________________________________________________ DENIED: October 29, 1993 _________________________________________________ GSBCA 12565-P, 12575-P VION CORPORATION, Protester, and INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Protester/Intervenor, and AMDAHL CORPORATION, and FEDERAL COMPUTER CORPORATION, Intervenors, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Irwin Goldbloom, David R. Hazelton, and Martin F. Petraitis of Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester ViON Corporation. Shelton H. Skolnick, Judy D. Leishman, and Amy M. Hall of Skolnick & Leishman, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester/Intervenor Integrated Systems Group, Inc. David S. Cohen, Nikki Koulizakis, and G. Brent Connor of Cohen & White, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor Amdahl Corporation. David S. Kovach of Federal Computer Corporation, Falls Church, VA, counsel for Intervenor Federal Computer Corporation. John C. Sawyer, Kurt D. Summers, and Seth Binstock, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, WILLIAMS, and GOODMAN. PARKER, Board Judge. These protests challenge the General Services Administration's (GSA's) authority to award three indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery contracts from which other agencies of the Government may place orders for mainframe computer systems. As discussed below, we hold that GSA's proposed procurement scheme does not violate any statute or regulation. In addition, we find the protesters' specific objections to various portions of the solicitation to be without merit. Thus, we deny the protests. Findings of Fact 1. In an effort to streamline the twelve to twenty-four month procurement process for mainframe computer systems, GSA established the "Drop-in Technology For Mainframe Computers Program." Protest File, Exhibit 5 at 1. GSA issued the solicitation at issue here on June 23, 1993, as part of a pilot project for the program. Id., Exhibit 30 at C-2. 2. The solicitation provides for the award of indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery contracts for mainframe computer systems (including site surveys), the design of which is based on International Business Machines Corporation's System 370/390- class technology. Protest File, Exhibit 30 at C-1. The solicitation would result in separate contracts in each of three different performance classes or "bands." Id. at C-6. The minimum guaranteed purchase for each contract is $50,000. Id. at B-1. 3. The purpose of the procurement is to avoid the need for separate mainframe computer procurements by individual user agencies by establishing non-mandatory contractual vehicles from which agencies can order commercially available hardware and software: It is the goal of this program to establish contractual vehicles to expedite the procurement of commercially available hardware and software for use throughout the Federal Government. Use of the contracts by agencies will be voluntary. GSA believes, however, substantial ordering activity will occur because of the potential savings in time and cost that agencies will realize using this contract versus conducting their own individual competitive procurements. Protest File, Exhibit 30 at C-1 to C-2. 4. The initial contracts will last for one year, with two six-month options. The optional periods are only to cover unanticipated delays in the recompetition, which will occur yearly to avoid "locking out" unsuccessful vendors for long periods of time. Protest File, Exhibit 30 at C-3. The relatively short contract term is also intended to simplify the contract by obviating the need for "technology refreshment" or "substitution" provisions. Id. Although GSA does not know how long a particular agency will use a particular computer, GSA established a five-year systems life for evaluation purposes. Id., Exhibit 26 at M-7. 5. Agencies that wish to order computers from the contract will be required to justify their needs to GSA: The availability of the Drop-in Technology contract will not exempt agencies from conducting all of the studies (requirements analysis, alternatives analysis, conversion study) required by the Federal Information Resources Information Resources Management Regulations (FIRMR). These studies will enable each agency to determine the characteristics of processor needed to satisfy its requirements, to identify and evaluate acquisition alternatives, and to select the most advantageous alternative. Only agencies with a bona fide requirement for compatibility-limited, 370/390- architecture processors will be permitted to use these contracts. GSA will establish a Drop-in Program Management Office to assist agencies in the use of the contract and to process delivery orders on their behalf. The GSA PMO will ensure that agencies have met the FIRMR requirements and have satisfactorily demonstrated a need for IBM compatibility-limited equipment that can be satisfied through this contract. Protest File, Exhibit 30 at C-3. The contract does not require an agency to publicize its intention to order a computer from the contract. 6. Prior to issuing the solicitation, GSA conducted a detailed survey of other federal agencies currently using IBM or IBM compatible mainframe computers. Protest File, Exhibits 6, 7, 9. Although the survey was not all- inclusive[foot #] 1, GSA's analysis of the results led it to conclude that there exists a present need within the Government to purchase these types of computers. Id., Exhibit 9. 7. Although GSA's survey revealed significant differences among agencies in terms of their types and amounts of workload, GSA analyzed the workload data and established the three performance categories of computers based upon "typical" levels of required processing power. In establishing these "bands," GSA also took into account the extent to which it could expect a fair competition among the three manufacturers of IBM and IBM compatible mainframe computers. See Protest File, Exhibits 6, 9. 8. In order to determine whether an offered computer will satisfy the performance requirements of the band for which it is proposed, GSA adopted a performance validation method termed "prove-it." Essentially, the solicitation requires offerors to submit data which they believe will enable the Government to verify that the proposed processor meets the requirements. The solicitation encourages offerors to provide reliable and easily verifiable technical information and states that "[t]he Government may independently collect and use its own evidence to supplement the evaluation of the proposed processor." Protest File, Exhibit 30 at L-7 to L-10. There is no provision for a "benchmark" test or any other performance validation technique based upon any particular agency's workload. 9. The solicitation requires that proposed computers be "in current production": the "in current production" requirement is met if: (a) the item is being actively marketed and supported with ongoing enhancements; (b) the item is being maintained without any significant reduction in maintenance related resources; and (c) the manufacturer has not announced discontinuance of such marketing, support, and maintenance levels. Protest File, Exhibit 30 at C-10. 10. Although the solicitation permits offers of used equipment, it prohibits offers of "outdated" equipment: Federal agencies are prohibited from including outdated equipment in their ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 GSA sent out eighty-eight survey questionnaires and received forty-three responses. Of these responses, approximately twenty-eight provided "usable data." Protest File, Exhibit 9. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- specification unless the agency's Designated Senior Official determines that such action will be in the best interest of the Government. Therefore, equipment that is outdated, as of the due date for the submission of initial offers, will not be considered acceptable. Outdated equipment is defined as any mainframe processor that is over eight (8) years old, based on the initial commercial installation date of that processor, and is no longer in current production as defined in C.4.2 above. Protest File, Exhibit 30 at C-11. Discussion The Drop-in Technology Procurement Protester ViON argues that, by awarding indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery (IDIQ) contracts from which other agencies may place orders for mainframe computers, GSA is in essence establishing non-mandatory schedule contracts without complying with statutory and regulatory requirements designed to ensure competition within the GSA schedule program. As discussed below, we disagree with ViON's characterization of the proposed contracts at issue here. Although similarities exist between the IDIQ contracts to be awarded under the "Drop-in Technology" program, and contracts awarded under GSA's non-mandatory schedule program, the two programs are fundamentally different. These contracts will be awarded as a result of full and open competition; schedule contracts are awarded without competition. Thus, the statutory and regulatory requirements which apply specifically to GSA's non-mandatory schedule program do not apply here. The Administrator of GSA possesses broad authority to "coordinate and provide for the economic and efficient purchase, lease, and maintenance of automatic data processing equipment [ADPE] by Federal agencies." 40 U.S.C. 759(a)(1) (1988). GSA may purchase directly ADPE for use by other agencies, or it may delegate to the agencies the authority to make such purchases. Id., 759(b)(1), (2). The Brooks Act was broadly drafted so as to permit GSA to "enter into any method of procurement or arrangement that [it deems] economical, efficient and appropriate to foster the objectives of the Act." Amdahl Corp., GSBCA 7859- P, 85-2 BCA 18,111, at 90,933, 1985 BPD 18, at 20. In carrying out its Brooks Act responsibilities, GSA sometimes purchases ADP directly for use by agencies, and sometimes delegates authority to agencies to make such purchases. Pursuant to its statutory authority, GSA also established the non-mandatory ADP schedule program. See 41 CFR 201-39.803 (1992) (FIRMR 201-39.803). Under the program, GSA awards contracts to numerous vendors -- often for exactly the same items -- with prices based upon discounts from the vendors' commercial price lists. 48 CFR 38-102.2 (1992) (FAR 38.102.2). These contracts are not competitively awarded; any vendor which complies with GSA's requirements may be awarded a schedule contract. See Insyst Corp., GSBCA 9946-P, et al., 89-2 BCA 21,782, 1989 BPD 132. In schedule contracting, the competition occurs not in the award of the schedule contract, but in connection with an agency's determination whether to place an order under one of the contracts. Consequently, before placing an order under a non- mandatory GSA schedule contract, an agency is required to publicize its intention in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) and consider all responses received in order to determine whether the proposed schedule purchase "results in the lowest overall cost alternative to meet the Government's needs." FIRMR 201-39.803-2. If the proposed schedule buy is not the lowest overall cost alternative, the agency, depending on the responses received, must either order from another schedule contract that does offer the lowest overall cost alternative, or issue a solicitation and conduct a competitive procurement. Id. This is how the Government obtains competition under the schedule program. In contrast, the proposed IDIQ contracts at issue here will be awarded as a result of full and open competition at the front end. The procurement was publicized twice in the CBD and at least forty-six vendors requested copies of the solicitation.[foot #] 2 GSA is conducting a "regular" competitive procurement which will result in three IDIQ contracts. We are unable to find, nor has ViON pointed us to, any statute or regulation which prohibits GSA from exercising its Brooks Act authority in this manner. We also fail to see how ViON will be prejudiced by this procurement method; ViON will be able to compete for the contracts just like every other vendor. It is true, as ViON points out, that agencies must, at some point, assess their individual needs before deciding whether to ask GSA to place an order under one of the contracts. GSA, however, will require agencies to perform all of the analyses and studies required by the FIRMR prior to making such a decision. Finding 5. ViON's fears that an agency may attempt to order a computer that does not meet its needs at the lowest price are both speculative and premature. The possibility that a contract may, at some point, be misused does not make the contract itself illegal.[foot #] 3 ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 Protest File, Exhibits 11, 12, 24, 25. [foot #] 3 We recognize, as does ViON, that unless either GSA or the agency publishes its intent to place an order under the contract, it will be more difficult for vendors to (continued...) ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- In a related ground of protest, ViON argues that the proposed contracts violate statute and regulation because the specifications for the three performance bands are based upon a survey of several agencies' requirements, rather than on the specific workload requirements of a particular agency. We deny this ground of protest, as well. GSA's survey, which ViON has not shown to be unreasonable, showed that there exists a present need within the Government for these types of computers. Finding 6. GSA's decision to analyze workload data from a number of agencies, and to establish the three performance categories based upon "typical" levels of required processing power, is a reasonable exercise of GSA's Brooks Act authority to provide for the economic and efficient purchase of ADP equipment for the Government. ViON also challenges GSA's decision to validate the performance of proposed computer systems through the use of a methodology called "prove-it." Under that methodology, offerors submit data which they believe will enable the Government to verify that the proposed processor meets the requirements of the band for which it was proposed. No "benchmark" test or other performance validation technique based on a particular agency's workload will be used. Finding 8. This ground of protest is related to the previous two, and our analysis is, consequently, similar. ViON has not shown that GSA's proposed method of validating performance is unreasonable. To the contrary, given the nature of the procurement, "prove-it" seems to make a great deal of sense. GSA is soliciting offers of computer systems with certain performance capabilities which different agencies may use to satisfy their requirements. We agree with GSA that using a particular agency's workload to validate performance would not make sense under these circumstances. Although validating the performance of a particular processor based upon its ability to process the specific workload of the agency purchasing it is generally the preferred method, see FIRMR 201-24.215(a), it certainly is not the only method. We refuse to apply the FIRMR so rigidly as to force the Government to act in a way which is unreasonable, if not impossible. Again, ViON has not shown that it will be prejudiced by GSA's use of this technique. ViON has not even alleged that it ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 3 (...continued) challenge individual orders that competitors believe to be improper. We assume that GSA will comply with whatever publication requirements are applicable to the placement of orders under an IDIQ contract. GSA's failure to include publication requirements applicable to the non-mandatory schedule program in this solicitation, however, does not render the solicitation defective in any way. As discussed above, these contracts are not part of the schedule program. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- will be unable to prove that its proposed processors meet the requirements of the solicitation. Moreover, if after contract award ViON believes that an awardee failed to prove the capabilities of its proposed processor, ViON will be able to protest the award at that time. Rule 5(b)(3)(ii). In Current Production In its next ground of protest, ViON maintains that the solicitation's definition of "in current production" is vague and ambiguous. We disagree. The solicitation states that the "in current production" requirement is met if: (a) the item is being actively marketed and supported with ongoing enhancements; (b) the item is being maintained without any significant reduction in maintenance related resources; and (c) the manufacturer has not announced discontinuance of such marketing, support, and maintenance levels. Finding 5. We begin our analysis by pointing out that ViON has not identified any particular ambiguity in the definition. ViON has neither provided the Board with competing interpretations of any of the terms, nor identified a particular reading of the definition which would harm ViON's ability to submit a responsive offer. Thus, we have no basis upon which to hold that the definition is vague or ambiguous. ViON's brief makes it clear, however, that ViON is really complaining about the fact that the solicitation's definition of "in current production" does not require that a proposed system be one which is currently being manufactured. Instead, the definition concerns itself with the extent to which a manufacturer is marketing and maintaining the processor. The problem with ViON's argument, however, is that no statute or regulation requires that the Government purchase computer systems that are currently being manufactured. Lacking a statute or regulation upon which to rely, ViON points to prior Board decisions which purportedly require agencies to define "in current production" to include a manufacturing component. ViON's reliance on those cases, however, is misplaced. In ViON Corp., GSBCA 11002-P, 91-2 BCA 23,809, 1991 BPD 8, the Board held that a contract was wrongly awarded because the awardee's computer did not meet the solicitation's requirement that equipment be in current production. The solicitation provided that "[o]nly new, or used equipment certified as new by the [manufacturer] . . . in current production shall be offered." Finding that the phrase "in current production" was not a term of art, the Board interpreted the solicitation to require computers "actually being manufactured" as of the relevant date. 91-2 BCA at 119,221, 1991 BPD 8, at 9-10. Similarly, in Federal Computer Corp. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 11872-P, 93-1 BCA 25,347, 1992 BPD 207, the Board was called upon to interpret a solicitation which defined the term "in current production" to refer to "a product which is out of the design phase, on the assembly line, and being manufactured as of the proposal due date, with the expectation that such production will continue on a scheduled basis." 93-1 BCA at 126,257, 1992 BPD 207, at 4. We held that the awardee's product was in current production because it was, among other things, in the manufacturing phase. In each of these cases the Board was called upon to interpret the meaning of the phrase "in current production" in the context of a particular solicitation. In those cases we found the term to include a manufacturing component because the solicitations themselves, reasonably interpreted, required it. Here, the situation is quite different. The solicitation clearly does not require that a proposed computer be one which is currently being manufactured. GSA has simply determined that it requires that proposed computers be supported and maintained, but not currently manufactured. The term "in current production" may be inapt to describe what GSA wants, but it is clearly defined.[foot #] 4 ViON urges the Board to require GSA to adopt a more restrictive (and, therefore, less competitive) definition of the phrase "in current production." We decline to do so. ViON has not shown that the current definition fails to meet the needs of the Government, is unreasonable, ambiguous, or violates any statute or regulation. Outdated Equipment In its final ground of protest, ViON argues that the solicitation permits offers of outdated equipment, in violation of the FIRMR. We deny this ground, as well. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 4 We recognize that the definition of "in current production" in the solicitation is contrary to the ordinary meaning of this term -- which does include the concept of currently being manufactured. See ViON. While we do not ___ ____ encourage agencies to define terms in such an inconsistent manner, we do not find the definition to be illegal here where no prejudice inures to any vendor. The only conflict we see here is with the definition of outdated equipment in FIRMR 201-4.001, which defines outdated equipment in part using the term "in current production." While we interpret that FIRMR provision to mean "currently being manufactured," the inconsistency is not problematic in this case. See discussion, infra. ___ _____ ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Section C.4.4 of the solicitation provides: Federal agencies are prohibited from including outdated equipment in their specification unless the agency's Designated Senior Official determines that such action will be in the best interest of the Government. Therefore, equipment that is outdated, as of the due date for the submission of initial offers, will not be considered acceptable. Outdated equipment is defined as any mainframe processor that is over eight (8) years old, based on the initial commercial installation date of that processor, and is no longer in current production, as defined in C.4.2 above. Finding 10. This definition closely mirrors the definition of outdated equipment contained in the FIRMR. The FIRMR defines outdated equipment as "any [ADP] equipment over eight years old, based on the initial commercial installation date of that model of equipment, and that is no longer in current production." FIRMR 201-4.001. ViON argues the solicitation permits offers of outdated equipment because it prohibits equipment that is outdated at the time of initial offers, whereas FIRMR Bulletin C-29 states that "agencies should not acquire outdated equipment or equipment which will become outdated before the need for the equipment ends." Thus, argues ViON, because agencies may order computers for up to two years under the terms of the contracts, see Finding 4, and the systems life of the computers is five years, Id., any computer more than one year old (eight minus seven equals one) as of the date of award would be outdated, unless it is in current production. ViON also argues that "in current production" in the context of this FIRMR definition must be read to include a manufacturing component. There are several problems with ViON's position. First, although the solicitation establishes a systems life of five years for evaluation purposes, Finding 4, the actual life of an agency's system may vary substantially from that number. In answering a vendor's question on this subject, GSA noted: The FIRMR Bulletin C-29 contains "guidelines for consideration by agencies when solicitations allow offerors to propose used equipment", and these guidelines were taken into account in the development of this solicitation. Offerors are reminded that the FIRMR definition of "outdated" is conjunctive, requiring that the equipment be over eight years old AND no longer in current production. The FIRMR does not define "current production", therefore a definition of the phrase was developed in concert with the requirements of this solicitation. As the Government has no means of predicting, and feels certain that offerors and manufacturers will not predict, the "last production date" for a model of equipment, the Government has determined that equipment that is not "outdated" (as defined in this solicitation) as of initial proposal submission will be eligible for award, provided that such equipment meets all of the other solicitation requirements and is offered at the lowest evaluated cost. The agencies who acquire equipment under the contracts resulting from this solicitation may or may not have a need to use the equipment for the full five year system life cycle that has been established for the cost analysis for this procurement as stated in M.5.2. Protest File, Exhibit 35 at Q.61. Thus, an agency may use ordered equipment for a shorter period or a longer period than the solicitation's evaluated systems life. Until the agency defines the period of need for each ordered processor, it is impossible to determine whether that processor is likely to become outdated during the agency's projected period of use. And, since the Drop-in contracts are not mandatory, an agency can select another contract vehicle if any processor on the Drop-in contract is likely to become obsolete during the agency's projected use period. Second, we do not find the solicitation to run afoul of the FIRMR's definition of outdated equipment. As stated above, the FIRMR contains a two-pronged test for determining whether equipment is outdated: equipment is outdated if it is "over eight years old based on the initial commercial installation date of that model of equipment and . . . is no longer in current production." FIRMR 201-4.001 (emphasis added). Thus, if a piece of equipment "passes" either prong of the test, it is not outdated. As to the first prong of the definition, the solicitation virtually mirrors the FIRMR: outdated equipment is "over eight (8) years old, based on the initial commercial installation date of that processor . . . ." Finding 10. The solicitation will measure the age of equipment as of the date initial offers are due. Id. ViON argues that this latter date runs afoul of FIRMR Bulletin 29, which states in part that "agencies should not acquire outdated equipment or equipment which will become outdated before the need for the equipment ends." ViON reads too much into this Bulletin. FIRMR Bulletins are "nonregulatory publications to provide guidance and information." FIRMR 201-3.001(b)(1). Thus, even if ViON could prove that GSA's definition of outdated equipment is inconsistent with FIRMR Bulletin C-29, the Board does not grant protests on the basis of violations of FIRMR Bulletins alone. ViON Corp., GSBCA 11048-P (10218-P-REM), 91-2 BCA 23,792, 1991 BPD 38. In any event FIRMR Bulletin 29 does not require agencies to set any particular date for measuring the age of computer equipment. We read FIRMR Bulletin 29 as admonishing agencies to consider the intended period of use before deciding which computers will meet their requirements. There is no indication here that any agency intends to purchase a computer from one of the Drop-in contracts which is or will become outdated. We hold that GSA's decision to measure the age of proposed processors at the time of initial proposals is reasonable and does not violate the FIRMR.[foot #] 5 Under the FIRMR definition, a system cannot be outdated (even if it is more than eight years old) if it is in current production. This is the second prong of the FIRMR definition. Because the term "in current production" is not defined in the FIRMR, we agree with ViON that the term must assume its common meaning for purposes of the outdated equipment requirement. This is irrelevant, however, because we have found that, under the solicitation, the proposed processors must pass the first prong of the FIRMR's outdated equipment test (less than eight years old based upon initial commercial installation date). Thus, the solicitation does not permit offers of outdated equipment, regardless of how it defines "in current production." Finally, we deny this ground of protest because ViON has failed to show that it will be prejudiced by the challenged clause. ViON has not alleged that it will be restricted from competing for the contracts; to the contrary, by arguing for a more rigid definition of outdated equipment, ViON is attempting to limit competition. As long as the solicitation accurately reflects the Government's requirements (and ViON has not shown otherwise) restricting competition is not an interest that the Competition in Contracting Act protects. Teradata Corp. v. Department of the Air Force, GSBCA 11642-P, et al, 92-2 BCA 24,895, 1992 BPD 74; Computer Consoles, Inc., GSBCA 8453-P, 86-2 BCA 18,941, 1986 BPD 74. ViON's protest is denied. ISG's Grounds of Protest ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 5 Under ViON's restrictive reading of the FIRMR, an agency could not purchase any computer that it ___ anticipated keeping for more than eight years. This is because, under ViON's reading, every computer would be "outdated" ("over eight years old" "before the need for the equipment ends") before it was even manufactured. Clearly FIRMR Bulletin C-29 was not intended to mandate such an absurd result. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- ISG maintains that the solicitation violates the FIRMR because it fails to include evaluation of possible upgrades to the proposed processors. According to ISG, because agencies often upgrade the capacity of their processors during their useful lives, GSA cannot not know which processor offers the lowest system life cost without evaluating offers of upgrades along with the cost of the processors. In a related ground of protest, ISG argues that this situation encourages offerors to "buy in" at low prices, knowing that they can sell an agency expensive upgrades at a later time. The FIRMR provides: The use of options may be appropriate in [ADP] resources acquisitions because-- (a) The FIRMR requires agencies to determine a system life for each [ADP] resource requirement and to evaluate costs over the system life . . . . Putting aside the fact that this provision states that options may be appropriate, ISG's argument, like ViON's similar arguments, is speculative and premature. By awarding three IDIQ contracts, GSA is obtaining firm, competitive prices for three types of processors. When agencies have a requirement for this type of processor, they will perform all of the studies (requirements analysis, alternatives analysis, etc.) required by the FIRMR prior to purchasing a mainframe computer system. Only if ordering from one of the IDIQ contracts is found to be the most advantageous alternative will an agency be permitted to do so. Finding 5. Obviously, if an agency anticipates a need to upgrade a processor during its system life, it should take into account the cost of such upgrade in determining which processor to buy, and how to buy it. ISG has not shown that GSA's decision not to include processor upgrades in this procurement is unreasonable. ISG has produced no evidence whatsoever regarding the frequency with which agencies upgrade their processors. Under these circumstances, evaluating prices based upon options which may not be needed by a hypothetical user agency is just as silly as failing to evaluate them when they will be needed. The fact that these decisions will be made later on an agency-by-agency basis does not mean that GSA lacks authority under the Brooks Act to establish the Drop-in IDIQ contracts as a non-mandatory alternative for agencies to consider. In its final ground of protest, ISG maintains that the solicitation fails to state a minimum quantity of supplies or services to be ordered. ISG cites FAR 16.504(a): (1) The contract shall require the Government to order and the contractor to furnish at least a stated minimum quantity of supplies or services and, if and as ordered, the contractor to furnish any additional quantities, not to exceed a stated maximum. . . . (2) To ensure that the contract is binding, the minimum quantity must be more than a nominal quantity, but it should not exceed the amount that the Government is fairly certain to order. The solicitation establishes a guaranteed minimum purchase of $50,000 for each contract. Finding 2. These amounts clearly are more than "nominal," and certainly constitute sufficient consideration to bind the Government. See Coastal States Petrochemical Co. v. United States, 214 Ct. Cl. 520, 559 F.2d 1 (1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 942 (1978) ($100 minimum order sufficient consideration for $19,000,000 indefinite quantity contract). The payment will be made whether or not any deliverables are ordered and, although $50,000 will not purchase a mainframe computer system, it will purchase a site survey under the contract. See Finding 2. To the extent ISG argues that the FAR requires GSA to agree to purchase at least one computer system under each contract, we find ISG's reading of the FAR to be unsupported by both a plain reading of the regulation and the case law interpreting it. Decision For the reasons discussed above, the protests are DENIED. The suspension of respondent's authority to proceed with this procurement lapses by its terms. ______________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge We concur: __________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge __________________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge