THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN REDACTED FORM ON DECEMBER 8, 1994 ___________________________ GRANTED: November 29, 1994 ___________________________ GSBCA 13013-P INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Protester, v. DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY, Respondent. Shelton H. Skolnick, Bruce Trimble, Amy M. Hall, Wayne Finegar, and Amer Syed of Skolnick & Leishman, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester. Clifton M. Hasegawa and Maj. Patricia Freeman-Ford, Defense Information Systems Agency, Scott Air Force Base, IL; and M. Susan Chadick, Office of General Counsel, Defense Information Systems Agency, Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DEVINE, VERGILIO, and DeGRAFF. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. Integrated Systems Group, Inc. (ISG) protests the decision of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to award a contract to an offeror other than ISG. We grant the protest, because DISA did not properly evaluate ISG's proposed price and, as a result, did not make an award consistent with statute, regulation, and the terms of the solicitation. Findings of Fact On June 20, 1994, DISA issued solicitation DCA200-94-R-0074 for the acquisition of forty-three printers. Protest File, Exhibit 2. The solicitation provides that DISA would award a contract to "the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors specified in the solicitation, considered." Id. at 35. The solicitation also provides that DISA would make award to the "low, technically acceptable offeror . . . ." Id. at 40. Page B-1 of the solicitation lists five contract line item numbers (CLINs) describing five different printers, and establishes a quantity for each CLIN. For each CLIN, the offerors were supposed to list a unit price and an extended price for the quantity offered. Protest File, Exhibit 2. The solicitation provides that the successful offeror agreed "to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item." Id. at 6. Section L of the solicitation provides that DISA could accept any item or group of items offered and could make an award for any item for less than the quantity offered, at the unit price offered, unless the offer provided otherwise. Id. at 36. ISG and several other offerors submitted proposals in response to the solicitation. Protest File, Exhibits 4, 5, 30. DISA evaluated the proposals and conducted discussions with offerors. Id., Exhibit 30. On September 16, 1994, DISA requested best and final offers (BAFOs) from the offerors, including ISG, that DISA found to be "technically responsible." Id., Exhibits 6, 10. ISG submitted its BAFO on September 20, 1994. Protest File, Exhibit 7. The BAFO consists of a cover letter with five pages attached. In the cover letter, ISG states, "ISG will apply a 10% purchase discount to our BAFO pricing for a purchase of $10,000.00 or more." Id. at 1. One of the pages attached to the cover letter is page B-1 and, on this page, ISG lists its unit prices and extended prices for each CLIN. The total of the extended prices for all five CLINs is $ . At the top of page B-1, ISG states, "See cover letter for additional discounts." Id. at 2. DISA reviewed the language contained in ISG's BAFO cover letter and page B-1 concerning the ten percent discount. DISA concluded that ISG inserted the language because ISG thought that DISA might award multiple contracts to more than one offeror. DISA, however, intended to make a single award to one offeror. Protest File, Exhibit 10. DISA also concluded that the language contained in ISG's BAFO cover letter and page B-1 was unclear. DISA thought that perhaps the prices contained on page B-1 of ISG's BAFO already included the ten percent discount or perhaps ISG was offering a discount for prompt payment. DISA believed that ISG's language concerning discounts required DISA to recalculate and alter the prices inserted by ISG on page B-1 of ISG's BAFO, and DISA did not believe that it could make such an alteration. Id., Exhibits 18, 31. DISA decided that the undiscounted prices listed by ISG on page B-1 were ISG's BAFO prices. Id., Exhibits 10, 18. DISA determined that it was not in its best interests to reopen discussions in order to ask ISG what it meant by the language contained in its BAFO concerning discounts. Id., Exhibit 30. On September 28, 1994, DISA awarded a contract to another offeror for a price of $80,152.46. Protest File, Exhibit 12. Also on September 28, 1994, DISA notified ISG and the other unsuccessful offerors of the award. Id., Exhibit 11. On the afternoon of Friday, October 7, 1994, ISG filed this protest. In its complaint, ISG alleges that its BAFO was the lowest priced and that DISA should have awarded the contract to ISG. ISG asks that we direct DISA to proceed in accordance with statute and regulation, and award ISG its proposal preparation costs. Complaint at 2-3. Thirty-five of the forty-three printers were delivered on a federal holiday, Monday, October 10, 1994. Exhibits 17, 31. There is no evidence in the record to establish whether the printers were accepted by DISA in accordance with the procedures for acceptance that are contained in the contract. Discussion We review contracting officers' decisions which are alleged to violate statute or regulation. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(1) (1988). Statute and regulation required DISA's contracting officer to award a contract to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to DISA, considering only price and the other factors included in the solicitation. 10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4)(B) (Supp. V 1993); 48 CFR 15.611 (1993). The solicitation contains a provision similar to this statutory and regulatory requirement, and further provides that award would be made to the technically acceptable offeror that proposed the lowest price. ISG asserts that it was the technically acceptable offeror that proposed the lowest price and, therefore, DISA's contracting officer violated statute and regulation when she awarded the contract to another offeror. ISG asserts that DISA should have determined that ISG's proposed price was $ , which is derived by subtracting ten percent from the total of the extended prices listed on page B-1 of ISG's BAFO ($ - $ ). The award price of the contract was $80,152.46. DISA contends that it correctly determined that the statements contained in ISG's BAFO concerning price discounts were unclear and ambiguous. Because DISA believed that the statements had several different meanings, in DISA's view it was proper for the contracting officer to decide that ISG's proposed price was $ , and not to reopen discussions. We agree with ISG. There was no need for DISA to reopen discussions in order to interpret ISG's BAFO, because the BAFO is not difficult to understand. It clearly states that ISG would apply a ten percent discount to its BAFO pricing if DISA purchased at least $10,000 worth of printers. The solicitation permitted DISA to make an award for less than all of the CLINs and to make an award for fewer printers than the quantities stated on page B-1. ISG could not have known how many printers DISA would decide to buy. DISA could have purchased printers worth far less than $10,000. Clearly, all ISG meant to do when it provided for a ten percent discount was to offer DISA better prices if DISA purchased a larger dollar volume of printers. The language contained in ISG's BAFO gave DISA no reason to suppose that the prices stated on page B-1 of the BAFO had already been discounted by ten percent, or that ISG might be referring to a prompt payment discount. ISG's proposal did not require DISA either to perform a myriad of difficult calculations with many variables or to alter ISG's BAFO in order to determine ISG's proposed price. Rather, ISG's BAFO simply required DISA to subtract ten percent from ISG's extended prices if DISA decided to award a contract for at least $10,000. When DISA decided to purchase the maximum number of printers permitted by the solicitation, it should have deducted ten percent from ISG's extended prices in order to evaluate ISG's price properly. If DISA had deducted ten percent from ISG's extended prices, it would have determined that ISG proposed the lowest price. Decision The protest is GRANTED. Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(B) (1988), we revise the agency's procurement authority as follows: If none of the printers which were delivered have been accepted, DISA is required to terminate the existing contract and to proceed in accordance with statute and regulation. If any of the printers which were delivered have been accepted, DISA is not required to terminate the existing contract; however, if DISA does not terminate the existing contract, DISA is required to reimburse ISG for its reasonable proposal preparation costs. ______________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: ______________________________ _______________________________ DONALD W. DEVINE JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge Board Judge