_________________________________________________ GRANTED: January 29, 1993 _________________________________________________ GSBCA 12164-P RMTC SYSTEMS, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent, and INTERNATIONAL DATA PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Intervenor. Jeff Stollman, President of RMTC Systems, Inc., Boulder, CO, appearing for Protester. Melissa K. Erny, Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Indianapolis, IN, and Eric A. Lile, Office of the General Counsel, Naval Supply Systems Command, Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent. D. Oscar Fuster, Vice President of International Data Products Corporation, Gaithersburg, MD, appearing for Intervenor. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, HENDLEY, and HYATT. HENDLEY, Board Judge. On November 6, 1992, the Board docketed a protest filed by RMTC Systems, Inc. (RMTC). On December 7, 1992, the protester filed an amended complaint. The respondent, Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Indianapolis, Indiana, issued solicitation number N00163-92-0436 for automatic data processing equipment, and award of the contract was made to International Data Products Corporation (IDP), Gaithersburg, MD. RMTC contends that its lower priced proposal was improperly rejected by the respondent and the award thus improperly made to IDP. The protest was substantially amended on December 7, 1992. The parties agreed to submit the case for decision on the record in accordance with Board Rule 11. We grant the protest. Findings of Fact 1. This negotiated procurement called for the supply of eighteen Intel 80486 based personal computers for use by the respondent in the V-22 Osprey effort. It states under paragraph L1 of the solicitation, "Due to the interrelationship of the items involved, the right is reserved [by the respondent] to make a single award to the responsive Bidder (or Offeror) whose total bid (offer) on all items is low." Protest File, Exhibit 2. As a practical matter, a single award is a necessity. Although there are twenty-three contract line items set out in the solicitation, items 0002 through 0023 are nothing more than a listing of the requirements for the eighteen units to be supplied. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.215-16 was incorporated by reference. That clause states, in pertinent part: The Government may award a contract on the basis of initial offers received without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. 48 CFR 52.215-16 (1992) (FAR 52.215-16(c)). 2. Paragraph M5 of the solicitation stated that offers would be evaluated and award made "based on the lowest offered price for a product that is in compliance with the salient characteristics." Protest File, Exhibit 2 at 39. The respondent received 203 requests for copies of the solicitation, to which 43 proposals were received by the closing date of September 22, 1992. Protest File, Exhibit 8. 3. Even viewed in the most favorable light, the solicitation is not a model of clarity, as can be observed in some of its provisions quoted in this opinion. The protester did not seek any clarification or further elaboration of the technical requirements, and its proposal also suffers from a similar lack of clarity. The proposals were evaluated by a technical team to determine if the minimum requirements of the solicitation had been met. Respondent's Brief, Attachment 1. The technical evaluation team consisted of four electronics engineers with backgrounds in personal computer installation and maintenance, hardware and software trouble-shooting, test equipment, and defining computer system requirements. Respondent's Brief, Attachments 2-5. The technical evaluation team was provided with the technical portions of the proposals but not the prices or the identities of the offerors. Respondent's Brief, Attachment 1. The technical team evaluated the proposals and concluded that proposal number 30 (the protester's) was non-compliant to requirement C5 as follows: The proposal states that there are 3 externally accessible drive bays and that there would be 1 spare after fully configuring the system with the required components. However, with the 3 1/2 and 5 1/4 [inch] floppy drives and the tape drive, there would be 0 spares. The solicitation required that at least one front-accessible 5 1/4 inch drive bay be free after installation of all required components. The technical report continued with the following notation: Compliance Cannot Be Verified With Material Provided: 0007 Part number on SCSI device controller that of a SCSI hard drive. Require correct controller part number. 0010 Does the Hitachi use a Sony Trinitron CTR? The solicitation required a Sony Trinitron. 0018 The Chinon 4318 is quoted. The 431 is known to meet solicitation requirements. Protest File, Exhibit 9. The respondent properly acknowledges that inasmuch as the protester's proposal was considered non- compliant with paragraph C5, the technical team did not request the contract specialist to obtain clarification of the proposal from the protester. Respondent's Brief at 4. Without going into the specific details of each of the three contract line item numbers (CLINs) set out above, in our examination of the record we conclude, as does the respondent, that had the technical team not considered the proposal non-compliant with requirement C5, clarification of the protester's proposal for these three items should have been obtained. Thus, the only issue in this case is whether the protester's proposal is, on its face, non-compliant with requirement C5, or should the respondent have made further inquiries of the protester to assure that such was the case. The C5 Requirements 4. C5 is but one of thirteen tersely couched "requirements" set out under the rubric, "DESCRIPTIONS/SPECIFICATIONS," many of which do not specifically relate to the equipment to be supplied but rather to distinctly different matters, such as: C1 All line items represent the Government's minimum needs. C2 The Government intends to purchase these from the same vendor. . . . . C7 Items 0006, 0007, 0008, 0010, 0012, and 0018 require the name of the manufacturer and the particular part number that is being quoted. . . . . C13 SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS GUARANTEED Any alternate make or model offered under this solicitation is represented and guaranteed by the Offeror as conforming to all the salient characteristics stated in the solicitation for the respective line item. In somewhat Delphic terms, C5 states: After all components are installed, there shall be a minimum of 1 front-accessable [sic] 5.25" drive bay opening. Protest File, Exhibit 2. Read literally, all that C5 would require is that there be only "a minimum" of one front-assessible 5.25" drive. However, all parties agree that the solicitation should be read to require a total of three front-accessible components, to wit, a 5.25" floppy disk drive (item 0004), a 3.5" floppy disk drive (item 0005), and a tape backup (item 0012). Id. By the nature of their use, these three items are all designed to be externally accessible. Respondent's Brief, Attachment 4. To meet the requirement of paragraph C5, after the 5.25" and 3.5" floppy disk drives and a backup tape are installed, the parties agree there must also be at least another 5.25" front-accessible drive bay. 5. In what both the protester and the respondent agree was the protester's response to the C5 requirement, the protester stated in its proposal: 10. tower chassis (<28" high) with five half height drive bays (three of which can be exposed, one 5.25" hh drive bay open after configuration) Protest File, Exhibit 3. It is the respondent's contention that under the protester's proposal no external drive bay would remain open as required by paragraph C5. Having concluded that the protester's proposal did not meet the requirement of paragraph C5, the respondent considered that further clarification was uncalled for and awarded the contract to the intervenor, at a higher price. Discussion This case essentially turns on whether the respondent properly concluded that the protester had taken an exception to the requirements of paragraph C5. The respondent reached its conclusion that the protester's proposal was non-compliant on the premise that the 5.25" floppy disk drive, the 3.5" floppy disk drive, and the backup tape would each occupy a separate and distinct externally accessible drive bay. Consequently, if the protester's unit has only three externally accessible drive bays, i.e., "tower chassis . . . with five half height drive bays (three of which can be exposed [externally accessible]. . . ." the requirement of paragraph C5 that "after all components have been installed, there shall be a minimum of 1 front accessable (sic) 5.25" drive bay opening" cannot be attained because the three installed components have consumed the three "exposed" drive bays. The protester's position is that its proposal clearly states that: tower chassis . . . with five half height drive bays (three of which can be exposed, one 5.25" hh bay open after configuration ) (emphasis added). Obviously, the respondent's technical evaluators concluded that after the 3.5" and 5.25" disk drives and the backup tape drive had been installed in the three "exposed" (externally accessible) bays there was no drive bay left for the additional 5.25" drive bay required by paragraph C5. To reach this conclusion, they must have concluded that the protester was mistaken and had overlooked the requirement for one of the three required drives. In short, they concluded that the protester's clear and unequivocal profession of compliance with the requirement of paragraph C5 was based upon a mistake on the part of the protester. The protester contends, during the course of this protest, that "[F]loppy disk drives have been on the market for a year or so that combine both 1.2 MB 5.25" and 1.44 [MB] 3.5" drives into a single half height drive bay." Protester's Brief. The protester's contention is further elaborated in the declaration of its president accompanying its brief: Several manufacturers of floppy disk drives (e.g., TEAC, CMS, and Canon) manufacture combination 5.25" 1.2 MB and 3.5" 1.44 MB floppy disk drives that occupy a single half height drive bay. Unfortunately, the protester's current explanation disclaiming any mistake on its part was not mentioned in its proposal. The implicit premise underlying the respondent's technical evaluators' conclusion that the protester's proposal was non- compliant is that what the proposal states is in error, i.e., that there will in fact be a spare disk drive "after fully configuring the system with the required components." In essence, what we have before us is a case in which the procuring agency rejected a proposal because the agency's evaluators believed the offeror's unequivocal statement that it would meet a specific requirement was erroneous or somehow mistaken. In such a situation, we believe that verification of the offer, rather than its summary rejection, is required. Notwithstanding a solicitation provision under which the agency may make award to the low technically compliant offer, an offer which is technically responsive on its face but believed to be mistaken, cannot be rejected without verification of the presumed error. We are supported in this position by FAR 15.607(c)(1), which states: If a mistake in a proposal is suspected, the contracting officer shall advise the offeror (pointing out the suspected mistake or otherwise identifying the area of the proposal where the suspected mistake is) and request verification. If the offeror verifies its proposal, award may be made. (emphasis added). The FAR's use of the word "shall" makes it apparent that the contracting officer has no discretion in whether or not to seek verification of a suspected error. The FAR clearly requires a contracting officer to seek verification of any errors he suspects are present in a contractor's proposal. Hence, in the case before us, it was incumbent upon the contracting officer to seek verification of the protester's proposal, in the face of a suspected error, rather than summarily rejecting it. The instant case is clearly distinguishable from our holding in Federal Systems Group, Inc., GSBCA 11461-P, 92-1 BCA 24,591, 1991 BPD 316. As in the instant case, in Federal Systems the solicitation provided that the agency could make an award without conducting further negotiations or discussions. When the agency made an award without conducting further discussions, we denied the ensuing protest because, inter alia, we found that the protester had failed to meet mandatory requirements of the solicitation. Decision The protest is GRANTED. The respondent is directed to verify the validity of the protester's statement that the item it intends to supply meets all the requirements of paragraph C5 of the solicitation. Based upon that verification, the respondent is to determine whether or not the equipment the protester proposed to supply meets the requirements of C5 of the solicitation. If that equipment meets the requirement, any further clarifications should then be made. If the protester's proposal is otherwise compliant, and the protester considered responsible, the award to IDP is to be canceled and award made in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements. _____________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge We concur: _______________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA Board Judge ________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge