THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN ITS ENTIRETY ON JANUARY 5, 1995 __________________________ DENIED: December 19, 1994 __________________________ GSBCA 13025-P TELECOM DESIGN GROUP, INC., Protester, and LAPTOPS, ETC., Intervenor, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent, and DATAEXPERT CORP., Intervenor. Victor G. Klingelhofer and Carrie Bedwell Mann of Cohen & White, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Richard L. Moorhouse, Ross W. Dembling, and Angela T. Patrick of Holland & Knight, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor Laptops, etc. COL Riggs L. Wilks, Jr., LTC Ralph L. Littlefield, and MAJ Michael G. Skennion, Office of the Chief Trial Attorney, Department of the Army, Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent. Edward J. Tolchin, Brian Taylor Goldstein, and Liza S. Hamerman of Fettmann & Tolchin, Fairfax, VA, counsel for Intervenor DataExpert Corp. Before Board Judges PARKER, HYATT, and DeGRAFF. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. TeleCom Design Group, Inc. (TeleCom), joined by Laptops, etc. (Laptops), protests the United States Army's (Army's) decision to award a contract to DataExpert Corporation (DataExpert). Because we find no violation of statute, regulation, or delegation of procurement authority, the protest is denied. Findings of Fact The Solicitation On July 15, 1994, the Army issued solicitation DAJA37-94-R- 0093 for the purchase of notebook computers. Section B of the solicitation explains that offerors are to include descriptive literature in their proposals, and that the Army's contracting officer will evaluate proposed products based upon the information supplied by the offerors. Section B also contains six contract line item numbers (CLINs), and each CLIN describes a type of computer. Section C of the solicitation explains that the minimum salient characteristics of the computers are provided in attachments to the solicitation. Section J of the solicitation contains six attachments which correspond to the six CLINs, and the attachments contain the minimum salient characteristics of the computers. For example, CLIN 0001 describes a 486/25 MHz notebook computer, and Attachment 1 contains a list of characteristics for the 486/25 MHz notebook computer. Protest File, Exhibits 1, 2. Section H.9.b of the solicitation states, "Contractor's commercial warranty is ______* months after Government acceptance of the supplies and/or services. *TO BE INSERTED BY OFFEROR." Protest File, Exhibit 1. Section L of the solicitation contains instructions and notices to the offerors. Section L.12(b) provides: The Government will award a contract resulting from a request for proposals 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. The Government intends to award a contract on the basis of initial offers received in response to a request for proposals without discussions unless discussions are necessary. Therefore, the offeror's initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Protest File, Exhibit 1. Section M of the solicitation contains the evaluation factors for award. It provides: M.2 AWARD TO LOW OFFEROR Unless all offers are rejected, whether or not negotiations are conducted, award will be made to the low, responsible offeror who submits a technically acceptable offer conforming to the solicitation. M.3 NEGOTIATION In the event several proposals are received and the Contracting Officer is satisfied that the offerors understand the work and are responsible prospective contractors and that the low proposal is reasonable and does not differ unreasonably from the Government estimate, if any, award may be made to the firm whose proposal is low, without negotiation. M.5 EVALUATION OF OFFERS Offers will be evaluated as follows: a. The lowest acceptable offer will be selected by adding the total price of all minimum quantities to the total price of all maximum quantities. Award will be made so as to result in the lowest aggregate price to the United States Government. Protest File, Exhibit 2. Proposals and Evaluation The Army received thirty-six timely proposals in response to the solicitation, including proposals from TeleCom, Laptops, and DataExpert. TeleCom proposed the third-lowest price, DataExpert proposed the fourth-lowest price, and Laptops proposed the seventeenth-lowest price. Protest File, Exhibit 8A. The Army's contract specialist provided documentation from the five lowest- priced proposals to the Army's technical evaluation team for review. Protest File, Exhibit 71. The technical evaluation team determined that the two lowest-priced proposals were technically unacceptable. Protest File, Exhibit 8. TeleCom's Proposal The computer required by CLIN 0004 was supposed to contain a 486/33 MHz processor. The computer required by CLIN 0005 was supposed to contain a 486 DX/50 MHz processor. Each of the computers required by CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0006 was supposed to have a carrying case, data/fax modem PCMCIA card, ethernet adapter, MS-DOS 6.2 operating system software, and Windows for Workgroups 3.11. Protest File, Exhibit 2. The features of the computers proposed by TeleCom are described in seven pages of technical literature included in TeleCom's proposal, which the contract specialist provided to the technical evaluation team for review. This literature consists of printed pages with handwritten notations made by TeleCom. For CLIN 0004, TeleCom wrote that it would supply a 486/25 MHz processor, not a 486/33 MHz processor. For CLIN 0005, TeleCom wrote that it would supply a 486 processor, and did not state the processor's speed. In the lower right corner of the printed technical literature is the heading "OPTIONS." Beside and beneath this heading, TeleCom wrote that it would supply a carrying case, data/fax modem PCMCIA card, ethernet adapter, DOS 6.2 operating system software, and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0006. Protest File, Exhibits 5A, 71. TeleCom concedes that it could not have been awarded the contract unless the Army conducted discussions. TeleCom's Opening Brief at 6, 25; TeleCom's Reply Brief at 18. The technical evaluation team determined that TeleCom's proposal was not technically acceptable because it was not clear that the features listed under the "OPTIONS" heading were going to be provided by TeleCom as standard features, that MS-DOS would be installed on each notebook, and that the disk operating system offered by TeleCom was manufactured by Microsoft. Protest File, Exhibit 42 at 13-17. After evaluations were completed, one of the technical evaluators noticed that TeleCom's proposal does not state that a 486/33 MHz processor would be supplied for CLIN 0004. The evaluator testified that this also makes TeleCom's proposal technically unacceptable. Protest File, Exhibit 42 at 13-15. The contracting officer agreed that TeleCom's proposal was not technically acceptable. He found TeleCom's proposal "vague" and he understood it to be an offer for less than what was required because he believed that TeleCom was offering some required features as options. His understanding was based upon a briefing that he received from the technical evaluation team and from his review of TeleCom's proposal. Protest File, Exhibit 43 at 10. In addition, the contracting officer's decision was based upon pricing information that was not available to the technical evaluation team. The contracting officer knew that TeleCom's proposed price was much closer to the two lowest-priced proposals, which were technically unacceptable, than it was to the next-highest priced proposal, which was technically acceptable. This reinforced the contracting officer's conclusion that TeleCom was offering some required features as options. Protest File, Exhibits 8A, 43 at 14. DataExpert's Proposal The features of the computers proposed by DataExpert are described in thirty-one pages of printed technical literature and eight typed pages included in DataExpert's proposal. Protest File, Exhibits 11, 11D. The contract specialist reviewed all of this information and determined that the printed literature established that the computers offered by DataExpert exceeded the requirements of the solicitation. The contract specialist provided the technical evaluation team with only the eight typed pages of information included in DataExpert's proposal. Protest File, Exhibits 42 at 25; 71. The technical evaluation team determined that DataExpert's proposal was technically acceptable. Protest File, Exhibits 8, 42 at 5-6. Some features required by the Army are not mentioned in DataExpert's printed technical literature, although they are mentioned in the eight typed pages and in DataExpert's acknowledgement of an amendment to the solicitation. The printed technical literature does not establish that the computer proposed for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0005 has a NiMH battery, an extra battery, and a carrying case; the eight typed pages state that the computer will be provided with these features. The printed technical literature does not mention whether the computers can run the latest version of MS-DOS; the eight typed pages state that the computers will be provided with the latest version of MS-DOS installed. The printed technical literature does not establish that the computer proposed for CLIN 0005 has a built-in 3.5 inch drive, is capable of running Windows, and is of rugged construction; the eight typed pages state that the computer will be provided with a built-in 3.5 inch drive, will have Windows installed, and is of rugged construction. The printed technical literature does not establish that the fax modem met the required maximum transmission rate of 9600 baud as established by amendment 3 to the solicitation; DataExpert expressly stated that it met this requirement when it acknowledged receipt of amendment 3. Protest File, Exhibits 2, 11, 11D, 24. Some features required by the Army are not mentioned in DataExpert's eight typed pages, although they are mentioned in DataExpert's printed technical literature. The eight typed pages do not establish that the computer required by CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0006 has an internal 3.5 inch 1.44 MB floppy disk drive; the printed technical literature for the computer proposed for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0006 lists as one of its features a "built-in 3.5" 1.44MB floppy disk drive." The eight typed pages do not establish that the computer required by CLIN 0005 has an internal hard drive with a minimum of 200 MB and 16 MB RAM; the printed technical literature for the computer proposed for CLIN 0005 lists as two of its features a "built-in 2.5" 127 MB hard disk drive up to 520 MB," and "4MB RAM (expandable to 8MB/16MB/20MB/32MB)." The typed pages also state, for each CLIN, that the proposed computer "meets the mandatory specifications as provided" in the relevant attachment. Protest File, Exhibits 2, 11, 11D. CLIN 0005 required, as a minimum, a 486 DX/50 MHz processor. DataExpert offered a 486 DX2/66 MHz processor and stated that this "exceeds the specifications." Neither DataExpert's typed pages nor its printed literature compares a 486 DX/50 MHz processor to the 486 DX2/66 MHz processor proposed by DataExpert. Protest File, Exhibits 2, 11, 11D. The technical evaluation team determined that DataExpert met the requirement stated in the solicitation. Protest File, Exhibit 42 at 30. One of the technical evaluators testified that "a 486DX2 with a 66 megahertz is normally faster than the DX 50 megahertz, and that will occur, from my experience, to my knowledge, nine times out of ten." The evaluator was "99 percent certain" that the processor that DataExpert proposed was faster than the processor required by the solicitation. Protest File, Exhibit 42 at 32-34, 37. A processor manufacturer states in its literature that, overall, a DX2 processor is fifty to seventy percent faster than a DX processor. Protest File, Exhibit 33. The record in this protest includes the transcript of the deposition of an expert designated by TeleCom and the transcript of a deposition and the affidavit of an expert designated by DataExpert. Both experts were asked whether they believe that the 486 DX2/66 MHz processor meets or exceeds the requirement for a 486 DX/50 MHz processor. DataExpert's expert testified that, overall, a notebook with a 486 DX2/66 MHz is a higher performing system than a notebook with a 486 DX/50 MHz. DataExpert's opinion is based, in part, upon benchmark comparison tests and discussions with technical representatives of several companies. Protest File, Exhibits 29, 46, 80. TeleCom's expert testified that a 486 DX2/66 MHz is not the equivalent of a 486 DX/50 MHz. TeleCom's expert did not have any benchmark comparison tests to support his opinion. Protest File, Exhibit 45. One reason given by TeleCom's expert to support his opinion is that the DX2/66 MHz will run at a speed of 33 MHz on the system clock (i.e., external to the CPU) and that the DX/50 MHz will run at a speed of 50 MHz on the system clock. This point is not disputed by the Army or DataExpert. However, it is not clear whether TeleCom's expert considered, as did DataExpert's expert, whether notebook computers with DX/50 MHz processors are capable of taking advantage of a 50 MHz system clock speed, or whether they would have to add a "wait state," effectively slowing the system clock speed to less than 33 MHz. TeleCom did not establish that its expert considered whether the DX2/66 MHz processor will perform better overall than a DX/50 MHz processor when used in a notebook computer. Protest File, Exhibits 45, 80. TeleCom's expert also testified that a DX2 processor uses more battery power than a DX processor. DataExpert's battery, however, satisfies the Army's requirement. Protest File, Exhibits 45, 11, 11D. Although TeleCom's expert testified that there are two other differences between a DX2/66 MHz and a DX/50 MHz processor, his testimony does not establish that these differences mean that the DX2/66 MHz processor fails to meet the minimum standard established for this solicitation. Protest File, Exhibit 45. In its proposal, DataExpert did not fill in the blank in section H.9.b concerning warranties.[foot #] 1 Protest ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Telecom also failed to fill in this blank in its proposal. Protest File, Exhibit 5. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- File, Exhibit 11. During its review of DataExpert's proposal, the technical evaluation team noted that it needed "to know about warranty and service." Protest File, Exhibit 8. During the evaluation process, no questions were asked of DataExpert concerning the warranties it was offering. Protest File, Exhibit 43 at 32. Three days before award, on September 23, 1994, DataExpert sent the Army a completed section H.9.b. Protest File, Exhibit 26. Award Without Discussions The contracting officer concluded that no discussions were necessary because there had been adequate competition, DataExpert's proposal was technically acceptable and its price was fair and reasonable, and discussions would have "eaten time without any further guarantee of a better product for the U.S. Government at a better price." Protest File, Exhibit 43 at 15. The contracting officer understood the solicitation to provide that, if no discussions were held, he would award a contract to the technically acceptable offeror proposing the lowest price. Protest File, Exhibit 43 at 22. The Army awarded a contract to DataExpert on September 26, 1994. The award price is approximately $318,000 greater than if the award had been made to TeleCom. Protest File, Exhibits 5, 11. The Protest TeleCom filed its protest complaint on October 13, 1994, its first amended complaint on November 4, 1994, and its second amended complaint on November 14, 1994. Laptops joined in the issues raised in TeleCom's complaints and, on November 15, 1994, raised an independent ground of protest. The parties agreed to submit the protest for a decision based upon the record, and filed their opening briefs on December 5, 1994, and their reply briefs on December 8, 1994. The Army and DataExpert assert in their briefs that TeleCom and Laptops are not interested parties to pursue this protest. TeleCom and Laptops argue that they are interested parties, and that the Army's award to DataExpert without discussions was contrary to section M.3 of the solicitation, was contrary to the Competition in Contracting Act, and was contrary to the terms of the solicitation because DataExpert's proposal was not technically acceptable and because the technical evaluation team did not review DataExpert's entire proposal in order to determine whether it was technically acceptable. Laptops also argues that the Army violated the provisions of a procurement regulation because the technical evaluation team did not review all of the documentation provided by DataExpert. Discussion TeleCom and Laptops are interested parties. We deny the protest because TeleCom and Laptops have not established that either the solicitation or the Competition in Contracting Act required the Army to conduct discussions before awarding a contract. In addition, TeleCom and Laptops have not established either that DataExpert's proposal was technically unacceptable or that the technical evaluation team's actions provide a basis for protest. Interested Party Our authorizing legislation provides that, upon the request of an interested party, we may review the decision of a contracting officer. An interested party is defined by the statute as "an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract or by failure to award the contract." 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(1) and (f)(9)(B) (1988). The Army and DataExpert contend that TeleCom has no economic interest in the award because its proposal does not offer to meet all of the Army's requirements and, as a result, TeleCom is not in line for award. The Army and DataExpert contend that Laptops has no economic interest in the award because it proposed the seventeenth-lowest price and so is not in line for award. TeleCom and Laptops allege that the Army violated statute and regulation when it decided not to conduct discussions, and that if discussions had been conducted, either TeleCom or Laptops could have been in line for award. If the protest is resolved in favor of TeleCom and Laptops and if discussions are held, it is possible that either TeleCom or Laptops will be in line for award. Accordingly, TeleCom and Laptops have the required economic interest in the award and are interested parties. Federal Computer Corporation v. Department of Justice, GSBCA 12560-P, 94-1 BCA 26,442, 1993 BPD 264. Section M.3 TeleCom contends that the Army violated the terms of section M.3 of the solicitation when it awarded the contract to DataExpert without discussions. According to TeleCom, the solicitation provides that the Army could have awarded only to the lowest-priced offeror without discussions. Because the lowest-priced offeror's proposal was not technically acceptable, TeleCom says that section M.3 requires the Army to conduct discussions with all offerors. Laptops contends that section M.3 is ambiguous as to whether it permits award without discussions to other than the offeror with the lowest-priced proposal. Laptops also contends that discussions were required by section M.3 because the contracting officer should not have been satisfied that the offerors understood the work required by the solicitation. The Army and DataExpert contend that the solicitation permits the Army to make award to the offeror with the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal without conducting discussions, and that the award was in keeping with the terms of the solicitation. Section L.12 makes it clear that the Army intends to make an award without discussions, unless discussions are necessary. Section M.2 states that, regardless of whether there are discussions, award will be made to the low offeror that submits a technically acceptable proposal. Section M.3 provides that award may be made to the offeror whose proposal is "low," without discussions. TeleCom interprets the word "low" in section M.3 as meaning the offeror with the lowest-priced proposal, without regard to technical acceptability. According to TeleCom, section M.3 dictates that an award can only be made without discussions if the lowest-priced proposal is technically acceptable. If the lowest-priced proposal is not technically acceptable, TeleCom contends that discussions must be conducted. We disagree with TeleCom's reading of the solicitation. Section M.3 does not explain what should be done if the lowest- priced proposal is not technically acceptable. In order to interpret section M.3 as does TeleCom, we would have to read language into section M.3 that does not appear in the solicitation. That is, we would have to read section M.3 as if it says award may be made without discussions only to the lowest- price technically acceptable offeror and, if the lowest-price offeror is not technically acceptable, then discussions must be held. The result of reading so much into section M.3 is that the section becomes inconsistent with section L.12, which provides that award will be made without discussions unless discussions are necessary. Even if the lowest-priced proposal is not technically acceptable, discussions might not be necessary if, for example, proposals are received from several offerors and a technically acceptable, reasonably priced proposal is received from a responsible offeror. See, e.g., Federal Systems Group, Inc., GSBCA 11461-P, 92-1 BCA 24,591, 1991 BPD 316. Also, TeleCom's reading of section M.3 is difficult to reconcile with section M.2, which provides that, with or without discussions, award will be made to the offeror with the lowest-priced proposal only if the proposal is technically acceptable. The Army and DataExpert read section M.3 in conjunction with sections L.12 and M.2 to say that award may be made, without discussions, to the offeror with the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. This reading of section M.3 is preferred to TeleCom's interpretation, because it does not require us to read any language into section M.3, and is consistent with sections L.12 and M.2. Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States, 351 F.2d 972, 169 Ct. Cl. 384 (1965). TeleCom has not established that the contracting officer violated the terms of section M.3 when he awarded the contract to DataExpert. Laptops raises two arguments not made by TeleCom. First, Laptops contends that section M.3 is ambiguous. If Laptops saw an ambiguity in section M.3, it should have asked the Army to clarify the solicitation before proposals were due. Rule 5(b)(3)(i). System Automation Corp. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, GSBCA 11962-P, 94-3 BCA 27,016, 1994 BPD 118. Second, Laptops alleges, for the first time in its reply brief, that discussions were required by section M.3 because the contracting officer should not have been satisfied that the offerors understood the work required by the solicitation. This allegation is countered by TeleCom's conclusion that the Army received a sufficient number of proposals from offerors who understood the work required by the solicitation. TeleCom's Opening Brief at 21. Laptops offers no facts in support of its allegation, other than to note that three of the thirty-six proposals were rejected as being technically unacceptable. This fact does not establish that the contracting officer should not have been satisfied with the offerors' understanding of the work required by the solicitation. Laptops has not established that the contracting officer violated the terms of section M.3 when he awarded the contract to DataExpert. Competition in Contracting Act TeleCom argues that the Army violated the requirement for full and open competition established by the Competition in Contracting Act, 10 U.S.C. 2301 (1988), because it decided to reject TeleCom's lower-priced proposal, even though discussions might have resulted in TeleCom submitting an acceptable proposal priced lower than DataExpert's proposal. Although the Competition in Contracting Act requires full and open competition, the Defense Authorization Act permits the Army to satisfy this requirement by making an award -- based on the proposals received, without discussions with the offerors (other than discussions conducted for the purpose of minor clarification) provided that the solicitation included a statement that proposals are intended to be evaluated, and award made, without discussions, unless discussions are determined to be necessary. 10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4)(A)(ii) (Supp. III 1992). TeleCom concedes that the Army would have had to conduct discussions -- not simply ask for clarifications -- in order for TeleCom's proposal to be made acceptable. The solicitation included a statement that the Army intended to evaluate proposals and make an award without conducting discussions. Thus, neither the Competition in Contracting Act nor the Defense Authorization Act was violated by the Army's decision not to conduct discussions unless TeleCom can establish that discussions were necessary. TeleCom asserts that discussions were necessary because discussions would have resulted in the Army acquiring its computers at a lower price than it intends to pay DataExpert. However, as we explained in Federal Systems Group, discussions are not necessary simply because an agency rejects a lower-priced proposal, which appears to be technically unacceptable, and makes an award to an offeror with a higher-priced, technically acceptable proposal. Because TeleCom's proposal lists some required features as options, the contracting officer concluded that TeleCom's price did not include all of the items required by the solicitation. The contracting officer's conclusion is supported by the fact that TeleCom's price was relatively close to the two lowest-priced proposals, which were technically unacceptable. The contracting officer also concluded that competition was adequate, that DataExpert's price was fair and reasonable, and that taking additional time to conduct discussions with thirty-six offerors would not ensure a better product at a better price. Given these facts, TeleCom has not demonstrated that the contracting officer violated statute by deciding that discussions were not necessary. TeleCom asserts that University Systems, Inc. v. Defense Nuclear Agency, GSBCA 11687-P, 92-2 BCA 24,938, 1992 BPD 97, reconsideration denied, 93-1 BCA 25,256, 1992 BPD 174, supports its argument. There, unsuccessful offerors protested the agency's decision to award a contract to University Systems, Inc. (USI). Although the protesters' proposals were all priced lower than USI's proposal, the agency rejected the protesters' proposals because they failed a test run by the agency. The agency settled the protest because it decided that full and open competition would be enhanced by returning to the testing stage of the procurement and permitting offerors to attempt to remedy minor deficiencies in their proposals. USI protested the terms of the settlement, alleging that the settlement violated statute and regulation. We held that the settlement did not violate statute or regulation, because the agency reasonably determined that, when it encountered testing difficulties, some type of clarification was in order. In our case, TeleCom has not established that, when the Army reviewed TeleCom's proposal, any clarification was needed. In fact, TeleCom's proposal seems to provide clearly that some required features are offered as options, and TeleCom's price reinforces this reading of the proposal. Our holding in University Systems does not support TeleCom's argument. The solicitation told offerors that the Army intended to make an award without conducting discussions. TeleCom had an obligation to submit a clear proposal which would have permitted the Army to make an award to TeleCom without conducting discussions. The fact that TeleCom failed to submit such a proposal did not make discussions necessary. TeleCom has not established that the contracting officer violated the Competition in Contracting Act when he decided not to conduct discussions. DataExpert's Proposal Laptops contends that the Army violated the terms of a procurement regulation because the technical evaluation team did not review all of the documentation provided by DataExpert in its proposal. TeleCom and Laptops contend that the Army violated the terms of the solicitation because the technical evaluation team did not review DataExpert's entire proposal and because, if the entire proposal had been reviewed, the Army would have realized that DataExpert's proposal is not technically acceptable. Laptops alleges in its complaint that the Army violated 48 CFR 14.202-5(b) (1993) because the technical evaluation team did not review DataExpert's entire proposal. Laptops presents no argument in its briefs concerning this issue. The regulation cited by Laptops applies when an agency issues an invitation for sealed bids, not when an agency issues a request for proposals. The regulation requires agencies to state, in the invitation, the extent to which descriptive literature will be considered in the evaluation of bids. Laptops has not established that the Army violated this regulation in the course of the negotiated procurement at issue in this case. TeleCom and Laptops have not established that the technical evaluation team violated the terms of the solicitation, because they have not demonstrated that the solicitation mentions a technical evaluation team, much less requires a team to review particular portions of proposals. TeleCom and Laptops challenge the contracting officer's decision that DataExpert's proposal was technically acceptable. We will examine the issue of DataExpert's technical acceptability de novo. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(1) (1988). TeleCom and Laptops have not established that DataExpert's proposal is technically unacceptable. Some of the features required by the Army are not mentioned in DataExpert's printed technical literature. However, the computers provided by DataExpert would have provided these features, according to the eight typed pages of DataExpert's proposal and DataExpert's acknowledgement of an amendment to the solicitation. Similarly, some of the features required by the Army are not mentioned in the eight typed pages of DataExpert's proposal. However, the computers provided by DataExpert would have been equipped with these features, according to the printed technical literature included in DataExpert's proposal. Reading the eight typed pages and the printed technical literature together, we conclude that DataExpert proposed to provide all of the features required by the Army. Although DataExpert did not fill in the blank contained in section H.9.b of the solicitation to show the terms of its warranty, the solicitation does not provide that warranty information had any bearing upon technical acceptability or that warranty terms were an evaluation factor. DataExpert was not required to fill in the blank contained in section H.9.b in order to submit a technically acceptable proposal. Moreover, the omission was remedied by DataExpert prior to award. We are persuaded by DataExpert's expert witness that the 486 DX2/66MHz processor proposed by DataExpert meets the minimum requirements established by the solicitation. DataExpert's expert witness's opinion is based upon benchmark tests and discussions with technical representatives of several companies, and takes into account the overall performance of the 486 DX2/66 MHz processor. Although TeleCom's expert witness pointed out differences between a 486 DX2/66 MHz processor and a 486 DX/50 MHz processor, his opinion that the two processors are not equivalent is not supported by any benchmark tests, and it is not clear whether his opinion takes into account the overall performance of the processor proposed by DataExpert. TeleCom and Laptops have not established that DataExpert submitted a technically unacceptable proposal. Decision The protest is DENIED. ________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: ______________________________ ________________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge Board Judge