ML20246M004
| ML20246M004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/14/1989 |
| From: | Mark Flynn NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Arnsdorf R SMITH, SOMERVILLE & CASE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246L981 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-33-89-137 CCS, NUDOCS 8909070074 | |
| Download: ML20246M004 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _. _ - - _ - _ - _ _,
<P a'
' Enclosure
.,-Jm JUL 141989 Smith, Somerville & Case Attn:
Ralph L. Arnsdorf
- 100 Light Street,- 6th Floor
. Baltimore, MD 21202
Dear Mr. Arnsdorf:
Subject:
Protest of Contract No. NRC-33-89-137 Entitled, " Preventive, Remedial and On-Call Maintenance of Data General Computers and H
Peripheral Equipment"'
'This responds to'your letter dated June 8, 1989 regarding the subject
' protest by Computer Engineering Associates, Inc. (CEA) and:provides our
. decision.
Your letter states that the solicitation' requires that certain software diagnostic techniques be implemented to minimize ~ downtime and that NRC has I
expressed a preference for ADEX.
The solicitation does not state that the NRC prefers the. Contractor use ADEX software to minimize' downtime.
- Rather, as discussed in Section L.9_of-the solicitation, (Page 59), the offeror was-requested to, " describe the Offeror's overall.' approach to diagnosing problems and show that the approach will minimize downtime and is technically feasible." The offeror was' to also, " describe any specialized diagnostic techniques that may' apply to each of the various types of
- equipment" listed in the. solicitation.
You also disagree with NRC's assertion that CEA's_ original proposal discussed ~the use of-ADEX.
In CEA's technical proposal dated January.20, 1989, under B. TECHNICAL APPROACH, 1) Ability to Minimize Downtime, second to the last paragraph, CEA states', "CEA uses our own in-house diagnostic routines, Data General's: Advanced Diagnostic Executive (ADEX), Diagnostic Tape Operating System (DTOS), and Zetaco's Products Support Packages to diagnose system and peripheral problems..These products contain the programs necessary to support _all the equip listed in Section B."
During negotiations, NRC requested, based on this statement, a copy of CEA's license to use ADEX.
You also contend that NRC ignored CEA's ability to provide ADEX by Faving the NRC purchase the:ADEX license from Data General.
This is not correct.
In its Best and Final proposal dated April 22, 1989, the third paragraph under Response No. 8, CEA states,'"CEA does not propose to run a copy of our licensed Data General ADEX on NRC owned equipment." CEA also stated under this paragraph, "If NRC'reavires the use or would award technical evaluation points for use of ADEX to diagnose system problems, NRC can purchase the licenses and associated products from DG GSA Schedule."
(Note:
NRC did not require the use of ADEX nor award technical evaluation points for its use or any other predetermined software program.)
8909070074 gOgi,0 PDR ORG PDC o
t_
'i l
4 1*
Ralph L. Arnsdorf Furthermore, as NRC~would not be a self-maintainer of its Data General equipment, NRC would not be licensed to buy or use the ADEX software.
.Therefore, in accordance with the second to the last paragraph of the June
. 8, 1989 letter, "CEA cannot purchase ADEX for the NRC without violating Data General's copyright." For this reason, CEA'u proposal to have NRC purchase the proprietary software for CEA to use was rejected.
Your letter states that the NRC overlooked CEA's suggested number of diagnostic techniques beyond ADEX a,% Parse and that the NRC erroneously stated that CEA intended to provide MV Diagnostics by Parse in lieu of l
ADEX. The NRC did review CEA's original as well as Best and Final proposal which proposed diagnostic techniques to minimize downtime beyond ADEX and Parse..However, those diagnostic techniques alone would not have been sufficient to successfully diagnose all the equipment.
The Best and Final proposal did state, in the first paragraph under Response No. 8, "In addition, CEA is currently running MV Diagnostics sold by Parse Corporation.
See attached copy of use agreement.
Parse Corporation is a proven provider of diagnostic software used in the service of Data General and Digital computer systems." The NRC has interpreted this statement to mean that CEA intends to use the MV Diagnostics on NRC's equipment.
However,-NRC is not familiar with Parse Corporation's MV Diagnostics and l.
the proposal does not discuss how use of this software would minimize l
downtime and be technically feasible nor does the proposal describe the technique that may be applied to the equipment. Therefore, NRC could not l
make a determination whether or not the proposed diagnostic software would be acceptable and rejected it.
Further, the use agreement provided in the Best and Final proposal is for CEA's demonstration and evaluation of Parse i
l Corporation's software for 60 days.
Consequently, NRC did not view the L
agreement as a license to use this product on NRC's equipment.
Regarding CEA's ability to provide spare parts,'your letter states that CEA has a comp?ete MV15000-MOD 10 (MOD 10) available as of the date of its proposal.
NRC has a MV15000-MOD 8 (MOD 8), not a MOD 10.
NRC does not L
have a software license and microcode (instructions) for the MOD 10.
The MOD 10 is indeed completely downward compatible with the MOD 8 but NRC would have to obtain software licenses, at an increased cost of unknown magnitude, for the use of MOD 10.
Therefore, this did not meet NRC's j
requirements and was rejected.
Further, CEA's planned purchase of the MOD 8
]
would have required a 60 day delivery period, in accordance with the Spare j
Parts Inventory provided in the Best and Final proposal.
This was not
)
acceptable as the NRC cannot afford the risk of any downtime within these 60 days.
I L
l l
l l
q.
. s.
y,:
o.
o Ralph L. Arnsdorf l(
Regarding CEA's inability to provide a sufficient ntmber of qualified personnel, your letter states that CEA demonstrated, with submission of resumes, a depth of highly qualified technical personnel and that NRC incorrectly stated that no commitment was provided in the proposal. With regard to the more qualified senior field engineer discussed in the-i proposal, under Response No. 15, CEA states, "Although I cannot commit this
. person to the service of this contract at this time.I will state that as.
per my conversations with him on April 21, 1989 at 8 p.m. and previously in.
March, he is still available for immediate employment, and is very interested ir, the prospect of working for CEA in Washington. He did consent to the inclusion of his resume into this proposal, as an example to demonstrate CEA's current recruitment effort to prepare for the possible award-of the NRC contract." While the resume appears satisfactory this statement does not constitute, in our opinion, a bona fide employment agreement or a commitment of this individual to the NRC contract. As to the less qualified field engineer, no specific individual was committed by CEA.
Rather, in its Best and Final proposal, under Response No. 14, CEA states, "We have' authorization to hire a junior FE for Washington, based on existing revenue and the award of two contracts earlier this month,.
L regardless of the award of this contract.
Therefore, we plan to have 3 FEs in Washington if we are awarded this contract."
This statement does not constitute a commitment to hire a specific field engineer for the junior position. Therefore, CEA did not commit a sufficient number of qualified personnel to perform the work.
In conclusion, we believe that the evaluation of CEA's original and Best and Final proposal was proper.
This is our final decision on CEA's protest.
Sincerely, Original Signed Ey, yfax J. FLEN Mark J. Flynn, Contracting Officer Division of Contracts and Property Management
(
Office of Administration l
l cc:
Paul R. Keys President Computer Engineering Associates, Inc.
3922 Vero Road Baltimore, Maryland 21227 l
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _