DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS: October 20, 1993 GSBCA 12571-P INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent. Shelton H. Skolnick, Judy D. Leishman, and Amy M. Hall of Skolnick & Leishman, P.C., Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester. Angela J. Cosentino, Naval Air Warfare Center, Indianapolis, IN, and Demetria Carter, Office of Counsel, Naval Supply Systems Command, Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), HENDLEY, and NEILL. DANIELS, Board Judge. Integrated Systems Group, Inc. (ISG), protests that in conducting a procurement for hand-held computers, the Department of the Navy's Naval Air Warfare Center in Indianapolis, Indiana (Navy), took two actions that interfered with full and open competition. First, ISG contends that the Navy created an ambiguity in its solicitation by asking offerors to propose computers with standard RS-232 connectors, but at the same time specifying a non-standard pin assignment for the connectors. As a result, according to protester, prospective offerors could not understand what types of connectors the agency actually sought. Second, ISG maintains that the Navy prejudiced the competition by giving some vendors, but not all, special information that clarified the intent of certain specifications contained in the solicitation. A third count of protest was abandoned early in the protest proceedings. ISG raised these allegations in a protest it filed with the contracting officer before initial proposals were due. The contracting officer denied that protest after proposals were received. ISG has timely raised the same grounds at the Board. Rule 5(b)(3)(iii) (41 CFR 6101.5(b)(3)(iii) (1992)). We dismiss the protest as frivolous. ISG knew, prior to filing the protest, that the first count was false. Protester also knew or should have known, prior to responding to the Navy's interrogatories -- at the very latest -- that the second count was false. This is a case that should never have been presented to the Board for decision. Findings of Fact 1. On June 18, 1993, the Navy issued the solicitation in question. The solicitation required that any computer offered in response to it had to meet numerous specifications, among which were restrictions on the kind of input/output port on the computer. The port had to be "full RS-232" and have a "standard 25 pin 'D'." Assignments for pins 2 through 8 were specified. Protest File, Exhibit 8 at 9th unnumbered page. 2. The pin assignments contained in the solicitation are consistent with standards for the RS-232 "interface between data terminal equipment and data communication equipment employing serial binary data interchange" established by the Electronic Industries Association/Telecommunications Industry Association. Protest File, Exhibits 11 at 8, 12 at 15. Upon reading the solicitation, ISG's senior associate who was responsible for the firm's response to the solicitation believed that a computer with an RS-232 interface with usual pin assignments would be acceptable to the Navy. Transcript at 148. 3. Under the industry standard for the RS-232 interface, pin 11 is unassigned. Protest File, Exhibits 11 at 8, 12 at 15. In amendment one to the solicitation, the Navy added assignments for seven pins that had not been mentioned in the original solicitation. One of these was pin 11, which was given a "DSR" (data set ready) function. Id., Exhibit 8 at 3d unnumbered page. 4. The Navy electronics engineer who was responsible for writing the solicitation's specifications gave this explanation for the change: The computers being purchased under the solicitation are to be linked to optical scanners, which will in turn be used to make settings on sonobuoys (devices which, when placed in the ocean, acoustically detect submarines and radio information about them to aircraft). Transcript at 64-67. The settings may have to be made under adverse conditions, such as in a rainstorm on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Id. at 82, 121- 22. After the solicitation had been issued, the engineer gave additional thought to the agency's requirements for the computers. He realized that the likelihood of successful operation of the computers/optical scanners would be enhanced if the number of places on the computer that are open to the elements were to be minimized. He therefore determined that each computer should have only a single interface with the scanner linked to it. Each scanner is designed to be linked to a peripheral device, as well as a computer. To convey through a single interface information from the computer to both the scanner and the peripheral device, functions would have to be assigned to pins on the computer's interface other than those originally mentioned. Id. at 79-83, 95-98. 5. ISG's senior associate was asked whether, after having read this amendment, he believed that a computer with an RS-232 interface with usual pin assignments would be acceptable to the Navy. His complete response was: No. I was chagrined to note that I could not, that it would not be acceptable, because they very clearly and properly, you know, specified what they needed. Transcript at 188; see also id. at 149 ("to me that's a change"). The Navy engineer also understood that the amendment caused an RS-232 interface with an unassigned pin 11 to become unacceptable. Id. at 135-36. 6. ISG's senior associate specifically testified that his firm is not quarreling, through this protest, with the Navy's assessment of its needs. Transcript at 151 ("we don't seek here to dispute the government's desire or need to modify the standard"). Protester's posthearing brief, at 2, confirms this position: "Protester does not challenge the wisdom of the assignment of pin 11." 7. The Navy engineer testified that in his view, the assignment of pin 11 is not inconsistent with the words "full RS-232" in the original solicitation. He predicated his conclusion on this statement in the industry standard: "Pin assignments for circuits not specifically defined . . . are to be made by mutual agreement. Preference should be given to the use of unassigned pins . . . ." Transcript at 83-86, 90-92, 105-10; Protest File, Exhibits 11 at 9, 12 at 15. ISG's senior associate believes that the assignment and the solicitation's words are inconsistent; he looked to the phrase at the end of the last- cited standard provision: "but in the event that additional pins are required extreme caution should be taken in their selection." Transcript at 177; Protest File, Exhibits 11 at 9, 12 at 15. In light of our resolution of the case, we need not decide who is right. 8. After the solicitation was issued, several prospective offerors contacted the contracting officer by phone and letter, asking questions about the document. The contracting officer responded to the questions in two ways. First, after consulting with the engineer who was responsible for writing the specifications, she issued amendment one. Transcript at 29-31; Protest File, Exhibit 8 at 1st-3d unnumbered pages. Second, she responded individually to the vendors who had contacted her, attempting to describe to each of them how the amendment's provisions did or did not respond to their concerns. Transcript at 29-31; Protest File, Exhibits 5E-5I. The contracting officer testified -- and ISG does not contest her conclusion -- that the letters conveyed no more information than is contained in the amendment. Transcript at 52-54. 9. Still later, but before the closing date for receipt of initial proposals, prospective offerors directed additional inquiries to the contracting officer. Transcript at 37-39, 54; Protest File, Exhibits 5C, 5D, 5J. One of these was a letter from Corvallis Micro Technology, Inc. (CMT), asking that the Navy modify specifications in various ways. This letter was dated August 18, less than a week before proposals were due. Id., Exhibits 5J at 1st-2d unnumbered pages, 8 at 1st unnumbered page. The engineer who had written the specifications was on military reserve duty at the time; he would not return until the morning of the day on which proposals had to be submitted. Transcript at 69-70, 92-93. The contracting officer was not familiar with the technical issues raised. Id. at 37-38. She consequently turned for help to a Navy programmer, who admittedly did not understand the issues, either. Id.; Respondent's Exhibit 4. In an effort to be helpful to CMT, she responded in a tentative way, explaining that the engineer was absent and using phrases such as "[w]e do not have a definitive answer" and "would appear." Protest File, Exhibit 5J at 3d unnumbered page. The information provided to CMT was not given to any other prospective offerors. Transcript at 50. The contracting officer and the engineer now believe that much of the information in the letter is incorrect. Id. at 40, 42-43, 94-95. 10. On the day that proposals were due, CMT filed an agency protest regarding certain specifications. Protest File, Exhibit 5A at 1st unnumbered page. This protest was denied by the contracting officer two days later. Id. at 3d-4th unnumbered pages. The denial clearly states that CMT did not submit a proposal in response to the solicitation. Id. at 4th unnumbered page. CMT has not pursued its concerns at this Board. 11. In responding to interrogatories propounded by the Navy in the course of the instant case, ISG showed the agency that it had independently come into possession of the contracting officer's two letters to CMT which are referenced in Findings 8 and 9. Transcript at 157. Discussion The Brooks Act empowers the Board to dismiss a protest it determines is frivolous. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(4)(C) (1988). Where we find that the protester knew, before filing its complaint, that a protest ground is false, we dismiss the case pursuant to this authority. Computer Sciences Corp. v. Department of the Air Force, GSBCA 12299-P, 1993 BPD 109 (Apr. 7, 1993), at 13. Taking the time of the Board and the affected agency to consider a frivolous allegation is an abuse of the protest process. It postpones the time when the agency can award a contract and receive the goods or services it needs, wastes scarce agency resources, and disrupts the business planning of the other competitors in the procurement. In this case, ISG advances two grounds of protest. The first of these is that the Navy has represented its requirements for an interface in two ways which are inconsistent with each other: it has said that it needs a standard RS-232 interface, but has also stated specifications for the item which are not standard. Specifically, ISG alleges that amendment one's requirement that pin 11 of the interface be assigned a specific function conflicts with the original solicitation's demand that the interface be "full RS-232." See Transcript at 175. The ambiguity, according to ISG, inhibits full and open competition. The testimony of ISG's senior associate who was responsible for the firm's response to the solicitation makes clear that this protest ground is false. By this gentleman's own admission, ISG understood immediately upon reading amendment one that an RS-232 interface with the usual assignment of pins (including a lack of assignment to pin 11) would no longer meet the Navy's requirements. Finding 5. An "ambiguity" is "the condition of admitting of two or more meanings, or being understood in more than one way, or of referring to two or more things at the same time," or "uncertainty of meaning or significance of a position in relation to something or somebody else." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 66 (1986). ISG knew before it filed the protest that the solicitation's specifications regarding the interface were not ambiguous; to the contrary, they were plainly changed by amendment one from one intelligible requirement to another intelligible requirement. Whether the amendment was consistent with the solicitation's requirement that the interface be "full RS-232," as contended by the Navy, or represented a modification of that requirement, as suggested by ISG, is immaterial. See Finding 7. What matters is that ISG knew after receipt of the amendment exactly what it had to provide in order to be compliant with the agency's specifications. The first ground of protest is dismissed as frivolous. We note that the protest complaint contains a subsidiary allegation regarding the RS-232 interface specification: any requirement for a non-standard interface is "unnecessary and unjustifiable and therefore in violation of statutes and regulations." ISG did not pursue this point during the development of the case, and at hearing, the firm's senior associate testified that protester is not challenging the Navy's explanation of why the agency needs an interface with pin 11 assigned. Finding 6. ISG's second protest ground is that the Navy "failed to create a level playing field by failing to communicate to all interested parties clarifications . . . orally and in writing." During discovery in this case, the Navy provided to counsel for ISG, under protective order, copies of correspondence that had been exchanged between the contracting officer and inquiring vendors, between the date that the solicitation was issued and the date on which proposals were due. See Board's Memorandum of Conference of Sept. 14, 1993; Findings 8, 9. ISG also had in its own possession copies of correspondence between the contracting officer and a prospective offeror, CMT. Finding 11. At hearing, ISG was able to point in support of this allegation only to the correspondence involving CMT. See Finding 8. That correspondence makes clear that CMT did not submit a proposal in response to the solicitation. Finding 10. Thus, even if the information provided to CMT was highly important, the fact that it was given did not put ISG at a competitive disadvantage. As soon as ISG determined that the only foundation to the second protest ground was a letter to a firm that had chosen not to participate in the procurement, it should have abandoned this count. To have pursued the allegation through hearing was an unnecessary intrusion on the time of the Board and the agency. It caused the Navy to send counsel and two witnesses from Indianapolis to Washington to present testimony on what was clearly not a real issue. Protester does not even address the allegation in its posthearing brief. Apparently, it has at last abandoned the count. By not informing the Navy that it would take this action, however, ISG has further wasted agency resources by causing agency counsel to spend her time addressing the allegation in her posthearing brief. SMS Data Products Group, Inc. v. United States, 900 F.2d 1553, 1557-58 (Fed. Cir. 1990). ISG should have known prior to the hearing that this count was without basis. We dismiss this ground, like the first, as frivolous. Decision The protest is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(4)(C) (1988). Our order suspending the Navy's authority to proceed with the procurement lapses with the issuance of this decision. Id. 759(f)(2). _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge Board Judge