THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER, RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN REDACTED FORM ON FEBRUARY 8, 1994, AND IS BEING RELEASED IN ITS ENTIRETY ON MAY 20, 1994 ______________________________ GRANTED: September 13, 1993 ______________________________ GSBCA 12493-P GOVERNMENT MICRO RESOURCES, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent, and W.R. SYSTEMS, INC., Intervenor. Andrew Mohr and Andrew Tenenbaum of Cohen & White, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Charles A. Walden, Patricia A. Heil, and James E. Hicks, Office of Chief Counsel, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Dennis J. Riley, Kenneth A. Martin, and Jared H. Silberman of Elliott, Vanaskie & Riley, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor. Before Board Judges HENDLEY, WILLIAMS, and VERGILIO. HENDLEY, Board Judge. The protester, Government Micro Resources, Inc. (GMR), contends that the respondent, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), improperly awarded the contract to the intervenor, W.R. Systems, Inc. (WRS). GMR asserts that the award was improper because WRS did not propose employees having the work experience specified as a mandatory requirement of the solicitation. Findings of Fact The Solicitation 1. The DEA issued Request For Proposals No. DEA-92-R-0012 (the solicitation) in November 1992, for the procurement of microcomputer hardware, software, maintenance, and training. The procurement s primary purpose was to automate and network DEA s New York City field division office. Transcript at 93. The network being solicited required certain specified Unisys computers, IBM PC clones, and "the Everex CT/OPEN network solution," the latter being required to link the Unisys hardware with the PC clones. Protest File, Exhibit 6 at C-1. 2. The solicitation specified the Unisys hardware by its brand name only, i.e., no substitutions allowed. Similarly, the solicitation specified the Everex CT/OPEN products as brand name only, with no substitution allowed. The PC clones were not restricted to any particular brand name. Protest File, Exhibit 6 at C-2. 3. The CT/OPEN requirement was stated as follows: C.3 Technical Specifications/Salient Characteristics All requirements stated shall be considered mandatory contract requirements. . . . C.3.1.13 CT/OPEN Networking Solution The following products shall be specific make and model. CT/OPEN Server (10base2) CT/OPEN Client (10base2) CT/OPEN Server (10baseT) CT/OPEN Client (10baseT) Protest File, Exhibit 6 at C-7; Transcript at 96, 226.[foot #] 1 The CT/OPEN servers and clients ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 CT/OPEN products were listed in the software portion of B as CLINs 2001 through 2004. Protest File, Exhibit 6 at B-9; Transcript at 227. In C, CT/OPEN products were listed in the hardware listing as C.3.1.13, CT/OPEN Networking Solution. Protest File, Exhibit 6 at C-7. The suffix base2 refers to use of coaxial cable; baseT refers to use of a telephone jack. Transcript at 255-56. The CT/OPEN products are a combination of both hardware and software. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- specified in C.3.1.13 refer to Everex s CT/OPEN products, and to no other products. Transcript at 284-85, 288-89, 306-08, 358. This was confirmed by DEA in Amendment No. 1, which incorporated questions posed by offerors and DEA s answers (Q&A). Q&A 203 noted that CT/OPEN was specified by name, and asked whether alternatives could be proposed given that Everex was having financial difficulties. DEA answered that the requirement for CT/OPEN would not be modified. Protest File, Exhibit 7, Amendment No. 1 at 36-37. Both GMR and WRS proffered the Everex products specified in the solicitation. 4. Training was a significant element of the procurement. DEA estimated that approximately 2,000 employees nationwide would require 16,640 hours of training. Protest File, Exhibit 6 at C-28. The solicitation required offerors to provide four full-time instructors to instruct DEA personnel: C.13 Training Requirements: DEA requires four full-time contractor training personnel to provide training to DEA personnel nationwide. The Government may upon written notification increase the number of full-time training personnel, not to exceed a total of six. These trainers[foot #] 2 will provide formal classroom instruction as well as on-site one-on-one instruction as required. The four full-time contractor training personnel shall be based at DEA Headquarters, Arlington, VA and/or contractor site. Id. at C-23. 5. The required training included a course in CT/OPEN Systems Management, which was specified as CLIN 3019. Protest File, Exhibit 7, Amendment No.6 at B-15, B-24, B-33. According to Table B-3, DEA estimated that 180 students would take the CT/OPEN Systems Management course in the base year, 195 students would take the same course in the second contract year, and 225 DEA students would attend the CT/OPEN Systems Management course in the third contract year, for a total of 600 DEA students taking the course over three years. Id. This course was not for users, but for the respondent's systems administrators. Transcript at 749. It is a ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 The solicitation and responses refer to "instructors" and "trainers" throughout. They are the same thing and are referred to interchangeably. We use the term "instructor" except when the term "trainer" occurs in quoted portions of the solicitation. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- course in managing the CT/OPEN network, and requires substantial experience to teach. Id. at 751.[foot #] 3 6. The solicitation described in some detail the qualifications required of the instructors to be proposed by the offerors: C.13.1.1 Instructors/Trainers Qualifications. The Contractor shall provide training by training representatives who possess the following qualifications: C.13.1.1.1 A B.S. or B.A. Degree or equivalent work experience. C.13.1.1.2 At least six months of teaching experience on the above listed hardware and software. C.13.1.1.3 At least one year working experience with BTOS operating system, BNET I Communications, Document Designer, Enhanced Multiplan, OFIS Graphics, Forms Plus and OFIS Mail, and Laser Forms. C.13.1.1.4 At least three months working experience of the CT/OPEN network and all software provided under this contract. Protest File, Exhibit 6 at C-24. The reference to the above listed hardware and software in C.13.1.1.2 encompassed all of the products required by C and included CT/OPEN. Transcript at 102. The solicitation went on to describe the formal training classes to be taught, discuss class size, location of training, training facilities, training expenses and scheduling, training manuals, record of training attendees, and training reports. Protest File, Exhibit 6 at C-23 through C-31. 7. The DEA was concerned that the training experience required on CT/OPEN networks set out in C.13.1.1.2 might be difficult for some offerors to meet. For that reason, DEA issued Amendment No. 6 to the solicitation in April 1993, which stated that three months work experience with CT/OPEN would suffice: C.13.1.1.2 At least six months of teaching experience on the above listed hardware and software, ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 3 WRS's president's testimony that training was only for end users is inconsistent with the respondent's emphasis on CT/OPEN work experience, and with the requirement in CLIN 3019 for a course in CT/OPEN Systems Management. Protest File Exhibit 7, Amendment No. 6, at B-15, B-25, B-33. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- except as noted in C.13.1.1.4. . . . . C.13.1.1.4 At least two instructors shall have three months working experience with the CT/OPEN network. Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 3, Exhibit 7 at C-21; Transcript at 104, 138. The solicitation still required that all personnel proposed have experience with the hardware and software to be provided. Protest File, Exhibit 7 at C-21. 8. Section C.15 required offerors to indicate the proposed instructors and demonstrate their experience. Protest File, Exhibit 6 at C-33, C-34. In particular, C.15.2 mirrored C.13.1.1.2 by requiring at least six months experience on all hardware and software provided; C.15.4 followed the requirements of C.13.1.1.4 by requiring personnel with three months working knowledge of the CT/OPEN network and all software provided. Id. 9. The solicitation required that resumes be provided with the technical proposal for the proposed instructors: L.21.3.1 General Your technical proposal will be an important consideration in the award of a contract; therefore, it should be specific and complete. . . . Resumes shall be provided for those individuals proposed as Training Instructors and Technical Support personnel. Protest File, Exhibit 6 at L-8. The requirement for the submission of the resumes of the proposed instructors was separately noted for C.15 in the instructions for preparing technical proposals: L.21.3.3 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL VOLUME - RESPONSE TO MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS For paragraph C.15, the Offeror must: Provide resumes for the four individuals proposed as Training Instructors and the one Field Support Representative. It is important that in presenting the capabilities of your firm and personnel who are to be assigned to the work that the information submitted be complete and detailed, spelling out clearly the relevant specialized professional competence that the firm and the individuals possess, their academic and training background, representative accomplishments, and work experience (with company and supervisors names and telephone numbers) pertinent to the proposal. Id. at L-10. Under M, award was to be made to the low-priced, technically compliant offeror. Id. at M-2. CT/OPEN 10. Everex s CT/OPEN servers and clients are essential to the operation of the network being procured. Specifically, the CT/OPEN equipment allows DEA s Unisys computers to communicate with PCs at the same site. Transcript at 309-10. Without the CT/OPEN equipment, DEA s Unisys computers and PCs would not be able to communicate with each other, share files, transmit and receive electronic messages, and the like. Id. With the CT/OPEN equipment, DEA s Unisys computers and PCs can be networked seamlessly together. Id. 11. CT/OPEN was developed in 1991 by Everex specifically to permit DEA s Unisys hardware to communicate with its PCs at the same location. Transcript 276-81, 335, 368-69; Protester s Exhibit 3 at 5-6. CT/OPEN is comprised of a small hardware component and software module. Transcript 251-52. The hardware component, in the form of a clip-on box, was developed by Ken Wood Associates, Inc. (KWA). Transcript at 252, 279, 369. The software module was developed by Richard Shephard of Syntec. Protester s Exhibit 3 at 5. After a marketing agreement with KWA terminated in September 1991, Syntec contracted with Everex to market CT/OPEN exclusively. Id. at 7.[foot #] 4 12. CT/OPEN differs entirely from CTOS. CTOS, an acronym for Convergent Technology Operating System, is a proprietary operating system for Unisys computers.[foot #] 5 Transcript at 249. Like MS DOS, Apple s System 7, or UNIX, CTOS is an operating system that initializes a computer upon start up, manages memory and storage, and permits use of applications, among other functions. In contrast, CT/OPEN is a network application that permits Unisys computers using CTOS on the one hand, and PC clones using MS or PC DOS on the other hand, to communicate with each other. Id. at 309-10. 13. While the term CTOS/Open is sometimes used to connote ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 4 KWA never sold any copies of CT/OPEN during the term of its marketing agreement with Syntec. Protester s Exhibit 3 at 8-9. [foot #] 5 Convergent Technology was acquired by Unisys several years ago. CTOS is now the same as Unisys s own BTOS (Burroughs Technology Operating System). Burroughs merged with Sperry Univac to form Unisys. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- a CTOS network open to interchange with other formats, Transcript at 649, the term CT/OPEN, as used in the solicitation, could only refer to Everex s CT/OPEN products. The term CTOS/Open was nowhere used in the solicitation. Protest File, Exhibit 6.[foot #] 6 W.R. Systems' Proposal 14. WRS proposed Everex CT/OPEN products in compliance with the solicitation requirements. In its offer, it stated that "WRS shall supply the CTalk/Open LAN CTOS-DOS Interoperability Solution from Everex Federal Systems, Inc." and cited the specific CT/OPEN products specified in the solicitation. Protest File, Exhibit 8 at 1-14. In keeping with its offering of the CT/OPEN products, WRS stated in its proposal that it would develop a training course based on Everex s CT/OPEN product: CT/OPEN Systems Management This is a course developed by the Contractor to teach the fundamentals of PC networking, and the setup, installation, and management of the CT/Open network. W R Systems was a distributor of this product prior to Everex obtaining exclusive rights and has a close working relationship with the original systems developer, Rick Shephard. W R Systems will use Mr. Shephard if necessary to assist in course development and in providing our instructors with a complete understanding of this product. It is anticipated that the complete course will be approximately 5 days in duration and will address fundamentals of PC networking and setup, installation and management of the CT/OPEN network and LANmail. Id. at 1-57; see also Transcript at 580. We find that WRS was well aware that the CT/OPEN network being procured and for which it was ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 6 According to Richard Shepard, developer of CT/OPEN, there is no other product named CT/OPEN other than the one licensed by Everex. Protester s Exhibit 3 at 6. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- to provide instructors, was the Everex CT/OPEN network and not some other network. 15. WRS stated in its proposal that its proposed instructors had experience with CT/OPEN. In fact, they have no experience with CT/OPEN. Protest File, Exhibit 8 at 1-51; Transcript at 420, 428, 442. WRS is not an authorized reseller of CT/OPEN. Protester s Exhibit 3 at 10. No WRS clients have CT/OPEN. Transcript at 618. 16. As required by the solicitation, WRS provided the resumes of its instructors purportedly having CT/OPEN work experience. Protest File, Exhibit 8 at 1-70, 1-77; Transcript at 486.[foot #] 7 In particular, the two instructors proposed as having experience with CT/OPEN were MG and BG. Transcript at 499; Protester s Exhibit 4. MG was a principal of WRS, and now operates a company called Softech. Transcript at 438. BG is an employee of WRS. Id. at 417. 17. Neither MG's nor BG's resumes stated that either had experience with Everex CT/OPEN. Protest File, Exhibit 8 at 1-70 to 1-72, 1-77 to 1-78. In fact, at the hearing, MG admitted that he did not have work experience with Everex CT/OPEN. Transcript at 442. Likewise, BG admitted at the hearing that he did not have work experience with Everex CT/OPEN. Id. at 420. 18. WRS was able to reduce its proposal price by not having to propose CT/OPEN qualified personnel. WRS s price for CLIN 3001, Instructor, Government Site, was $61,541 for the base year, $61,541 for year two, $77,811 for year three, and $80,146 for year four, for a total cost of $281,039 for one instructor. Protest File, Exhibit 8 at B-7, B-15, B-23, B-25. By proposing less qualified instructors, WRS was able to enjoy substantially lower costs over the life of the contract. Evaluation 19. The DEA evaluated proposals for compliance with the solicitation's mandatory requirements, using an evaluation checklist. Protest File, Exhibits 1, 13, 14. Evaluation for technical compliance was pass/fail, with an offeror either meeting or failing to meet the specifications. Transcript at 94, 101; Protest File, Exhibit 6 at M-1. In particular, DEA evaluated proposals for compliance with the solicitation s training and work experience requirements. Id., Exhibit 13, and 14 at 31-43. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 7 "This section [of WRS s proposal] also includes, at Paragraph C.15, resumes for four Training Instructors and one Field Support Representative. See Protest ___ File, Exhibit 8 at 0-13. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- 20. In evaluating proposals for compliance with the solicitation s training and work experience, the DEA was aware that CT/OPEN had been in existence only a few years. This was evinced from the DEA s evaluation of GMR, because, when evaluating GMR s chart showing its personnel training and work experience, the DEA evaluator correctly noted in the margin of his evaluation checklist that some of the monthly figures seemed incorrect: How can [GMR s personnel] have 80 and 60 months exp.[erience] with a product [CT/OPEN] which is only 2-3 years old! Protest File, Exhibit 14 at 31. GMR corrected this arithmetic error during negotiations. Id., Exhibit 11, Exhibit 9 at 17-4A. 21. The DEA found both WRS and GMR technically compliant. Protest File, Exhibit 15. DEA did not question WRS s compliance with the training or work experience requirements of C.13 of the solicitation. Id. Effect on GMR 22. The final evaluated price for WRS was $11,348,971. Protest File, Exhibit 15 (last page). The final evaluated price for GMR was $11,727,272. Id. The difference between the two offers was $378,301. However, had WRS been required to propose CT/OPEN qualified personnel, then WRS would have had to locate and have paid substantially more for qualified instructors. 23. GMR subcontracted at considerable cost with Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. (CTI) for CT/OPEN qualified instructors. Protest File, Exhibit 9. Had GMR been allowed to offer instructors who did not have the specified work experience with CT/OPEN, then GMR could have reduced its price by substituting less qualified instructors for the ones it actually proposed. Id. For example, GMR s price for CLIN 3001, Instructor, Government Site, was $83,774 for the base year, $87,212 for year two, $90,604 for year three, and $94,161 for year four, for a total cost of $355,751 for one instructor. Protest File, Exhibit 9 at B-5, B-11, B-17, B-19. Discussion The only issue in this case is whether the awardee, WRS, met the mandatory requirement of the solicitation that: At least two instructors shall have three months working experience with the CT/OPEN network. Inasmuch as the two instructors proposed by WRS for training on the CT/OPEN network do not have the required work experience, the issue can be further narrowed. To wit, is "the CT/OPEN network" with which the two instructors are to have "three months working experience," a network utilizing Everex CT/OPEN hardware/software (servers and clients) of the sort which were to be supplied as part of the network being procured? We conclude that it is. In section C.3 of the solicitation specifications, Everex s CT/OPEN products (servers and clients) were specified as the "CT/OPEN Networking Solution" and their supply and use in the resultant contract was clearly a mandatory requirement of the solicitation. No one disputes that fact. Section C.13 of the specifications required that two of the instructors proposed by the offeror have at least "three months working experience with the CT/OPEN network." The protester interpreted the requirement as calling for instructors having experience with the same Everex products required by the contract. We agree, and conclude that under the terms of the solicitation, WRS was required to propose instructors having CT/OPEN experience on the CT/OPEN network which was to be supplied. Everex CT/OPEN Was a Mandatory Requirement We consider it significant that although the word "Everex" appears nowhere in the solicitation, no one disputes that the "CT/OPEN" products (servers and clients) specified in Section C.3 of the solicitation referred to Everex s brand and model products. These products were mandatory requirements of the solicitation and both the protester, GMR, and the awardee, WRS, proposed to supply the Everex "CT/OPEN" products specified. WRS clearly understood that the term "CT/OPEN," when used to describe the equipment, servers and clients, to be supplied, referred to Everex products. A reasonable offeror would not consider the term "CT/OPEN," when used to describe the network with which the instructors were required to "have three months working experience," as designating some system using other than Everex's equipment designated "CT/OPEN" for achieving the interoperability between CTOS and DOS operating systems required by the contract. WRS s own expert witness contended that CT/OPEN does not have any meaning in the trade or industry. Transcript at 658-59, 663. This was the purpose, sum, and substance of her testimony. Her view is the protester's position on that issue. Thus, WRS had to determine the meaning of term "CT/OPEN" by reference to the rest of the solicitation or by inquiring of the Government. No such inquiry was made by WRS. We conclude that the only reasonable interpretation of the requirement of "working experience with the CT/OPEN network" is experience with a network utilizing CT/OPEN Everex equipment providing interoperability between equipment using CTOS (or BTOS) operating systems and those using a DOS operating system. The solicitation used the term CT/OPEN in specifying by brand name Everex s CT/OPEN products, which were developed by Everex specifically for use in networking DEA CTOS and MS DOS computers. The solicitation required that the proposed instructors have at least three months working experience with CT/OPEN. Training in CT/OPEN was so important to the success of the use of the system being procured that the solicitation devoted a specific mandatory requirement to insuring that the proposed instructors had experience with CT/OPEN, to wit: At least two instructors shall have three months working experience with the CT/OPEN network. Of all the software programs listed in C.13.1, CT/OPEN was the only program listed separately by itself in its own mandatory requirement. To argue that instructors did not have to have experience with Everex s CT/OPEN networks flies in the face of the solicitation and would be inconsistent with the intent of the procurement to provide a usable system with appropriate training. The solicitation stated that the instructors must have experience with all software offered. Finding 7. Considering that the solicitation expressly called for at least two instructors with working experience with the CT/OPEN network, and that CT/OPEN provided the essential bridge between the respondent's CTOS equipment and the PCs, it is not reasonable to interpret the requirement as not calling for instructors with experience in systems using Everex's CT/OPEN products. As stated in AT&T Paradyne Corp. v. Department of Transportation, GSBCA 10598-P-R, 92-2 BCA 24,784, at 123,637, 1992 BPD 32, at 4, in interpreting a solicitation we first look to the plain, commonsense meaning of the solicitation document. C&P Telephone Co., GSBCA 10331-P, 90-2 BCA 22,883, at 114,923, 1992 BPD 385, at 12. We also look to the contemporaneous, pre-protest conduct of the parties. AT&T, 92-2 BCA at 123,638, 1992 BPD 32, at 5; Xerox Corp., GSBCA 9862-P, 89-2 BCA 21,652, 1989 BPD 68. Finally, we will read the solicitation as a whole so as to give meaning to all of its terms. AT&T, at 123,638, 1992 BPD 32, at 5. In the instant case, the rules of interpretation compel the conclusion that C.13.1.1.4 required that the instructors possess work experience with an Everex CT/OPEN network rather than some other system. First, the plain commonsense reading of the solicitation indicates that training experience in CT/OPEN, and not some other product, was required. Second, WRS s pre-protest conduct, as evinced by its proposal, shows that WRS understood that C.13.1.1.4 required work experience with Everex s CT/OPEN products. WRS proposed Everex s CT/OPEN. Its proposal even stated that it would develop a training course based on Everex s CT/OPEN product. Finding 14.[foot #] 8 Third, the solicitation, read as a whole, shows that CT/OPEN experience was required. Again, it is reasonable to require experience with the products offered. We thus conclude that, in requiring the proposed instructors to have "working experience with the CT/OPEN network" the "CT/OPEN network" must be an open network employing the CT/OPEN products to be supplied under the contract. By contrast, WRS s argument that its proposed instructors were not required to have experience with CT/OPEN network to be supplied, the single most critical part of the procurement, simply does not make sense. WRS s Instructors Lack Experience with CT/OPEN Simply stated, WRS proposed no instructors who have the requisite experience mandated by C.13.1.1.4 of the solicitation. Since the solicitation clearly required that two of the instructors proposed have a minimum of three months of work experience with CT/OPEN, WRS failed to meet a mandatory requirement of the solicitation. The respondent's award to WRS was thus in violation of the solicitation s own terms. The solicitation required offerors to specify the instructors to be used in the performance of the contract. It is undisputed that WRS proposed MG and BG as its CT/OPEN instructors.[foot #] 9 ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 8 The protester understood C.13.1.1.4 to refer to training in Everex s CT/OPEN products. Transcript at 285. To satisfy this requirement, the protester proposed trainers having specific experience with CT/OPEN. Transcript at 708-11, 724. The respondent evaluated GMR s proposal for work experience with Everex s CT/OPEN, specifically noting that this product had been available only for a few years. Protest File, Exhibit 14 at 31 of 53. [foot #] 9 MS and GB, the two other WRS nominees mentioned at the hearing, would not satisfy the three month work experience requirement in any event. MS s only experience with Everex s CT/OPEN was attending a demonstration and reviewing brochures. Transcript at 68. GB was proposed as WRS s Field Service Representative, not as an instructor. Protest File, Exhibit 8 at 1-79. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- All offerors were required to name their instructors in their proposals and demonstrate their CT/OPEN work experience. WRS failed to meet the solicitation's mandatory requirements by nominating MG and BG, two instructors who clearly do not have CT/OPEN work experience. The respondent, by accepting WRS's proposal, would be bound to accept MG and BG as the instructors for CT/OPEN. WRS contends that the qualifications of the two instructors actually proposed are not important because they can be replaced by others having the required experience. However, such an argument is nothing more than a contention that the required demonstrated compliance with mandatory requirements need not be demonstrated because an offeror can perhaps meet them after award. That is not the rule. See Telos Field Engineering, GSBCA 9735-P, 89-1 BCA 21,415, 1988 BPD 309 (holding that for purposes of evaluation, the resumes of the personnel proposed must satisfy the solicitation s requirements even if the contractor could later substitute personnel). See also PSI International, Inc. v. Department of Energy, GSBCA 11521-P, et al., 92-2 BCA 24,775, 1992 BPD 35 (holding that it was improper for the agency to evaluate proposals on the basis that the awardee could substitute its proposed personnel with others upon award). MG and BG Do Not Have Training or Work Experience with CT/OPEN It is undisputed that neither MG nor BG have any direct experience with Everex s CT/OPEN. Although both may have experience with CTOS and other products, it can not be gainsaid that neither have work experience with "the CT/OPEN network" being procured. An Award to an Offeror Failing to Meet the Minimum Work Experience Requirement is Improper The solicitation explicitly required that the offeror s instructors possess a minimum three month work experience with CT/OPEN. This was a mandatory requirement of the solicitation. It is axiomatic that an award may not be made to an offeror that failed to meet that minimum experience requirement of the solicitation. The two instructors proposed by WRS did not meet the mandatory CT/OPEN experience requirements of the solicitation. Our recent decision in CBIS Federal, Inc. v. Department of Interior, GSBCA 12092-P, 93-2 BCA 25,643, 1992 BPD 386, is controlling. CBIS involved a procurement for ADP facilities management services at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In CBIS, the solicitation required offerors to propose personnel having specific experience with the type of mainframe equipment at the agency, including specific experience with certain software programs. For example, the solicitation required that the computer systems support specialist proposed [m]ust have knowledge of CICS (Customer Integrated Control System), TMON, Omegamon, TSO (Time Sharing Option), and Wylbur online systems. . . . Id. at 127,601, 1992 BPD 386, at 4. In evaluating offers in that case, the agency failed to disqualify individuals who failed to meet the minimum, mandatory requirements for experience. We found the agency s disregard of the solicitation s mandatory requirements improper: The solicitation clearly stated that only experience gained while working in a large mainframe computer environment similar to the USGS GPCC would count in determining relevant experience. Evaluators ignored this restriction, however, and counted experience in working with mainframes generally, no matter whether those machines ran under operating systems that were altogether or markedly different from the large mainframe at the USGS center. The evaluators testimony indicates that they did not appreciate the differences between operating systems, and that one member of the committee did not even understand the concept of the differences. The evaluators failure to adhere to the solicitation s standard had a clear, beneficial impact on the scores of personnel proposed by CBSI[foot #] 10. Id. at 127,607, 1992 BPD 386, at 13 (citations omitted). We ordered the contract terminated. The parallels with the instant case are striking. In both CBIS and the instant case, the solicitation required specific experience with particular equipment and software. In both CBIS and the instant case, the agency failed to evaluate the awardee s proposal in accordance with the solicitation s experience requirements, finding experience where none in fact existed. As in CBIS, we hold that the agency improperly awarded the contract to WRS because of its failure to propose instructors having three months working experience with CT/OPEN. The award to WRS was improper, and violative of the solicitation's terms. As we have previously said: Acceptance of such a [deviant] proposal is an unlawful departure from the evaluation plan of the solicitation and is inequitable to those vendors such as the protester, who, relying on the requirements and award procedures set forth in the solicitation, struggled to meet mandatory requirements with cost implications upon pain of elimination from the competition. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 10 CBIS was the protester, CBSI was the firm __ __ which had received the protested award. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- US Sprint Communications, GSBCA 10684-P, 91-1 BCA 23,333, at 117,026, 1990 BPD 264, at 15. Accordingly, the instant award was improper. The Respondent's Evaluation of Proposals Prejudiced GMR The DEA's evaluation of WRS's proposal was obviously prejudicial to any other offeror proposing instructors having the required experience with "the CT/OPEN network." To meet the solicitation s requirements for CT/OPEN experienced personnel, GMR subcontracted at considerable cost with CTI for CT/OPEN training. GMR was required to pay these salaries for instructors for the reason noted by the Contracting Officer in her Statement, that persons with the required experience with CT/OPEN are limited. Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 3. In contrast, WRS was able to significantly reduce its proposal price by not proposing CT/OPEN qualified personnel. WRS s price for CLIN 3001, Instructor, Government Site, was $61,541 for the base year, $61,541 for year two, $77,811 for year three, and $80,146 for year four, for a total cost of $281,039 for one instructor. Finding 18. The cost difference between WRS and GMR is thus $74,712 per instructor. As stated in CBIS, it is obvious that a protester would have altered its offer had it known that the agency was relaxing the mandatory experience requirement. Had the solicitation promised a different evaluation scheme, there is no doubt that Cincinnati Bell (or any other offeror, for that matter, might have proposed a different group of personnel and different prices. Furthermore, to the extent that USGS erred in considering CBSI to be eligible for award, notwithstanding the failure of half its proposed key people to meet mandatory minimum experience requirements, it ignored essential evaluation factors. This, too, is contrary to statute and regulation. 93-2 BCA at 127,607, 1992 BPD 386, at 14 (citations omitted). In evaluating proposals, an agency cannot relax its requirements for one offeror when others have priced their offers on the basis of meeting the stated mandatory requirements of the solicitation. In the instant case, the price differential is not de minimis. Consequently, we cannot be certain that the awardee would not have changed had the respondent competed its relaxed requirements as reflected in the award made. Experienced instructors were a significant cost element in the competition for this procurement. Decision The protest is GRANTED. The respondent awarded the contract to an offeror whose proposal failed to offer instructors meeting the mandatory work experience required by the solicitation. The protester met that requirement. The award thus violated the procurement statutes and regulations mandating an award to the most advantageous offer meeting the requirements of the solicitation. The award to WRS is to be canceled. The respondent may proceed with the procurement in accordance with statute and regulation and may, for example, evaluate existing compliant proposals and make an award, or amend the solicitation to state its needs accurately. _____________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge We concur: ____________________________ ____________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge Board Judge