Washington, DC 20006 : Appearances for : Richard J. Conway, Esq. Protester/Intervenor, : William M. Rosen, Esq. ICF Severn, Inc. : Sheila C. Stark, Esq. : Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin : 8300 Boone Boulevard : Suite 800 : Vienna, VA 22182 Appearances for : Lawrence R. Sidman, Esq. Protester/Intervenor, : Hopewell H. Darneille, III, Esq. Technology Applications, Inc. : William E. Vincent, Esq. : Brian A. Mizoguchi, Esq. : David P. Hendel, Esq. : Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, : McPherson & Hand, Chtd. : 901 Fifteenth Street, N.W. : Suite 700 : Washington, DC 20005-2301 : Appearances for Respondent, : Dalton F. Phillips, Esq. Department of Health and Human : Office of General Counsel Services : Business and Administrative Law : Division : Department of Health and Human : Services : 330 Independence Avenue, S.W. : Room 5362 : Washington, DC 20201 : : Richard S. Brown, Esq. : Office of General Counsel : Public Health Service : Department of Health and Human : Services : 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 1830 : Rockville, MD 20857 : Appearances for Intervenor, : Ruth Yudenfriend Morrel, Esq. Program Resources, Inc. : Dawn Elliott Oakley, Esq. : Cheralyn S. Cameron, Esq. : DynCorp : 2000 Edmund Halley Drive : Reston, VA 22091-3436 Opinion by Administrative Judge Hendley Three protesters challenge the award of a contract to Lockheed Corporation (Lockheed) by Program Resources, Inc. (PRI), a prime contractor of the respondent, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). We did not suspend performance of the contract. The solicitation is for a supercomputer system upgrade to be used by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Frederick, Maryland. The protesters, Federal Computer Corporation (FCC), ICF Severn, Inc. (Severn), and Technology Applications, Inc. (TAI), have each protested the award to Lockheed and each, as well as PRI, intervened in the protests of the other parties. Lockheed did not intervene in the protests. The cases were consolidated. We have jurisdiction over this protest under the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. 759 (1988), because PRI conducted the procurement as a purchasing agent on behalf of a federal agency. The protesters contend, inter alia, that the award to Lockheed was in violation of applicable statutes, regulations, and the Delegation of Procurement Authority (DPA) from the General Services Administration (GSA). At the close of the hearing in this case, we directed the parties to address in briefs only certain issues, i.e., the propriety of the respondent's acceptance of the Lockheed proposal as meeting the requirements of the solicitation for a mid-level processor and data management system (DMS) using a Convex C220 (C220) machine, and jurisdictional and standing issues. Unless otherwise indicated, our use of the term "respondent" includes PRI acting on respondent's behalf. Findings of Fact Procurement Background 1. In 1989, Congress appropriated $34,000,000 solely for the purpose of purchasing an upgraded, state-of-the-art, supercomputer system to support the science base at the National Institute of Health's (NIH) and NCI's Advanced Scientific Computing Laboratory. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-166, 103 Stat. 1159 (1989). HHS submitted an Agency Procurement Request (APR) to GSA on March 22, 1990, in accordance with FIRMR 201-23.106-2, requesting authorization to proceed with the subject acquisition. In the APR, HHS stated, "[T]his acquisition is being conducted by Program Resources, Inc., the Operations and Technical Support contractor for the FCRF [Frederick Cancer Research Facility at Ft. Dietrick, Maryland] under contract number N01-CO-74102." Protest File, Exhibit 1 (emphasis added).[foot #] 1 Thus, the acquisition was to be conducted by PRI, the operations and technical support contractor for the NCI's Frederick Cancer Research Facility. Protest File, Exhibit 1. HHS planned the acquisition as reflected in its November 22, 1989, Cost/Benefit Analysis. Protester TAI, Exhibit 3. A DPA was issued by GSA on April 23, 1990, with an authorized dollar amount of $50,000,000. Protest File, Exhibits 1, 2; Protester FCC, Exhibit 1; Protester TAI, Exhibits 5, 6. The DPA states, "[T]he original requester [HHS] will remain responsible for compliance." Protest File, Exhibit 2 at 2. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 There is one Protest File for all three of these consolidated protests. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- 2. PRI is a contractor that assisted HHS in the conduct of the subject procurement. In accordance with contract number N01-CO-74102 between PRI and HHS, PRI is the support services contractor for the Advanced Scientific Computing Laboratory (ASCL). Board Exhibit 1. On April 27, 1990, PRI issued solicitation number D90-4 for this procurement which is for a supercomputer upgrade and expansion for NCI's ASCL. Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 1. As evinced by the contract between HHS and PRI (PRI/HHS contract), NCI retained control over the conduct of this procurement. Board Exhibit 1. For example, the PRI/HHS contract is replete with references to the need to obtain prior written approval from the HHS contracting officer. Further, Attachment 3 to the PRI/HHS contract provides that the contractor (PRI) will not be reimbursed for the purchase of any ADPE without prior written approval of the HHS contracting officer. Board Exhibit 1, Attachment 3. In addition, Article G.6 of the PRI/HHS contract requires approval of the HHS contracting officer before acquiring capital equipment. Board Exhibit 1, Article G.6. Thus, in a letter dated December 31, 1990, PRI recommended awarding the contract to Lockheed and the HHS contracting officer then approved that recommendation. Protest File, Exhibit 20. The PRI/HHS contract also incorporated by reference FAR Clause 52.245-5, which provides that title to all property purchased by the contractor shall be retained by the government. FAR 52.245-5(c). More to the point, the PRI/HHS contract expressly stated in Article H.23 that: [T]itle to all property purchased under this contract, as authorized by the Contracting Officer, shall pass directly from the vendor to the Government. The Contractor, who is required to furnish such property under the contract, is acting as the purchasing agent for the Government in making arrangements for the delivery of such items, and shall not acquire title thereto. Board Exhibit 1 at 36 (emphasis added). The Solicitation 3. The solicitation contained mandatory specifications in paragraph C.2, and subjective technical factors to be used for technical scoring in paragraph C.4. Section C.3 stated that respondent would evaluate optional features by assigning dollar values to each. Protest File, Exhibit 3. 4. Section M.1 of the RFP required proposals to meet all mandatory requirements set forth in section C in order to be acceptable and eligible for evaluation. Section M.6 also stated that the proposal had to meet all mandatory solicitation require- ments in order to be eligible for award. There were certain performance validation requirements in the RFP. Paragraph M.6b provided that award would be made on the basis of highest "Earned Proposal Value" (EPV). The EPV was to be calculated on the basis of 100 total points equally weighted between cost and technical factors. Protest File, Exhibit 3. 5. The mandatory specifications required a mid-level processing system. This was to be a mini-supercomputer for various ancillary and support processing tasks such as image manipulation and graphics processing. Protest File, Exhibit 3 at Section C.2.2.2.2. This mini-supercomputer was required to have a minimum peak performance rating of 100 MFLOPs. Id. at Section C.2.2.2.2.1. It also had to meet a number of other requirements, including the capability to run simultaneously at least fifty scientific application programs in batch and the capability to support interactive access by at least 250 users concurrently. Id. at Section C.2.2.2.2.2. 6. The mandatory specifications also required a data management syster (DMS). Protest File, Exhibit 3 at Section C.2.2.2.4. The DMS was to provide a comprehensive hierarchical storage management and archival facility for managing files that are accessed by all processing platforms to be integrated with the upgrade being supplied. The RFP identified alternative approaches for the DMS. One such alternative was identified in Section C.2.2.2.4 as follows: Utilizing the processing capabilities of one of the other processing systems being supplied through this contract (e.g., the Mid-Level Processor or Front-End). Any such use shall not materially interfere with the normal operation and intended functionality of the selected processing system. Evaluation of Proposals and Award Selection 7. Initial proposals were received in July 1990 from FCC, TAI, Severn, Lockheed, and Cray Research, Inc. (Cray). A source selection procedure was used to select the awardee in this pro- curement. The Initial Technical Evaluation Group (ITEG) evaluated initial technical proposals in August 1990. Protest File, Exhibit 5. The Source Evaluation Group (SEG) reviewed the report of the ITEG and pricing in September 1990. It also reviewed the cost evaluations, made recommendations concerning the competitive range, prepared questions for negotiations with offerors, conducted oral discussions in October 1990, reviewed best and final offers received in November and December 1990, and performed final EPV calculations. Protest File, Exhibit 18 at 6- 15. The ITEG only scored the initial technical proposals. Despite the changes made in technical proposals in the first and second best and final offers, the ITEG did not rescore revised technical proposals or best and final offers. Transcript at 1440-41. The SEG did not rescore all technical proposals after discussions and best and final offers. Id. at 1477-78. 8. There were two rounds of best and final offers in this procurement. The SEG recommended award to Lockheed. The contracting officer concurred. Further negotiations, after receipt of the second round of best and final offers, were conducted with Lockheed alone in reliance upon the authority of HHS alternate source selection procedures. The contract was executed on January 9, 1991. Protest File, Exhibit 18 at 6-18, Exhibit 19. The Convex C220 9. All offerors proposed the same Cray supercomputer for the central processor, and many also proposed to use the same system support equipment. Lockheed proposed the Convex C220 machine for the mid-level processor and DMS requirements. No other offeror proposed using the Convex 220 for both functions. TAI offered the Convex C220 for the mid-level processor, but used a VAX 6530 front-end processor to handle the DMS. Cray offered a Cray Y-MP2E Supercomputer for the mid-level processor and DMS. Protest File, Exhibits 5, 18. 10. The Convex C220 is a dual processor, 100 MFLOP device. The minimum required rating for the mid-level processor alone is 100 MFLOPs. Protestor TAI, Exhibit 7; Protest File, Exhibit 3 at Section C.2.2.2.1. The solicitation did not specifically identify work load information for the DMS. In the absence of work load information, TAI prepared its proposal on the premise that 25 MFLOPs was a conservative estimate of the degradation of the C220 which would result from using it to handle both the mid- level processing and the DMS. Transcript at 260. TAI reasonably interpreted the RFP to say that the mid-level processor would take up 100 MFLOPs for mid-level processing. Id. at 316. TAI's chief scientist testified that it was reasonable to expect a great deal of similarity in the equipment that would be proposed by the offerors in this procurement, thus making any areas where an offeror could save money very important. Id. at 382. 11. The DMS was a large application. Since the C220 pre- cisely met the 100 MFLOPs rating requirement in the RFP, TAI assumed that to add the DMS would require a larger configuration with one or more additional processors. The Government's 1989 cost benefit analysis, which was not available to offerors prior to this protest, confirms that the DMS would use a great deal of resources. Transcript at 389-400; Protester TAI Exhibit 3. TAI informed respondent during negotiations that the C220 could not handle both mid-level processing and DMS. The Government did not respond. Transcript at 403-04. Had TAI known that respondent would accept the C220 for mid-level processing and DMS, TAI would not have incurred the cost penalty associated with its solution to accommodate the DMS requirements on the front-end processor. Id. at 406. 12. TAI based its offer on its belief that the front-end processor requirements and the DMS requirements of the RFP could not be met by the C220 because the use of the mid-level processor for the DMS would materially interfere with the normal operation and intended functionality of the C220 as mid-level processor. Transcript at 473-74, 546. 13. The DMS is essential to the operation of the entire system called for by this solicitation and constitutes one of its largest elements. Transcript at 568. To run fifty simultaneous scientific applications alone would require the full capacity of a 100 MFLOP mid-level processor. Id. at 580. The Lockheed proposal fails to satisfy the "not materially interfere" require- ment because adding the DMS to the mid-level processor would result in the processor not being able to operate normally since its response time would be degraded severely. The functionality would also be affected because it would not be able to do the jobs in any reasonable manner. Id. at 618-19, 626, 638. Adding buses to the C220 makes no difference. Id. at 646. 14. Severn's vice president of Systems Integration testified that the C220 could not satisfy both the mid-level processor and DMS requirements. Transcript at 724. If the C220 had met the requirements for both mid-level processing and DMS, Severn would have offered it for those purposes. It would have had a ripple effect on other aspects of Severn's proposal and on its price. Id. at 739, 745. Severn's engineering manager testified that the C220 could not support both the mid-level processor and DMS functions. Id. at 784-818. FCC's Director of Business Development was in charge of FCC's proposal. He testified that the C220 was the device of choice for the mid- level processor. However, it could not meet the minimum requirements for both mid-level processing and DMS. This is because the mid-level processor had to be a 100 MFLOP machine, and since the C220 is a 100 MFLOP machine, there is nothing left for the DMS. Id. at 839, 847-48. Had FCC known that the C220 would have been found acceptable for the combined mid-level processor and DMS requirements, it would have offered the C220. 15. The manager of the Supercomputer Center at NCI is an employee of PRI. Transcript at 961. He was the principal author of the mandatory specifications in the RFP, including the mid- level processor and DMS requirements. He was also the nonvoting chairman of the ITEG and a voting member of the SEG. Transcript at 965. By "not materially interfere," he meant not having severe degradation that would render the system useless, as well as not resulting in the system doing so much work that it would prevent work from being done on the mid-level processor. Id. at 1000. 16. A member of the ITEG raised a question as to whether the C220 was capable of performing mid-level processing and DMS. The ITEG discussed it, and the question was passed on to the SEG for further evaluation. Transcript at 1008. The specific question raised by the ITEG for consideration by the SEG was: Is the mid-level processor powerful enough to perform data management and mid-level processing functions or should a larger mid- level processor (e.g., C230) be required. Protest File, Exhibit 5 at 11. The chairman of the ITEG testified--with regard to the discussion of the C220 issue within the SEG--that the SEG knew what its requirements were and concluded that it did not seem that a significant amount of processing power was required. Transcript at 1010. Based upon the members' institutional experience, knowledge of existing systems, and judgment of the workload, rather than on the requirements of the RFP, the SEG and the ITEG concluded that the C220 was acceptable for both functions. Id. at 1019. The chairman of the ITEG acknowledged that TAI raised the issue during negotiations, but the SEG refused to answer. The SEG's refusal appears to have arisen out of the SEG's concern for technical leveling. Id. at 1017-19. 17. In the opinion of the chairman of the ITEG, in order to address the "not materially interfere" language, someone would need to know the normal operation, intended functionality, and work load backgrounds of each of the processing systems. The offerors could not have known that information. Transcript at 1031-32. The response of the SEG to the question raised by the ITEG as to whether a larger mid-level processor should be used to perform DMS requirements and mid-level processing was: In view of the potential funding limitations, it was determined that options such as this that would add to the overall cost of the proposal would not be considered. Protest File, Exhibit 6 at 4. 18. Cray proposed the Cray YMP-2E with 330 MFLOPs for mid- level processing and DMS. Lockheed offered the C220 with exactly 100 MFLOPs for the combined DMS and mid-level processing. Severn proposed the C230 with 150 MFLOPs for the combined functions. TAI proposed the C220 with exactly 100 MFLOPs for the mid-level processor, but TAI did not propose to load the DMS on the mid-level processor. Transcript at 1150-57. The chairman of the ITEG testified that the only thing in the RFP that describes the normal operation and intended functionality of the mid-level processor is section C.2.2.2.2. Id. at 1152-53. He also testified to his belief that technical leveling could be avoided if all offerors were told at the same time about the SEG's deter- mination that the C220 could handle both functions. Id. at 1164. During the SEG evaluation, no one checked to see how many MFLOPs would be used by running the DMS on the mid-level processor. Id. at 1173. 19. More than half of TAI's evaluated weaknesses would be eliminated if TAI had proposed the C220 for the DMS. Transcript at 1188. The ITEG and the SEG knew that all offerors except Lockheed believed that the RFP required a mid-level processor with more than 100 MFLOPs capacity if it were to host the DMS. Id. at 1194. If a mid-level processor with 100 MFLOPs can perform both the mid-level processing and DMS function, the "not materially interfere" words in the RFP have no meaning insofar as the mid-level processor is concerned. Id. at 1199. 20. FCC was downgraded for its mid-level processor. Had FCC offered the C220 solution to perform the mid-level processing and DMS, these weaknesses, or deficiencies, would have been eliminated. Transcript at 1202-06. 21. Lockheed's proposed use of the C220 for mid-level processing and DMS was not identified as a weakness by any member of the ITEG. Transcript at 1469-73. A Lockheed scientific programming specialist testified that 250 interactive users on a C220 would result in degraded performance no matter what you do. Lockheed considered the 250 users to be a theoretical maximum. Lockheed has no experience with the C220 hosting a DMS. Id. at 1623, 1625, 1627, 1688, 1694, 1697. We find that the C220 is not adequate to meet a reasonable interpretation of the combined requirements of the RFP for mid-level processing and DMS, i.e., such use of the mid-level processor for the DMS would materially interfere with the normal operation and intended functionality of the C220 as a mid-level processing system. Based solely on the information contained in the RFP, a 100 MFLOP rated processor such as the C220 could not reasonably be expected to perform both the mid-level processing and DMS requirements of the RFP. 22. FCC, TAI, and Severn would have made significant technical changes in their proposals had they known that the C220 would have been considered acceptable for mid-level processing and DMS under this solicitation. These changes would have eliminated many, if not most, of the deficiencies or weaknesses noted in the ITEG report. Such changes would have significantly reduced their costs and proposed pricing. The testimony of FCC, TAI, and Severn witnesses that the C220 cannot meet the combined mid-level processing and DMS requirements has added credibility inasmuch as these offerors acted against their own interests in offering more costly solutions than were necessary. 23. Respondent evaluated technical proposals using evaluation criteria relating to its knowledge of the actual work load which the upgraded system would have to handle. These evaluation criteria were neither in the RFP nor known to FCC, TAI, or Severn. Had the offerors known that the C220 would have been found acceptable for the combined mid-level processing and DMS, it is entirely possible that someone other than Lockheed would have received the highest EPV (technical points and cost points) and would have been awarded the contract. Discussion Jurisdiction Although no party in this case has challenged our jurisdiction to decide this protest, it is incumbent upon us to determine that we have jurisdiction to decide the case. Here, the solicitation was issued and the protested contract awarded by a contractor of the respondent. At our request, the protesters briefed the issue. We conclude that we have jurisdiction inasmuch as PRI indisputably acted as a purchasing agent for the Government. In its APR, NCI stated that Congress had appropriated funds for purchasing an upgraded supercomputer system to support NCI. Respondent requested and obtained a DPA for this procurement from GSA in accordance with FIRMR requirements. The respondent authorized the cognizant contracting officer to conduct the pro- curement. The contracting officer in turn authorized the acquisition of the ADPE for respondent to be conducted by PRI, the operations and support prime contractor for the NCI facility. The director of NCI has advised the Board, in connection with this proceeding, that the procurement is one for respondent's own purposes. Protester FCC Exhibit 1. The Merits The protesters contend, inter alia, that Lockheed's proposal was noncompliant with mandatory solicitation requirements con- cerning the mid-level processor and the DMS, and for that reason the award cannot stand. The protesters point out that an award to a noncompliant proposal is prohibited by the solicitation. Agencies must select sources in a manner consistent with the evaluation factors in the solicitation (48 CFR 15.608(a), 15.611(d), 15.612 (1990)), and further negotiations with Lockheedto resolve such deficiencies in Lockheed's proposal would be outside the permissible scope of the postselection procedures used by respondent in this case. We have long held that agencies may not lawfully award con- tracts to offerors whose proposals fail to satisfy mandatory solicitation requirements. Sysorex Information Systems, Inc., GSBCA No. 10642-P, 90-3 BCA 23,181, 1990 BPD 193; Government Technology Services, Inc., GSBCA No. 10389-P, 90-2 BCA 22,673, 1990 BPD 37; Spectrum Leasing Corp., GSBCA No. 9881-P, 89-2 BCA 21,666, 1989 BPD 83; Hughes Advanced Systems Co., GSBCA No. 9601-P, 88-3 BCA 21,115, 1988 BPD 185; International Business Machines Corp., GSBCA No. 9293-P, 88-1 BCA 20,512, 1988 BPD 16; Computer Systems & Resources, Inc., GSBCA No. 9176-P, 88-1 BCA 20,331, 1987 BPD 251. At bottom, these decisions hold that an agency's acceptance of such a proposal violates statute and regulation which was, under the circumstances of the cases, also implicitly prejudicial to the other offerors. The protesters also contend that there was a lack of mean- ingful discussion between offerors and respondent concerning the specification requirements as they related to the mid-level processor and the DMS. The evidence in this case shows that had the protesters been informed by the respondent that a mid-level processor of 100 MFLOPS would be considered adequate to satisfy both functions, they would surely have made significant technical changes and price reductions in their proposals. Mandatory specifications in the RFP included requirements for a mid-level processing system. Among other things, the mid- level processing system was required to have a minimum peak performance rating of 100 MFLOPs. It was also required to be capable of simultaneously running at least fifty scientific application programs in batch mode and to be capable of supporting interactive access by at least 250 users concurrently. A data management system was also required. The DMS was to be a comprehensive hierarchical storage management and archival facility for managing files that are accessed by all processing platforms to be integrated with the supercomputer upgrade. The solicitation permitted alternative approaches to meeting the DMS requirement, one of which permitted use of the mid-level processing system for both its primary function and for the DMS. The solicitation, however, conditioned such an alternate approach as follows: Any such use shall not materially interfere with the normal operation and intended functionality of the selected processing system. Protest File, Exhibit 3 at Section C.2.2.2.4 (emphasis added). In the absence of other work load information in the RFP, the requirements in section C.2.2.2.2.2 applicable to the mid- level processing system for concurrent processing (fifty batch programs and 250 interactive users) must be included in the scope of the "normal operation" and "intended functionality" of the "selected processing system", i.e., of the mid-level processing system. Lockheed offered a Convex C220 machine to handle both the mid-level processing and the DMS requirements. The C220 is rated at exactly 100 MFLOPs. The evidence clearly shows that the C220 would be minimally compliant with the requirements for the mid- level processing system alone. The DMS was a large application requiring substantial resources. The C220 could not meet the minimum mandatory requirements for both the mid-level processing system and the DMS; i.e., use of a C220 for DMS would necessarily materially interfere with the normal operation and intended functionality of that same machine as the mid-level processing system. Respondent's position is that, as long as the mid-level processing system has a minimum peak performance rating of 100 MFLOPs, no offeror was entitled to assume that further loading the DMS requirements on the mid-level processing system would materially interfere with the normal operation or intended functionality of the mid-level processing unit. The basis of the respondent's position is that only the Government knew the actual workload which the system would need to handle. We must reject that rationale and reach the opposite conclusion. We conclude that in the absence of workload information in the RFP, offerors should have assumed that the 100 MFLOPs rating requirement and the simultaneous fifty batch programs/250 concurrent interactive users requirements in the mid-level processing system specifications fairly characterized the anticipated loading. The Government's cost/benefit analysis for the supercomputer upgrade confirms the substantial magnitude of the workload and the inability of the C220 to meet the mandatory requirements for both functions. Thus, if the DMS were to use any portion of the C220's resources, it would interfere with its operation. If the DMS were to use a significant portion of the C220's resources, it would materially interfere with its operation. Our conclusion is reinforced by the fact that if the minimum 100 MFLOPs processor required for the mid-level processing requirements is deemed capable of meeting both the mid-level processing requirements as well as the additional workload requirements imposed by the DMS, such an interpretation is a "no cost" solution rendering pointless the other optional approaches set out in the specifications for performing the DMS requirements. Selection and award must be consistent with the terms of a solicitation. 41 U.S.C. 253b(a), (d)(4)(1988); 48 CFR 15.608(a), 15.611(d), 15.612(d) (1990); Sysorex Information Systems, Inc., GSBCA No. 10642-P, 90-3 BCA 23,181, 1990 BPD 193. Under the terms of the solicitation in this case, under applicable statute and regulations, and the precedents of this Board, an offer which is noncompliant with mandatory specifications is ineligible for award. Lockheed's proposal was noncompliant with at least section C.2.2.2.4 of the RFP, and for that reason we sustain the protests. Respondent's Interpretation is Unreasonable Solicitation requirements should be interpreted in a way that none of the language used becomes superfluous. Stated another way, an interpretation of a specification is unreasonable if it renders superfluous portions of the specification, when another inter-pretation is shown to not render any portions superfluous. See Rocky Mountain Trading Co., Systems Division, GSBCA No. 10216-P, 90-1 BCA 22,331, at 112,227, 1989 BPD 290, at 5; Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., GSBCA No. 9297-P, 90-1 BCA 22,335, at 112,262, 1989 BPD 299, at 37; and numerous cases cited therein for the same proposition. When the author of the respondent's specification wrote these portions of the RFP, he knew that no mid-level processing system would be compliant with section C.2.2.2.2.1 if it had a minimum peak performance rating of less than 100 MFLOPs, nor would it be compliant with section C.2.2.2.2.2 if it were not capable of meeting the fifty batch program/250 concurrent users requirements therein. The statement in section C.2.2.2.4 that [A]ny such use shall not interfere with the normal operation and intended functionality of the selected processing system was intended to have meaning. Even the author testified that the above statement has no meaning if an offeror proposed a system, meeting just the minimum requirements of the mid-level processing system, which was to also meet the DMS requirements. The pro- testers all reasonably assumed that the above-quoted statement had meaning in the context of the overall technical requirements. That meaning was that if an offeror proposed to meet the DMS requirements with the mid-level processor, then the mid-level processor had to have something more than the minimum required mid-level processing capabilities and capacity. Respondent's interpretation of the RFP renders the "shall not materially interfere" statement meaningless or superfluous, and is therefore unreasonable. The protesters' interpretation gives meaning to that statement and all of the relevant portions of the RFP. Respondent Failed to Provide Meaningful Discussions Respondent failed to provide meaningful discussions with all offerors in violation of 41 U.S.C. 253b(d)(2) (1988) and 48 CFR 15.610(c) (1990). Specifically, respondent failed to advise offerors of its interpretation of the specifications which permitted Lockheed to be found compliant with the mid-level processing and DMS requirements by using a machine (the Convex C220) which was minimally compliant with the mid-level processing system specifications alone. Meaningful discussions include attempts to resolve any uncertainties concerning technical proposals and to resolve suspected mistakes. 48 CFR 15.601 (1990). Respondent was well aware during discussions that there were different understandings about whether the C220 would comply with the requirements for both the mid-level processing system and the DMS. The ITEG's first question for the SEG upon completion of initial technical evaluations was whether the mid-level processor was powerful enough to perform data management and mid-level processing functions or whether a larger processor (e.g., C230) should be required. The issue had been raised by TAI in oral discussions prior to the first best and final offer submission. Finally, all offerors, other than Lockheed, proposed something more than a C220 to meet the combined requirements for mid-level processing and the DMS. Whether or not any of these circumstances individually would necessitate a clarification to offerors, it is inescapable that respondent was--or should have been--well aware of the issue prior to requesting any best and final offers in this case; however, there was no meaningful resolution of this discrepancy. The SEG's response to the question was to treat it, not as a potential deficiency or as a subject requiring clarification of the RFP, but as a cost question, i.e.: In view of the potential funding limitations, it was determined that options such as this that would add to the overall cost of the proposal would not be considered. See Finding 17. Respondent declined to respond to the issue after it was raised during discussions when TAI informed the respondent that in TAI's interpretation of the specifications, the C220 could not handle both functions. The respondent's reluctance apparently arose out of a somewhat misplaced concern about technical leveling. In light of the respondent's awareness of the concern raised by the ITEG, the direct question put to it by TAI, and the respondent's knowledge that, among the five offerors, only Lockheed interpreted the RFP to allow both requirements to be met by the C220 with a 100 MFLOP rating, a proper clarification was warranted. Such a clarification would not have constituted technical leveling. As in RMTC/Microwave et al., GSBCA No. 10060-P, 89-3 BCA 21,985, at 110,572, 1989 BPD 174, at 11: [T]hose offerors . . . were unfairly dis- advantaged in their effort to compete on an equal basis with other offerors who somehow successfully divined the Government's actual intent. Had the protesters known that respondent would accept the C220 for the combined mid-level processing and DMS requirements, they would surely have offered it for those purposes at substantial savings. The C220 solution used by Lockheed constitutes a "no cost solution." Decision The protests are GRANTED. The award to Lockheed must be terminated. The respondent is to continue negotiations with the offerors in accordance with the principles set out in our decision. ______________________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Administrative Judge We concur: _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Administrative Judge _________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Administrative Judge