_______________________________ DENIED: December 9, 1992 _______________________________ GSBCA 12124-P PEQRAB BUSINESS SYSTEMS, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent. Christine Harris, Owner, Peqrab Business Systems, San Diego, CA, appearing for protester. Theresa A. McKenna and Donald S. Safford, Office of Counsel, Department of the Navy, Long Beach, CA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DEVINE, BORWICK, and NEILL. BORWICK, Board Judge. Background On October 19, 1992, Peqrab Business Systems (Peqrab) protested the award of a maintenance contract by the United States Navy, Navy Regional Contracting Center (NRCC) to Integration Technologies Group, Incorporated (ITG). The contract is for maintenance of seventy-two personal computers and associated equipment at five navy bases and air stations in the area of San Diego and Long Beach, California. NRCC rejected Peqrab's proposal as technically unacceptable. Peqrab argued that it submitted a technically acceptable proposal and should have received the award as the lowest-cost vendor. Peqrab also complains about the allegedly inadequate discussions NRCC conducted with it. The parties submitted their dispute on the record pursuant to Rule 11. We conclude that NRCC's technical evaluation of Peqrab's proposal was reasonable and correct. Peqrab submitted a woefully insufficient initial proposal, which was not improved by its best and final offer (BAFO). Peqrab's proposal was deficient in remedial maintenance. The discussions NRCC conducted with Peqrab were adequate and met the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). We deny the protest. Findings of Fact 1. Onyn June 15, 1992, NRCC issued solicitation N00123-92- R-0423 for preventive and on-call remedial maintenance of EPOS II computer hardware at five locations: NSC NAVSTA SERVMART at the Thirty Second Street Naval Station, San Diego, CA; the Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island, San Diego, CA; Long Beach NAS annex, Long Beach, CA; NAS Miramar, San Diego, CA; and NSC SERVMART operations, at the Thirty Second Street Naval Station, San Diego, CA. Protest File, Exhibit 1, C.1.1, F. The solicitation called for maintenance of seventy-two personal computers and associated equipment, such as printers, modems, monitors, scanners, and tape drives during a base year and two option years. Id., B, Items 0001-0015. Maintenance was defined as the "examination, diagnostic testing, repair and/or replacement of component equipment and spare parts to maintain the system in good operating condition." Id., C.1.1. The contemplated contract also called for technical assistance to determine whether a malfunction was caused by hardware or software. Id., C.1.2. 2. The solicitation specified that preventive maintenance was to be performed at a time other than the Government's prime shift working hours. Protest File, Exhibit 1, C.3.1. The solicitation specified semi-annual preventive maintenance of printers, hard disk/tape back up, Zeros 386, IBM 286 and IBM 088 personal computers, and universal power supplies. Quarterly preventive maintenance of bar code label printers and keyboards were specified. Id. Remedial maintenance was specified to be on-call during the principal period of maintenance (PPM), which is defined as Monday-Friday (excluding holidays) 0700-1530. Id., C.2.0, C.3.2. 3. The solicitation defined remedial maintenance as "all efforts required to provide analysis for determining basis of malfunction, and all services rendered to accomplish hardware repairs including installation and verification of on-line operations." Protest File, Exhibit 1, C.3.2. The specification required a two hour response time during the PPM, with repairs completed within a forty-eight hour period where a component malfunction created a work stoppage. All other repairs were to be completed within three days. Individual components could be repaired off-site provided that a temporary replacement was installed on-site to continue operations. Id., C.3.2a.-f. 4. The solicitation specified that the contractor was to maintain the system operationally capable on a continuous thirty day basis for at least ninety-five per cent of either the scheduled operating hours or the actual operating hours, whichever was greater. Protest File, Exhibit 1, C.5.3. The solicitation specified minimum qualifications for maintenance personnel: two years unsupervised work experience or one year of work experience plus completion of specialized technical training on the equipment specified in the solicitation. Personnel who were "in training" were not to be utilized except as observers and helpers to qualified personnel. Id., C.5.4. 5. The solicitation advised vendors of the Government's option to award on the basis of initial offers received without discussions, and further advised that offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical viewpoint. Protest File, Exhibit 1, L, 52.215-16 Contract Award (a). The solicitation alerted vendors to submit proposals containing sufficient information to permit a detailed evaluation. Id., L, Submission of Proposals (NAVSUP 15-066). 6. Amendment 0001 to the solicitation, issued on June 24, 1992, required vendors to prepare a proposal comprised of six tabs. In Tab B vendors were to provide a brief synopsis of the proposal, and to state how the proposal met the letter and the intent of the maintenance requirements in Section C. In Tab D, vendors were to provide a maintenance plan "describing details of the respective maintenance support to be provided." Protest File, Exhibit 2, Amendment of L, Submission of Proposals (NAVSUP 15-066). The equipment maintenance plan was to contain a proposed method of meeting the equipment maintenance support provisions of the specifications, including arrangements for engineering assistance from the manufacturer of the equipment, if applicable. The plan was to describe the equipment maintenance support organization, number and types of personnel to be used, numbers and experience of maintenance personnel and location of service personnel and accessibility of personnel to service locations. Id. 7. Selection of an offer for award was based on the most advantageous alternatives to the Government provided that the contract prices reasonably represented the value of bona fide requirements for each fiscal year. Protest File, Exhibit 2, M(a). 8. Amendment 0002 to the solicitation extended the due date for receipt of proposals from July 16 to July 27. Protest File, Exhibit 3. Peqrab submitted a timely proposal. Its one- page general description (Tab B) did not address maintenance of hard-drives and backup units, save for mention that the standard procedure is "basic cleaning and semi-annual diagnostics of drives." Protest File, Exhibit 4. Its maintenance plan (Tab D) consisted of one page and four paragraphs, including a listing of subcontractors. Id., Tab D. Peqrab proposed to assign a senior technician and a trainee to the project. The qualifications of the technicians were described in one sentence: "Our senior technician has over twenty years of experience at all levels of ADPE repair, (all with the Navy) and our trainee has two years under his supervision." Id. 9. Peqrab's plan for maintenance was described in two sentences. Peqrab proposed "to maintain the equipment list made part of this contract by utilizing both OEM maintenance procedures (as outline in there [sic] manuals) and the requested requirements made by the end users of the systems. Software support and diagnostics will be an integrated part of our maintenance plan." Protest File, Exhibit 4, Tab D. 10. Peqrab's inventory plan was described in one sentence: "Should we be awarded this contract it is our intention to secure all of the necessary manuals, spare parts and engineering support agreements for the EPOS II hardware from the OEM." Protest File, Exhibit 4, Tab D. 11. The technical evaluator determined Peqrab's initial proposal unacceptable as preventive maintenance was not described for a hard-disk/tape backup unit and remedial maintenance coverage was not provided. Protest File, Exhibit 11. 12. On August 20, NRCC's contract negotiator held discussions with Peqrab's senior technician. Protest File, Exhibit 8; Statement of NRCC Contract Negotiator Deborah Winner (Winner Statement) of November 20, 1992, at 1. The contract negotiator advised the technician to describe better the preventive maintenance for the hard disk tape back up units. She told the technician that the NRCC technical evaluator could not determine whether Peqrab met technical requirements. Id. She thought the Peqrab proposal needed to be completely rewritten. She advised Peqrab's technician that the Peqrab proposal needed to address each requirement in Section C, paragraph by paragraph so as to demonstrate how it would meet each of the requirements. Id. at 2. 13. On August 20, the content of discussions was confirmed by the contracting officer's letter to Peqrab: Set forth below are the areas discussed: The proposal did not adequately demonstrate how preventive maintenance would be performed on the hard- disk/tape back-up unit. The proposal did not adequately demonstrate how the requirements in Section C would be accomplished. In that letter the contracting officer requested a BAFO from Peqrab. Id. 14. On August 24, Peqrab submitted its two-page BAFO, under a covering letter which stated in pertinent part: Please find our supplemental proposal demonstrating how we would meet the specific requirements contained in Section C, with attention to the maintenance of hard and tape backup drives. Protest File, Exhibit 12. Peqrab's BAFO did not supplement its original proposal on remedial maintenance. Peqrab stated at one point in the BAFO: Please note: In order to maintain a smooth continuity of the systems, spare parts will be carried at all times by the technicians responding to a service call outside of the PM period as well as during a remedial call. . . . . [W]e have stated quarterly PM rather than semi-annual, our reasoning for this is that experience dictates four times a year to reduce trouble calls that require pressure on the customer and technician that can often be avoided. Id. 15. On September 22, the technical evaluator determined Peqrab's BAFO unacceptable for failure to furnish explicit details needed to evaluate whether Peqrab's proposal met remedial maintenance requirements. The technical evaluator also noted that Peqrab's statement that "spare parts will be carried at all times by the technicians responding to a service call" was physically impossible. Protest File, Exhibit 15. After elimination of Peqrab as technically unacceptable, the contract negotiator recommended award to ITG as the lowest technically acceptable vendor. Protest File, Exhibit 16.[foot #] 1 NRCC entered in a contract with ITG for a total fixed price of $91,968, with a base-year price of $38,644. Protest File, Exhibits 17, 18. Discussion Respondent's contracting officer rejected Peqrab's proposal as unacceptable because the proposal did not provide the detail necessary to enable the contracting officer to determine whether Peqrab could meet the remedial maintenance requirements called for by the solicitation. Finding 15. Peqrab derides the reasons given. Peqrab argues that its proposal "stated clearly in a few pages what needed to be said." Protester's Record Submission, 10. It argues that "paperwork and bureaucracy" is not its business, and that "doing work is." Protester's Record Submission, 12. It further states: This is not a game. If the criteria is (were) who writes the most conforming to the rules proposal gets ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Another vendor was deemed technically acceptable, but was higher priced than ITG. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- the contract, then a small business would not have a chance. Id. We agree with Peqrab that this procurement was not a game. Respondent solicited detailed proposals to assure itself that vendors were capable of meeting its stringent requirements. The amount of equipment to be maintained--seventy-two personal computers and associated equipment, Finding 1--is not insubstantial. The on-call response time of two hours and repair time of forty-eight hours for work-stopping component malfunctions, Finding 3, is challenging. Peqrab ignored the unambiguous requirements of the solicitation and submitted a sketchy proposal containing none of the detail required. Finding 8. The most glaring defect was that Peqrab did not describe how it would meet remedial maintenance requirements for seventy-two personal computers and associated equipment at several navy bases spread throughout Long Beach and San Diego, California, with one senior technician and one "trainee." Id. Peqrab did not submit an equipment maintenance plan, even though amendment 0001 described the contents of the plan. Findings 6, 9, 14. Furthermore, Peqrab's use of a "trainee" arguably violated the solicitations's prohibition of use of technicians "in training." Finding 4. Offerors who ignore solicitation instructions act at their peril as such proposals face rejection as technically unacceptable. The FAR gives the Government's technical evaluators broad discretion in the conduct of technical evaluations and it is protester's burden to demonstrate that the technical evaluation was unreasonable. U.S. Sprint Communications Co. v. Department of Defense, GSBCA 11769-P, 1992 BPD 165, at 25 (1992), appeal filed, No. 92-1470 (Fed. Cir., Aug 12, 1992); Computer Sciences Corp., GSBCA 11497-P, 92-1 BCA 24,703, at 123,297; 1992 BPD 6, at 32 (Dec. 30, 1991); American Computer Educators, Inc., GSBCA 10539-P, 90-2 BCA 22,919, at 115,075, 1990 BPD 110, at 9; Planning Research Corp., GSBCA 10472-P, 90-2 BCA 22,798, at 114,486, 1990 BPD 62, at 21; Metaphor Computer Systems, Inc., GSBCA 10337-P, 90-1 BCA 22,542, at 113,210, 1989 BPD 323 (1989); Advanced Technology, Inc., GSBCA 8878-P, 87-2 BCA 19,817, 1987 BPD 67. In this case, given the deficiencies in protester's initial proposal and BAFO, the NRCC's technical evaluation was eminently reasonable. The initial concern of the technical evaluator about Peqrab's ability to provide remedial maintenance was validated by Peqrab's BAFO. In its BAFO, Peqrab proposed quarterly preventive maintenance, rather than semi-annual preventive maintenance specified, in the hope of "reduc[ing] trouble calls that require pressure . . . on the technician . . . ." Finding 14. Peqrab proposed more preventive maintenance than required to avoid remedial maintenance calls. Peqrab also complains about the allegedly inadequate discussions that respondent conducted with Peqrab. Peqrab argues that the contract negotiator did not tell its technician that in her view the initial Peqrab proposal needed complete revision. However, she told Peqrab's technician that Peqrab's initial proposal was incapable of evaluation as written, and needed to address each item in Section C of the Solicitation. This advice was confirmed in writing. Findings 12, 13. The advice given was the same as saying that the technical portion of the proposal needed extensive revision to show technical acceptability. Peqrab's BAFO was rejected on just that basis, i.e., that it was so vague as to be incapable of technical evaluation, particularly in the area of remedial maintenance. Finding 15. The FAR requires contracting personnel, when discussions are held, to advise the offeror of deficiencies in its proposal so the offeror is given an opportunity to satisfy the Government's requirements. 48 CFR 15.610(c)(2) (1991). NRCC's discussions effectively addressed the perceived deficiencies in Peqrab's proposal and were in compliance with the FAR. Genasys Corp., GSBCA 8734-P, 87-1 BCA 19,556 at 98,848, 1986 BPD 224, at 11. The other specifications of error are not convincing. Decision The protest is DENIED. The suspension of respondent's delegation of procurement authority lapses by its terms. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge We concur: _________________________ DONALD W. DEVINE Board Judge _________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge