PROTESTER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF DENIED; RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF GRANTED IN PART: February 17, 1994 GSBCA 12736-P ViON CORPORATION, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent, and COMPUTER SALES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Intervenor. David R. Hazelton and Philip L. Gordon of Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Colonel Riggs L. Wilks, Jr., Major Charles R. Marvin, Jr., Major Karl M. Ellcessor, III, and Captain Gerald P. Kohns, Office of the Chief Trial Attorney, Department of the Army, Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent. Lorraine S. Cherrick of Computer Sales International, Inc., St. Louis, MO, counsel for Intervenor. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), LaBELLA, and PARKER. DANIELS, Board Judge. ViON Corporation protests that the Department of the Army, respondent, violated commands of statute and regulation when it awarded to Computer Sales International, Inc. (CSI) a contract for the supply of a mainframe computer system. According to ViON, CSI's bid was not responsive to the solicitation. ViON maintains that the system offered by CSI was not technologically "equivalent" to the models named in the solicitation and does not fitwithinthe limitedspace,or"footprint,"prescribed bythedocument. The Army and ViON have submitted cross-motions for summary relief relating to the footprint issue and have also responded to each other's motions. In these pleadings, the parties disagree as to two matters: (1) whether a Government-furnished power source must be included within the footprint, and (2) whether the overlapping of service clearances of CSI's equipment brings the CSI system within the footprint in an impermissible way. Granting ViON's motion would be dispositive of the protest because it would mean that CSI's bid is nonresponsive. Granting the Army's motion would have a more limited consequence: it would dispose of some, but not all, of ViON's allegations as to the responsiveness of CSI's bid. We grant the Army's motion and deny ViON's insofar as they relate to the power source; the Army's reading of the solicitation is reasonable and promotes competition, so it is permissible. We deny both motions insofar as they relate to the service clearances; on the basis of the record thus far developed, if we make reasonable inferences against each movant, the opposing side must prevail. We will therefore take more evidence about the service clearance issue and the other reasons cited by ViON as grounds for finding CSI's bid nonresponsive. Findings of Uncontested Fact 1. The solicitation, which was issued by the Army's Forces Command at Fort McPherson, Georgia, invites bids to supply one "Mainframe Computer System: Amdahl Model 5995-500A or IBM Model 9021-500 or equivalent." Protest File, Exhibit 1 at B-1 (item 1), C-1 ( C.1.1.1). The document states: "All necessary system support, hardware, firmware, software, and any components such as mainframe controllers[,] glycol chiller system(s), power distribution units, and any other equipment and materials, including conduits and receptacles, necessary to provide a fully operable mainframe system must be included. A minimum of one system console must be supplied." Id. at B-1 (item 1); see also id. at C-1 to -2 ( C.1.1.6). 2. Among the specifications which the solicitation imposed on all bids was a limitation on the area an offered system may occupy. Protest File, Exhibit 1 at B-1 (item 1, referencing C.1.1.5.1). As modified in amendment 2, this provision stated, "The mainframe system, including cooling and power distribution units, and all service clearances, shall not exceed an area of 26 feet by 22 feet." Id., Exhibit 3 at 2 ( C.1.1.5.1). The Army said that this sentence "clearly and succinctly states the Government's space requirements." Id. at 4 (Q&A 7). 3. The solicitation required that each bidder "shall provide descriptive literature with the bid which includes physical planning manuals and technical/product overview documents. The Government requires these manuals and documents to validate the salient characteristics of hardware bid by the Bidder." Protest File, Exhibit 1 at C-1 ( C.1.1.5.2). The solicitation also stated, with reference to offered products that were not identical to the brand names and models listed, that "[t]he Contracting Officer will evaluate 'equal' products on the basis of information furnished by the Offeror or identified in the offer and reasonably available to the Contracting Officer." Id. at L-3 ( L.18). 4. The solicitation says that the Government will provide commercial 60 hertz (Hz) electric power, and in addition "will supply two (2) 400 HZ power sources to connect to the mainframe." Protest File, Exhibit 1 at C-8 ( C.3.4). In amendment 2 to the solicitation, the Army answered two vendor questions about this statement. First, the Army printed this exchange: [T]he Government clearly requires the offerors to provide all necessary system support, including power distribution units. In the last citation, the Government offers to supply two 400 Hz power distribution units. By doing so, the Government provides a subsidy to vendors who need 400 Hz power, but not to vendors who need 60 Hz power. This is an obvious error because it provides unequal treatment of potential offerors. Please amend the solicitation to correct [t]his error. Response. All power distribution facilities identified in paragraph C.3.4. are currently installed for present requirements, and will be available for use under this contract if necessary. Id., Exhibit 3 at 4 (Q&A 5). Second, in response to a vendor that said it "does not require the two (2) 400 Hz power sources for connection the mainframe," the Army explained that the power source equipment "is Government owned and is not available to the vendor for trade-in." Id. (Q&A 6). Prior to bid opening, no vendor asked specifically whether the 400 Hz power sources were intended by the Government to be included within the 26 by 22 foot footprint. Respondent's Motion for Summary Relief, Exhibit 2 (declaration of contracting officer). 5. CSI submitted three separate bids. The one with which we are concerned is the lowest-priced bid, "Proposal A," which is to supply an IBM 3090-200J mainframe computer system. Protest File, Exhibit 6. CSI included with this bid some descriptive literature regarding the system in question. Among this literature is an IBM publication which says that as "prerequisites," "[e]ach ES/3090 Processor Unit Model 200J requires" several items, among which are "One 3097 Model 1 or 2 Power and Coolant Distribution Unit" and "Two 3089 Model 3 Power Units, or other appropriate 400 Hz power source." Id. CSI did not include a diagram showing the footprint of the entire system it offered. CSI did not state whether it included the Government-furnished 400 Hz power sources as equipment to be situated within the footprint, and it did not include any technical documentation for the power sources. Respondent's Statement of Uncontested Facts 17 (accepted at Protester's Statement of Genuine Issues at 6). 6. The three individuals who wrote the technical specifications in the solicitation, and also evaluated bids received, recognized that although the mainframe the Army now has in service at the site in question requires 400 Hz power, the Amdahl 5995-500A and the IBM 9021-500 can both connect directly to commercial power outlets supplying 60 Hz power. They state that they mentioned the 400 Hz power source, or "frequency converter," in the solicitation so as not to exclude systems that are equivalent to the named models in meeting stated technical specifications, but need 400 Hz power. The Army's technical team established the footprint as the space required by either of the named models. They did not consider the 400 Hz power sources to be within the footprint for two reasons: (1) the power sources are situated along the perimeter of the rectangle and (2) these items function as part of the electrical power supply system of the facility, rather than as part of the computer system. Respondent's Motion for Summary Relief, Exhibit 3 (declaration of chief of this unit). 7. The Army's technical specification writers/evaluators consider that a power source, or frequency converter, is not a "power distribution unit." The chief of the unit states: I interpret the term "power distribution unit" to mean the portion of the mainframe system that channels and controls the application of electrical power from the power source (whether that source is a wall outlet, a voltage transformer, or a frequency converter) to the computer's central processing complex. This complex can include the power distribution unit, the central processing unit, a processor coolant unit, and associated control units. Each bidder proposed a system which includes units specifically identified as "power distribution units" or as "power and coolant distribution units" which perform this specialized function. . . . None of the descriptive literature supplied for any of these bids identifies a power source such as the . . . frequency converters we use as a "power distribution unit" or part of such a unit. Respondent's Motion for Summary Relief, Exhibit 3 (declaration of chief of the unit). 8. Using information included in CSI's bid and his own computerized graphical planning tools, the Army's chief technical evaluator developed a physical arrangement plan for determining whether CSI's equipment can fit within the specified footprint. He did not include the 400 Hz power sources within the footprint. He concluded that with "some overlap of service area clearance," the equipment meets the specification. The bid is responsive in this regard, he believes, because "some overlap is permissible under the guidance contained in IBM's General Information Manual, Publication GC22-7072-1." Respondent's Motion for Summary Relief, Exhibit 4 (declaration of chief of technical unit). The referenced publication includes these sentences: "Sometimes, clearances shown on the templates may be overlapped as long as the larger clearance is maintained. The gate swing of an auxiliary machine must not interfere with the gate swing of its corresponding control unit." Id., Attachment 2. Discussion In a sealed bid procurement, an agency "shall award a contract with reasonable promptness to the responsible bidder whose bid conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the United States, considering only price and the other price- related factors included in the solicitation." 10 U.S.C.A. 2305(b)(3) (West Supp. 1993). In furtherance of this instruction, the Federal Acquisition Regulation requires that "[t]o be considered for award, a bid must comply in all material respects with the invitation for bids." 48 CFR 14.301(a) (1993). "Any bid that does not conform to the applicable specifications shall be rejected." Id., 14.404-2(b). ViON maintains that CSI's bid should have been rejected for two reasons, one of which is that the mainframe computer system offered by CSI does not fit within the area, or "footprint," prescribed by the solicitation -- "The mainframe system, including cooling and power distribution units, and all service clearances, shall not exceed an area of 26 feet by 22 feet." The Army asserts that if a reasonable reading is given to the terms "system," "power distribution units," and "all service clearances," CSI's system fits within the footprint. This Board has long held that when a bidder does not protest the meaning of a solicitation provision prior to bid submission, it must be content with any reasonable interpretation the Government applies to that provision, as long as the interpretation promotes, rather than restricts, full and open competition. E.g., Integrated Systems Group, Inc. v. Department of the Air Force, GSBCA 12103-P, 93-2 BCA 25,771, at 128,232, 1993 BPD 4, at 10; Xerox Corp., GSBCA 9862-P, 89-2 BCA 21,652, at 108,922, 1989 BPD 68, at 20; Microsolve, Inc., GSBCA 8564-P, 88-1 BCA 20,321, at 102,743, 1987 BPD 244, at 9, aff'd, 856 F.2d 202 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (table). This principle has recently been endorsed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Grumman Data Systems Corp. v. Widnall, No. 93-1271, slip op. at 6 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 26, 1994). The solicitation made clear that the system which a bidder would have to provide -- and would have to place into the 26 by 22 foot rectangle -- would have to include "[a]ll necessary system . . . components such as . . . power distribution units, and any other equipment . . . necessary to provide a fully operable mainframe system." The Army never stated whether the 400 Hz power sources that it made available to bidders must be included within the footprint or not. The provision makes clear, however, that if the 400 Hz power sources are considered either power distribution units or other equipment necessary to provide a fully operable system, they have to fit inside the defined area. In applying this provision, the Army's technical specification writers and evaluators made two determinations which ViON challenges: that power sources fall into neither of these categories. The technical unit chief concluded that whereas a power source dispenses electricity from the outside world into a computer system, a power distribution unit channels electricity within a system. This appears to us to be a reasonable, common- sense distinction. The Army's description of 60 Hz and 400 Hz power sources as "power distribution facilities" in solicitation amendment two does not render the distinction invalid, as ViON contends. Obviously, electric power once generated must be distributed through a complex series of facilities before all parts of a computer system can be made to work. This does not make any of the utility company's facilities a "power distribution unit" for purposes of our solicitation, though. The term in the solicitation must refer to a considerably narrower category of facilities. Each of the systems bid in response to the solicitation contains something clearly identified as a "power distribution unit" or "power and coolant distribution unit." For an IBM 3090-200J, a "power source" is something else. The agency's understanding that these units were all that was meant by the solicitation term "power distribution units" makes sense. The members of the relevant Army technical unit considered additionally that the 400 Hz power sources were not equipment necessary to provide a fully operable mainframe system. In reaching this conclusion, they were guided by a similar principle to the one discussed in the preceding paragraph: the sources are more part of the electrical supply system of the building than they are part of the computer system. Again, the agency personnel were making a common-sense distinction, drawing a line in a reasonable place along a continuum. The solicitation made clear that the power sources were owned by the Government and already installed at the facility in question. They were available for use by offered mainframe systems on an equal basis with standard 60 Hz commercial power; indeed, vendors were alerted that the availability of the 400 Hz power sources might even be considered a subsidy to a bidder whose system needed them. Thus, the fact that the mainframe offered by CSI needs 400 Hz power sources does not require that those sources be included within the footprint, any more than the fact that other mainframes require 60 Hz power sources require that any standard outlet be included in the area. The Army's understanding that the 400 Hz sources could be outside the footprint was a rational reading of the solicitation. The Army's understandings as to whether power sources are power distribution units or otherwise requisite parts of the system, such that they must fit within the footprint for an offered system to be responsive to all specifications, both limit the number of items that must be within the box. Thus, they permit a greater variety of mainframe systems to be offered in response to the solicitation, and thereby promote full and open competition. ViON also maintains that CSI's mainframe, an IBM 3090-200J, does not fit inside the footprint because all its service clearances cannot be met if the equipment is squeezed into the space. CSI did not provide a drawing on which a contrary conclusion might be based. The Army came to its own determination, that the 3090-200J is acceptable notwithstanding the overlap of some service clearances, based on information derived from two sources: a computerized graphical planning tool and an IBM manual, both of which were in the possession of its chief evaluator. The parties dispute whether the agency may rely on the manual and the computerized planning tool, neither of which is included in CSI's bid. The Army and CSI look to the solicitation clause which says that evaluation will be made "on the basis of information furnished by the Offeror or identified in the offer and reasonably available to the Contracting Officer." A hypertechnical reading of this clause might preclude looking to the tool and the manual, for while those items were available to the agency, they were not identified specifically by CSI. We are more concerned with sensible results than precise grammar, however. Responsiveness determinations are made most accurately when contracting officers and their technical advisers use all information readily available to them in evaluating bids. Southwestern Bell Corp., GSBCA 10321-P, 90-1 BCA 22,545, at 113,136, 1989 BPD 376, at 9 (citing Denro, Inc., GSBCA 9626-P, 89-1 BCA 21,287, 1988 BPD 238; Wordplex Corp., GSBCA 8159-P, 86-1 BCA 18,554, 1985 BPD 128). Even information contained in another bid is among the material that is available to an agency in evaluating responsiveness. Integrated Systems Group, Inc., GSBCA 11156-P, 91-2 BCA 23,961, at 119,956, 1991 BPD 95, at 6. The technical evaluation chief used good judgment in employing information in his possession to help figure out whether CSI's equipment could fit within a prescribed area. We also find reasonable the evaluator's conclusion that the solicitation's reference to "all service clearances" should be read to apply to service clearances permitted by the manufacturer of the mainframe system involved. This reading promotes competition because it permits vendors to bid all systems which are designed to fit inside the prescribed area. The correctness of the evaluator's conclusion that the 3090- 200J system meets the requirement, as reasonably interpreted, is not apparent from the uncontested facts, however. The drawing made by the evaluator shows, as he admits, "some overlap of service area clearance." The IBM manual says that "some overlap is permissible." Whether the overlap shown on the drawing is within the acceptable range is not apparent at this point in the proceedings, however. To resolve ViON's motion for summary relief, we must make the reasonable inference that the Army prefers -- the overlap is within the range; thus, ViON's motion must be denied. To resolve the Army's motion for summary relief, we must make the contrary inference that ViON favors -- the overlap is not within the permissible range; thus, the Army's motion must likewise be denied. A. B. Chance Co. v. RTE Corp., 854 F.2d 1307, 1310-11 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Armco, Inc. v. Cyclops Corp., 791 F.2d 147, 149 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Amerinex Services Corp., GSBCA 10671-P, 90-3 BCA 23,102, at 115,997, 1990 BPD 173, at 5. Decision ViON's motion for summary relief is DENIED. The Army's motion for summary relief is GRANTED IN PART. We conclude that the agency reasonably assessed the space requirements of the mainframe computer system bid by CSI without reference to the Government's 400 Hz power sources. We conclude additionally that the agency reasonably looked to manufacturer's guidance in determining that some overlap of service clearances is acceptable when determining whether equipment fits within the prescribed area. The Board will convene a telephonic conference with the parties for the purpose of setting a schedule which will lead to the presentation of evidence relevant to two issues: whether the service clearance overlaps in CSI's system are permissible, and whether the IBM 3090-200J system is technologically equivalent to one of the models named in the solicitation. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge Board Judge