THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER,
      RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN REDACTED FORM ON FEBRUARY 8, 1994,
 
         AND IS BEING RELEASED IN ITS ENTIRETY ON MAY 20, 1994
 
        
                     ______________________________
 
                      GRANTED:  September 13, 1993
                     ______________________________
             
                             GSBCA 12493-P
 
 
                   GOVERNMENT MICRO RESOURCES, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.                       
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,  
 
                                                Respondent,       
 
                                  and 
 
                          W.R. SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
        Andrew  Mohr  and   Andrew  Tenenbaum  of  Cohen   &  White,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Charles A.  Walden, Patricia A.  Heil, and  James E.  Hicks,
   Office  of   Chief  Counsel,  Drug   Enforcement  Administration,
   Department of Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Dennis J. Riley, Kenneth A.  Martin, and Jared H.  Silberman
   of  Elliott,  Vanaskie  &  Riley,  Washington,  DC,  counsel  for
   Intervenor.
     
   Before Board Judges HENDLEY, WILLIAMS, and VERGILIO.
 
   HENDLEY, Board Judge.
 
        The  protester,  Government  Micro  Resources,  Inc.  (GMR),
   contends that the respondent, the Drug Enforcement Administration
   (DEA),  improperly awarded the  contract to the  intervenor, W.R.
   Systems, Inc.  (WRS).   GMR asserts that  the award  was improper
   because WRS did not propose  employees having the work experience
   specified as a mandatory requirement of the solicitation.
 
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
   The Solicitation
 
        1.   The DEA  issued Request For Proposals No. DEA-92-R-0012
   (the  solicitation)  in  November 1992,  for  the  procurement of
   microcomputer hardware, software, maintenance, and training.  The
   procurement s primary purpose  was to automate and  network DEA s
   New York  City field  division office.   Transcript at  93.   The
   network  being   solicited  required  certain   specified  Unisys
   computers,  IBM  PC  clones,  and  "the  Everex  CT/OPEN  network
   solution," the latter being required  to link the Unisys hardware
   with the PC clones.  Protest File, Exhibit 6 at C-1.
     
        2.   The solicitation  specified the Unisys  hardware by its
   brand name only, i.e., no  substitutions allowed.  Similarly, the
   solicitation  specified the Everex CT/OPEN products as brand name
   only,  with no  substitution allowed.    The PC  clones were  not
   restricted to any particular brand name.  Protest File, Exhibit 6
   at C-2. 
 
        3.   The CT/OPEN requirement was stated as follows:
 
        C.3  Technical Specifications/Salient Characteristics
 
        All requirements stated  shall be considered  mandatory
        contract requirements. . . .
 
        C.3.1.13  CT/OPEN Networking Solution
 
        The following  products  shall  be  specific  make  and
        model.
 
        CT/OPEN Server      (10base2)
        CT/OPEN Client      (10base2)
        CT/OPEN Server      (10baseT)
        CT/OPEN Client      (10baseT)
 
   Protest   File,   Exhibit   6   at   C-7;   Transcript   at   96,
   226.[foot #] 1        The    CT/OPEN    servers    and    clients
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1     CT/OPEN products were  listed in the software
   portion of   B as CLINs 2001 through 2004.  Protest File, Exhibit
   6 at  B-9; Transcript  at 227.   In    C,  CT/OPEN products  were
   listed in the hardware listing as   C.3.1.13,  CT/OPEN Networking
   Solution.   Protest File,  Exhibit 6 at C-7.   The suffix  base2 
   refers  to use  of coaxial  cable;   baseT  refers  to  use of  a
   telephone jack.  Transcript at  255-56.  The CT/OPEN products are
   a combination of both hardware and software. 
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   specified in    C.3.1.13 refer to Everex s  CT/OPEN products, and
   to no other products.  Transcript at 284-85, 288-89, 306-08, 358.
   This was confirmed by DEA  in Amendment No. 1, which incorporated
   questions posed  by offerors  and DEA s answers  (Q&A).   Q&A 203
   noted  that  CT/OPEN was  specified  by name,  and  asked whether
   alternatives  could  be  proposed given  that  Everex  was having
   financial  difficulties.  DEA  answered that the  requirement for
   CT/OPEN  would  not  be  modified.    Protest  File,  Exhibit  7,
   Amendment No. 1  at 36-37.  Both GMR and WRS proffered the Everex
   products specified in the solicitation.
 
 
        4.   Training was a significant  element of the procurement.
   DEA estimated that approximately 2,000 employees nationwide would
   require 16,640  hours of  training.  Protest  File, Exhibit  6 at
   C-28.    The  solicitation  required  offerors  to  provide  four
   full-time instructors to instruct DEA personnel:
 
        C.13 Training Requirements:
 
        DEA   requires  four   full-time  contractor   training
        personnel  to   provide  training   to  DEA   personnel
        nationwide.      The   Government  may   upon   written
        notification increase the number  of full-time training
        personnel,  not  to  exceed  a total  of  six.    These
        trainers[foot #] 2       will      provide       formal
        classroom  instruction  as well  as  on-site one-on-one
        instruction as required.  The four full-time contractor
        training personnel shall be based  at DEA Headquarters,
        Arlington, VA and/or contractor site. 
 
   Id. at C-23. 
 
        5.   The  required training  included  a  course in  CT/OPEN
   Systems  Management, which was  specified as CLIN  3019.  Protest
   File, Exhibit 7,  Amendment No.6 at B-15, B-24,  B-33.  According
   to  Table B-3,  DEA estimated  that 180  students would  take the
   CT/OPEN Systems Management course in  the base year, 195 students
   would take  the same course in the  second contract year, and 225
   DEA students would  attend the CT/OPEN Systems  Management course
   in the  third contract  year, for  a total  of  600 DEA  students
   taking the course over three years.  Id.  This course was not for
   users,   but  for   the   respondent's  systems   administrators.
   Transcript at 749.  It is a 
 
 
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 2     The  solicitation  and   responses  refer  to
   "instructors" and "trainers" throughout.  They are the same thing
   and  are   referred  to  interchangeably.     We  use   the  term
   "instructor"  except when  the term  "trainer"  occurs in  quoted
   portions of the solicitation.
    
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   course  in managing the CT/OPEN network, and requires substantial
   experience to teach.  Id. at 751.[foot #] 3
 
 
        6.   The   solicitation  described   in   some  detail   the
   qualifications required of  the instructors to be proposed by the
   offerors:
 
        C.13.1.1  Instructors/Trainers Qualifications.
 
 
        The  Contractor  shall  provide  training  by  training
        representatives    who     possess    the     following
        qualifications:
 
        C.13.1.1.1     A B.S. or B.A. Degree or equivalent work
        experience.
 
        C.13.1.1.2     At   least   six  months   of   teaching
        experience on the above listed hardware and software.
 
        C.13.1.1.3     At  least  one year  working  experience
        with  BTOS  operating  system, BNET  I  Communications,
        Document Designer,  Enhanced Multiplan,  OFIS Graphics,
        Forms Plus and OFIS Mail, and Laser Forms.
 
        C.13.1.1.4     At least three months working experience
        of  the CT/OPEN network and all software provided under
        this contract.
 
   Protest File,  Exhibit 6 at  C-24.   The reference to  the  above
   listed  hardware and software  in   C.13.1.1.2 encompassed all of
   the products required by   C and included CT/OPEN.  Transcript at
   102.   The solicitation went  on to describe the  formal training
   classes to be taught, discuss  class size, location of  training,
   training facilities, training  expenses and scheduling,  training
   manuals,  record  of  training attendees,  and  training reports.
   Protest File, Exhibit 6 at C-23 through C-31.
 
        7.   The  DEA was  concerned  that the  training  experience
   required on  CT/OPEN networks  set out in    C.13.1.1.2  might be
   difficult for some offerors to meet.  For that reason, DEA issued
   Amendment No. 6  to the solicitation in April  1993, which stated
   that three months work experience with CT/OPEN would suffice:
 
        C.13.1.1.2     At   least   six  months   of   teaching
        experience on  the above listed  hardware and software,
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 3     WRS's president's testimony that training was
   only for end users is inconsistent with the respondent's emphasis
   on CT/OPEN work experience, and with the requirement in CLIN 3019
   for a course in CT/OPEN Systems Management.  Protest File Exhibit
   7, Amendment No. 6, at B-15, B-25, B-33.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        except as noted in C.13.1.1.4.
 
             . . . .
 
        C.13.1.1.4     At  least  two  instructors  shall  have
        three  months  working  experience  with  the   CT/OPEN
        network.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit  1 at 3, Exhibit  7 at C-21; Transcript  at
   104,  138. The  solicitation still  required  that all  personnel
   proposed have experience  with the  hardware and  software to  be
   provided.  Protest File, Exhibit 7 at C-21.
 
        8.   Section C.15 required offerors to indicate the proposed
   instructors  and  demonstrate  their experience.    Protest File,
   Exhibit  6 at  C-33,  C-34.   In  particular,    C.15.2  mirrored
     C.13.1.1.2 by  requiring at least six months  experience on all
   hardware   and  software   provided;      C.15.4   followed   the
   requirements  of   C.13.1.1.4  by requiring personnel  with three
   months   working  knowledge   of  the  CT/OPEN  network  and  all
   software provided.  Id.
 
        9.   The solicitation required that resumes be provided with
   the technical proposal for the proposed instructors:
 
        L.21.3.1  General
 
        Your   technical   proposal   will  be   an   important
        consideration in the award of a contract; therefore, it
        should be specific  and complete. . . .   Resumes shall
        be provided for those  individuals proposed as Training
        Instructors and Technical Support personnel.
 
   Protest  File,  Exhibit  6  at  L-8.   The  requirement  for  the
   submission  of  the  resumes  of  the  proposed  instructors  was
   separately  noted for    C.15  in the instructions  for preparing
   technical proposals:
 
        L.21.3.3  TECHNICAL  PROPOSAL  VOLUME   -  RESPONSE  TO
        MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
 
        For paragraph C.15, the Offeror must:
 
             Provide resumes for the  four individuals proposed
        as  Training  Instructors  and the  one  Field  Support
        Representative.
 
        It  is important that in presenting the capabilities of
        your firm and  personnel who are to be  assigned to the
        work  that the  information submitted  be  complete and
        detailed, spelling out clearly the relevant specialized
        professional   competence  that   the   firm  and   the
        individuals  possess,   their  academic   and  training
        background,  representative  accomplishments,  and work
 
        experience  (with company  and  supervisors  names  and
        telephone numbers) pertinent to the proposal.
 
   Id. at L-10.  Under   M, award was to  be made to the low-priced,
   technically compliant offeror.  Id. at M-2.
 
   CT/OPEN
 
        10.  Everex s  CT/OPEN servers and  clients are essential to
   the operation of  the network being procured.   Specifically, the
   CT/OPEN equipment  allows DEA s Unisys  computers to  communicate
   with PCs at  the same site.   Transcript at 309-10.   Without the
   CT/OPEN  equipment, DEA s Unisys  computers and PCs  would not be
   able to communicate  with each other,  share files, transmit  and
   receive electronic messages, and the like.  Id.  With the CT/OPEN
   equipment,  DEA s Unisys  computers  and  PCs  can  be  networked
   seamlessly together.  Id.
 
        11.  CT/OPEN was developed in 1991 by Everex specifically to
   permit DEA s Unisys  hardware to communicate with its  PCs at the
   same  location.    Transcript  276-81, 335,  368-69;  Protester s
   Exhibit  3 at  5-6.   CT/OPEN  is comprised  of a  small hardware
   component and software  module.  Transcript 251-52.  The hardware
   component, in the  form of  a clip-on box,  was developed by  Ken
   Wood Associates, Inc.  (KWA).  Transcript at 252, 279,  369.  The
   software  module was  developed by  Richard  Shephard of  Syntec.
   Protester s Exhibit 3 at 5.  After a marketing agreement with KWA
   terminated  in September 1991,  Syntec contracted with  Everex to
   market CT/OPEN exclusively.  Id. at 7.[foot #] 4
     
        12.  CT/OPEN differs entirely  from CTOS.  CTOS,  an acronym
   for  Convergent Technology  Operating  System, is  a  proprietary
   operating     system     for      Unisys     computers.[foot #] 5
   Transcript at 249.  Like MS DOS, Apple s System 7, or  UNIX, CTOS
   is an operating system that initializes a computer upon start up,
   manages  memory and  storage, and  permits  use of  applications,
   among  other  functions.    In contrast,  CT/OPEN  is  a  network
   application that permits Unisys  computers using CTOS on  the one
   hand, and  PC clones  using MS or  PC DOS  on the other  hand, to
   communicate with each other.  Id. at 309-10.  
 
        13.  While the term  CTOS/Open  is sometimes used to connote
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 4     KWA never  sold any copies of  CT/OPEN during
   the term  of its marketing  agreement with Syntec.    Protester s
   Exhibit 3 at 8-9.
 
 
        [foot #] 5     Convergent Technology was  acquired by Unisys
   several years  ago.  CTOS  is now the  same as Unisys s  own BTOS
   (Burroughs Technology  Operating System).  Burroughs  merged with
   Sperry Univac to form Unisys.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   a CTOS network open to interchange with other formats, Transcript
   at 649,  the term  CT/OPEN,   as used in the  solicitation, could
   only refer  to Everex s CT/OPEN  products.  The  term  CTOS/Open 
   was  nowhere used  in the  solicitation.   Protest  File, Exhibit
   6.[foot #] 6
 
   W.R. Systems' Proposal
 
 
        14.  WRS proposed Everex CT/OPEN products in compliance with
   the solicitation requirements.  In its offer, it stated that "WRS
   shall  supply  the   CTalk/Open  LAN  CTOS-DOS   Interoperability
   Solution  from  Everex  Federal  Systems,  Inc."  and  cited  the
   specific CT/OPEN products specified in the solicitation.  Protest
   File, Exhibit 8  at 1-14.   In keeping with  its offering of  the
   CT/OPEN  products,  WRS stated  in  its  proposal that  it  would
   develop a training course based on Everex s CT/OPEN product:
 
        CT/OPEN Systems Management
 
        This is a course  developed by the Contractor  to teach
        the  fundamentals  of  PC  networking, and  the  setup,
        installation, and management of the CT/Open network.
 
        W R Systems was a  distributor of this product prior to
        Everex  obtaining  exclusive  rights  and  has  a close
        working   relationship   with  the   original   systems
        developer,  Rick Shephard.   W  R Systems will  use Mr.
        Shephard if necessary  to assist in course  development
        and  in  providing  our  instructors  with  a  complete
        understanding  of this product.  It is anticipated that
        the complete  course will  be approximately  5 days  in
        duration and will address fundamentals of PC networking
        and setup,  installation and management of  the CT/OPEN
        network and LANmail.
 
   Id.  at 1-57; see also Transcript  at 580.  We  find that WRS was
   well aware that the CT/OPEN  network being procured and for which
   it  was 
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 6     According  to Richard  Shepard, developer  of
   CT/OPEN, there is  no other product named CT/OPEN  other than the
   one licensed by Everex.  Protester s Exhibit 3 at 6.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   to provide  instructors, was the  Everex CT/OPEN network  and not
   some other network.
 
 
        15.  WRS   stated  in   its   proposal  that   its  proposed
   instructors had experience  with CT/OPEN.  In fact,  they have no
   experience  with  CT/OPEN.   Protest  File,  Exhibit 8  at  1-51;
   Transcript at 420, 428, 442.   WRS is not an authorized  reseller
   of CT/OPEN.   Protester s Exhibit 3 at  10.  No WRS  clients have
   CT/OPEN.  Transcript at 618.
 
        16.  As  required  by  the  solicitation,  WRS  provided the
   resumes  of  its  instructors  purportedly  having  CT/OPEN  work
   experience.  Protest File, Exhibit 8 at 1-70, 1-77; Transcript at
   486.[foot #] 7       In   particular,    the   two    instructors
   proposed  as  having experience  with  CT/OPEN  were MG  and  BG.
   Transcript at 499; Protester s Exhibit 4.  MG was a  principal of
   WRS, and  now operates a  company called Softech.   Transcript at
   438.  BG is an employee of WRS.  Id. at 417.
 
        17.  Neither  MG's nor BG's  resumes stated that  either had
   experience with Everex CT/OPEN.   Protest File, Exhibit 8 at 1-70
   to 1-72, 1-77 to 1-78.  In fact, at the hearing, MG admitted that
   he did not have work  experience with Everex CT/OPEN.  Transcript
   at 442.   Likewise, BG  admitted at the  hearing that he  did not
   have work experience with Everex CT/OPEN.  Id. at 420.
 
        18.  WRS was able to reduce its proposal price by not having
   to propose  CT/OPEN qualified  personnel.   WRS s price  for CLIN
   3001, Instructor, Government Site, was $61,541 for the base year,
   $61,541 for  year two,  $77,811 for year  three, and  $80,146 for
   year  four, for  a total  cost  of $281,039  for one  instructor.
   Protest  File, Exhibit 8 at B-7,  B-15, B-23, B-25.  By proposing
   less qualified instructors,  WRS was able to  enjoy substantially
   lower costs over the life of the contract.
 
   Evaluation
 
        19.  The  DEA evaluated  proposals for  compliance with  the
   solicitation's  mandatory   requirements,  using   an  evaluation
   checklist.   Protest File,  Exhibits 1, 13,  14.   Evaluation for
   technical  compliance  was  pass/fail,  with  an  offeror  either
   meeting or failing to meet the specifications.  Transcript at 94,
   101;   Protest  File,  Exhibit 6  at  M-1.   In  particular,  DEA
   evaluated  proposals  for  compliance   with  the  solicitation s
   training and  work experience requirements.  Id., Exhibit 13, and
   14 at 31-43.
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 7     "This  section   [of  WRS s   proposal]  also
   includes,  at   Paragraph   C.15,  resumes   for  four   Training
   Instructors and one  Field Support Representative.    See Protest
                                                         ___
   File, Exhibit 8 at 0-13.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        20.  In  evaluating   proposals  for  compliance   with  the
   solicitation s  training and work  experience, the DEA  was aware
   that CT/OPEN had  been in existence only  a few years.   This was
   evinced  from  the   DEA s  evaluation  of  GMR,   because,  when
   evaluating  GMR s chart showing  its personnel training  and work
   experience, the  DEA evaluator correctly  noted in the  margin of
   his evaluation checklist that some of the  monthly figures seemed
   incorrect:    How  can [GMR s  personnel] have  80 and  60 months
   exp.[erience] with  a product [CT/OPEN]  which is only  2-3 years
   old!    Protest  File,  Exhibit 14  at  31.   GMR corrected  this
   arithmetic error during negotiations.  Id., Exhibit 11, Exhibit 9
   at 17-4A.
 
        21.  The DEA found  both WRS and GMR  technically compliant.
   Protest File, Exhibit 15.   DEA did not question WRS s compliance
   with  the training or  work experience requirements  of   C.13 of
   the solicitation.  Id.
 
   Effect on GMR
 
        22.  The  final  evaluated price  for  WRS  was $11,348,971.
   Protest File, Exhibit 15 (last  page).  The final evaluated price
   for  GMR was  $11,727,272.  Id.   The difference  between the two
   offers was $378,301.   However, had WRS been  required to propose
   CT/OPEN  qualified personnel, then  WRS would have  had to locate
   and have paid substantially more for qualified instructors.   
 
        23.  GMR   subcontracted    at   considerable    cost   with
   Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc.  (CTI) for CT/OPEN
   qualified instructors.   Protest File,  Exhibit 9.  Had  GMR been
   allowed to offer instructors who  did not have the specified work
   experience with CT/OPEN, then GMR could have reduced its price by
   substituting  less qualified instructors for the ones it actually
   proposed.    Id.    For  example,  GMR s  price  for  CLIN  3001,
   Instructor,  Government  Site,  was $83,774  for  the  base year,
   $87,212 for  year two,  $90,604 for year  three, and  $94,161 for
   year  four, for  a total  cost  of $355,751  for one  instructor.
   Protest File, Exhibit 9 at B-5, B-11, B-17, B-19.
                               Discussion
 
        The only issue in this case is whether the awardee, WRS, met
   the mandatory requirement of the solicitation that:
 
        At  least  two  instructors  shall  have  three  months
        working experience with the CT/OPEN network.
 
   Inasmuch as the  two instructors proposed by WRS  for training on
   the CT/OPEN network do not have the required work experience, the
   issue can be further narrowed.  To wit, is "the  CT/OPEN network"
   with which the two instructors  are to have "three months working
   experience," a network utilizing Everex CT/OPEN hardware/software
   (servers and  clients) of the sort  which were to be  supplied as
   part of the network being procured?  We conclude that it is.
 
        In section  C.3 of the solicitation specifications, Everex s
   CT/OPEN  products (servers  and clients)  were  specified as  the
   "CT/OPEN Networking  Solution" and their  supply and  use in  the
   resultant contract  was clearly  a mandatory  requirement of  the
   solicitation.  No  one disputes that  fact.  Section C.13  of the
   specifications required that  two of the instructors  proposed by
   the offeror have at least  "three months working experience  with
   the  CT/OPEN network."  The protester interpreted the requirement
   as calling for instructors having experience with the same Everex
   products required by  the contract.  We agree,  and conclude that
   under the terms of the  solicitation, WRS was required to propose
   instructors  having CT/OPEN  experience  on  the CT/OPEN  network
   which was to be supplied. 
 
   Everex CT/OPEN Was a Mandatory Requirement
 
        We consider it  significant that although the  word "Everex"
   appears  nowhere in  the solicitation,  no one disputes  that the
   "CT/OPEN" products (servers and clients) specified in Section C.3
   of   the  solicitation  referred  to  Everex s  brand  and  model
   products.   These  products were  mandatory  requirements of  the
   solicitation and both  the protester, GMR, and the  awardee, WRS,
   proposed to supply  the Everex "CT/OPEN" products specified.  WRS
   clearly understood that the term "CT/OPEN," when used to describe
   the equipment, servers and clients,  to be supplied, referred  to
   Everex  products.   A reasonable offeror  would not  consider the
   term "CT/OPEN," when used to  describe the network with which the
   instructors  were  required   to  "have   three  months   working
   experience," as designating some system using other than Everex's
   equipment designated "CT/OPEN" for achieving the interoperability
   between CTOS and DOS operating systems required by the contract.
 
        WRS s own  expert witness  contended that  CT/OPEN does  not
   have any meaning in the trade or industry.  Transcript at 658-59,
   663.  This was  the purpose, sum, and substance of her testimony.
   Her view  is the protester's position  on that issue.   Thus, WRS
   had to  determine the meaning  of term "CT/OPEN" by  reference to
   the rest of  the solicitation or by inquiring  of the Government.
   No such  inquiry was  made by  WRS.   We conclude  that the  only
   reasonable   interpretation  of   the  requirement   of  "working
   experience with the CT/OPEN network" is experience with a network
   utilizing  CT/OPEN  Everex equipment  providing  interoperability
   between  equipment using  CTOS (or  BTOS)  operating systems  and
   those using  a DOS operating  system.  The solicitation  used the
   term  CT/OPEN  in  specifying  by  brand  name  Everex s  CT/OPEN
   products, which were developed by  Everex specifically for use in
   networking DEA CTOS and MS DOS computers.  
 
        The solicitation required that the proposed instructors have
   at least three  months working experience with CT/OPEN.  Training
   in  CT/OPEN was  so important to  the success  of the use  of the
   system  being procured that  the solicitation devoted  a specific
   mandatory requirement  to insuring that  the proposed instructors
   had experience with CT/OPEN, to wit:
 
        At  least  two  instructors  shall  have  three  months
        working experience with the CT/OPEN network.
 
   Of all the software programs listed in    C.13.1, CT/OPEN was the
   only program  listed separately  by itself  in its own  mandatory
   requirement. 
 
        To argue that  instructors did not  have to have  experience
   with  Everex s   CT/OPEN  networks  flies  in  the  face  of  the
   solicitation and  would be  inconsistent with  the intent  of the
   procurement to provide a usable system with appropriate training.
   The solicitation stated that the instructors must have experience
   with  all software  offered.   Finding 7.   Considering  that the
   solicitation expressly called  for at least two  instructors with
   working experience  with the  CT/OPEN network,  and that  CT/OPEN
   provided  the  essential  bridge  between  the respondent's  CTOS
   equipment  and the  PCs, it  is not  reasonable to  interpret the
   requirement as  not calling  for instructors  with experience  in
   systems using Everex's CT/OPEN products.
     
        As   stated  in  AT&T   Paradyne  Corp.  v.   Department  of
   Transportation, GSBCA 10598-P-R, 92-2  BCA   24,784, at  123,637,
   1992 BPD   32, at 4, in interpreting a solicitation we first look
   to the plain,  commonsense meaning of the  solicitation document.
   C&P Telephone Co., GSBCA 10331-P,  90-2 BCA   22,883, at 114,923,
   1992  BPD   385, at  12.   We also  look to  the contemporaneous,
   pre-protest conduct of  the parties.  AT&T, 92-2  BCA at 123,638,
   1992  BPD    32,  at  5;  Xerox Corp.,  GSBCA  9862-P,  89-2  BCA
     21,652, 1989 BPD   68.   Finally, we will read the solicitation
   as a whole so as to  give meaning to all of its terms.   AT&T, at
   123,638, 1992 BPD   32, at 5.
 
        In the instant case, the  rules of interpretation compel the
   conclusion  that     C.13.1.1.4  required  that  the  instructors
   possess work  experience with  an Everex  CT/OPEN network  rather
   than some other system.   First, the plain commonsense reading of
   the  solicitation indicates that  training experience in CT/OPEN,
   and not some other product, was required.  
 
        Second,  WRS s  pre-protest  conduct,   as  evinced  by  its
   proposal,  shows that WRS  understood that    C.13.1.1.4 required
   work experience  with Everex s  CT/OPEN products.   WRS  proposed
   Everex s 
   CT/OPEN.   Its  proposal  even  stated that  it  would develop  a
   training  course  based  on Everex s  CT/OPEN  product.   Finding
   14.[foot #] 8
 
 
        Third, the solicitation, read as a whole, shows that CT/OPEN
   experience  was required.   Again,  it is  reasonable to  require
   experience with the products offered.
 
        We thus conclude that, in requiring the proposed instructors
   to  have  "working  experience  with  the  CT/OPEN  network"  the
   "CT/OPEN network" must be  an open network employing  the CT/OPEN
   products to be  supplied under the contract.   By contrast, WRS s
   argument  that its proposed instructors were not required to have
   experience  with CT/OPEN network to  be supplied, the single most
   critical part of the procurement, simply does not make sense.
 
   WRS s Instructors Lack Experience with CT/OPEN
 
        Simply  stated, WRS  proposed no  instructors  who have  the
   requisite  experience   mandated   by       C.13.1.1.4   of   the
   solicitation.  Since  the solicitation clearly required  that two
   of the  instructors proposed  have a minimum  of three  months of
   work  experience with  CT/OPEN, WRS  failed to  meet  a mandatory
   requirement of the  solicitation.  The respondent's  award to WRS
   was thus in violation of the solicitation s own terms.
 
        The  solicitation   required   offerors   to   specify   the
   instructors to be used in the performance of the contract.  It is
   undisputed  that  WRS   proposed  MG  and   BG  as  its   CT/OPEN
   instructors.[foot #] 9
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 8     The  protester  understood     C.13.1.1.4  to
   refer to training  in Everex s CT/OPEN  products.  Transcript  at
   285.    To  satisfy  this  requirement,  the  protester  proposed
   trainers  having specific experience with CT/OPEN.  Transcript at
   708-11, 724.   The respondent evaluated  GMR s proposal for  work
   experience with Everex s  CT/OPEN, specifically noting that  this
   product  had been available only for  a few years.  Protest File,
   Exhibit 14 at 31 of 53.
 
 
        [foot #] 9     MS  and  GB,  the   two  other  WRS  nominees
   mentioned at the hearing, would  not satisfy the three month work
   experience requirement in  any event.  MS s only  experience with
   Everex s  CT/OPEN  was  attending a  demonstration  and reviewing
   brochures.   Transcript at  68.  GB  was proposed as  WRS s Field
   Service  Representative, not  as an  instructor.   Protest  File,
   Exhibit 8 at 1-79.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        All  offerors were  required to  name  their instructors  in
   their proposals  and demonstrate  their CT/OPEN  work experience.
   WRS failed to  meet the solicitation's mandatory  requirements by
   nominating MG  and BG,  two instructors who  clearly do  not have
   CT/OPEN  work experience.   The  respondent,  by accepting  WRS's
   proposal, would be bound to accept  MG and BG as the  instructors
   for CT/OPEN.   WRS  contends that the  qualifications of  the two
   instructors  actually proposed are not important because they can
   be replaced by  others having the required  experience.  However,
   such  an argument  is nothing  more  than a  contention that  the
   required demonstrated compliance with mandatory requirements need
   not  be demonstrated  because an  offeror  can perhaps  meet them
   after award.  That is not the rule.  See Telos Field Engineering,
   GSBCA 9735-P, 89-1 BCA   21,415, 1988 BPD   309 (holding that for
   purposes of  evaluation, the  resumes of  the personnel  proposed
   must  satisfy   the  solicitation s  requirements  even   if  the
   contractor  could  later  substitute personnel).    See  also PSI
   International,  Inc. v. Department  of Energy, GSBCA  11521-P, et
   al.,  92-2 BCA    24,775,  1992  BPD   35  (holding  that it  was
   improper for the  agency to evaluate proposals on  the basis that
   the awardee could  substitute its proposed personnel  with others
   upon award).
 
        MG  and BG  Do Not  Have  Training or  Work Experience  with
   CT/OPEN
 
        It  is undisputed  that neither  MG nor  BG have  any direct
   experience  with  Everex s  CT/OPEN.    Although  both  may  have
   experience with CTOS  and other products, it can  not be gainsaid
   that  neither have  work experience  with  "the CT/OPEN  network"
   being procured.
 
        An  Award to  an Offeror  Failing to  Meet the  Minimum Work
   Experience Requirement is Improper
 
        The  solicitation  explicitly  required that  the  offeror s
   instructors  possess a minimum  three month work  experience with
   CT/OPEN.   This was a mandatory  requirement of the solicitation.
   It is axiomatic that  an award may not be made to an offeror that
   failed  to  meet  that  minimum  experience  requirement  of  the
   solicitation.  The  two instructors proposed by WRS  did not meet
   the   mandatory   CT/OPEN    experience   requirements   of   the
   solicitation. 
 
        Our recent decision  in CBIS Federal, Inc.  v. Department of
   Interior, GSBCA  12092-P, 93-2 BCA    25,643, 1992 BPD    386, is
   controlling.   CBIS  involved a  procurement  for ADP  facilities
   management services  at the  U.S. Geological Survey  (USGS).   In
   CBIS,  the solicitation  required offerors  to  propose personnel
   having specific experience  with the type of  mainframe equipment
   at  the  agency,  including   specific  experience  with  certain
   software programs.   For example, the solicitation  required that
   the  computer systems  support specialist  proposed  [m]ust  have
   knowledge  of CICS  (Customer Integrated  Control  System), TMON,
   Omegamon, TSO (Time Sharing Option), and Wylbur online systems. .
   . .   Id. at 127,601, 1992 BPD   386, at 4.
 
 
        In  evaluating offers  in that  case, the  agency  failed to
   disqualify  individuals who failed to meet the minimum, mandatory
   requirements for experience.  We found the  agency s disregard of
   the solicitation s mandatory requirements improper:
 
        The  solicitation clearly  stated that  only experience
        gained   while working  in  a large  mainframe computer
        environment  similar to the  USGS GPCC  would  count in
        determining  relevant experience.   Evaluators  ignored
        this restriction,  however, and  counted experience  in
        working with  mainframes generally,  no matter  whether
        those  machines ran under  operating systems  that were
        altogether  or  markedly  different   from  the   large
        mainframe   at  the  USGS  center.    The   evaluators 
        testimony indicates  that they  did not  appreciate the
        differences  between  operating systems,  and  that one
        member of  the committee  did not  even understand  the
        concept of the differences.  The evaluators  failure to
        adhere to  the  solicitation s standard  had  a  clear,
        beneficial impact  on the scores of  personnel proposed
        by CBSI[foot #] 10.
 
   Id. at 127,607,  1992 BPD   386,  at 13 (citations omitted).   We
   ordered the contract terminated.
    
         The parallels with the instant  case are striking.  In both
   CBIS and  the instant  case, the  solicitation required  specific
   experience with particular  equipment and software.  In both CBIS
   and the instant case, the agency failed to evaluate the awardee s
   proposal  in   accordance  with  the   solicitation s  experience
   requirements, finding experience where none in fact existed.   As
   in CBIS, we hold that  the agency improperly awarded the contract
   to WRS because of its failure to propose instructors having three
   months working experience with CT/OPEN.
 
        The  award  to  WRS  was  improper,  and  violative  of  the
   solicitation's terms.  As we have previously said:
 
        Acceptance  of such a [deviant] proposal is an unlawful
        departure from the evaluation plan of  the solicitation
        and  is  inequitable  to  those  vendors  such  as  the
        protester, who,  relying on the  requirements and award
        procedures set forth in  the solicitation, struggled to
        meet mandatory requirements with cost implications upon
        pain of elimination from the competition.
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 10    CBIS was  the  protester, CBSI  was the  firm
                         __                        __
   which had received the protested award.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   US Sprint  Communications, GSBCA 10684-P,  91-1 BCA    23,333, at
   117,026, 1990 BPD    264, at 15.  Accordingly,  the instant award
   was improper.
 
   The Respondent's Evaluation of Proposals Prejudiced GMR
 
 
        The  DEA's  evaluation  of  WRS's   proposal  was  obviously
   prejudicial to any other offeror proposing instructors having the
   required experience  with "the  CT/OPEN network."    To meet  the
   solicitation s  requirements for  CT/OPEN experienced  personnel,
   GMR  subcontracted  at  considerable cost  with  CTI  for CT/OPEN
   training.  GMR was required to pay these salaries for instructors
   for the reason noted by the Contracting Officer in her Statement,
   that  persons with  the  required  experience  with  CT/OPEN  are
   limited.  Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 3.  
 
        In  contrast, WRS  was  able  to  significantly  reduce  its
   proposal  price by  not  proposing CT/OPEN  qualified  personnel.
   WRS s  price  for  CLIN 3001,  Instructor,  Government  Site, was
   $61,541 for the base year, $61,541 for year two, $77,811 for year
   three, and  $80,146 for year  four, for a total  cost of $281,039
   for one instructor.  Finding 18.  The cost difference between WRS
   and GMR is thus $74,712 per instructor.
    
        As stated in CBIS, it is obvious that a protester would have
   altered its offer had it  known that the agency was relaxing  the
   mandatory experience requirement.
 
        Had the  solicitation promised  a different  evaluation
        scheme, there is no doubt that Cincinnati Bell  (or any
        other offeror, for  that matter, might have  proposed a
        different  group  of  personnel  and different  prices.
        Furthermore,  to   the  extent   that  USGS   erred  in
        considering   CBSI   to    be   eligible   for   award,
        notwithstanding the failure  of half  its proposed  key
        people   to    meet   mandatory    minimum   experience
        requirements, it ignored  essential evaluation factors.
        This, too, is contrary to statute and regulation.
 
   93-2 BCA at  127,607, 1992 BPD   386, at  14 (citations omitted).
   In  evaluating proposals, an agency cannot relax its requirements
   for one offeror when others have priced their offers on the basis
   of meeting the stated mandatory requirements of the solicitation.
   In the  instant case, the  price differential is not  de minimis.
   Consequently,  we cannot  be certain  that the awardee  would not
   have changed had the respondent competed its relaxed requirements
   as reflected in  the award made.  Experienced  instructors were a
   significant cost element in the competition for this procurement.
 
 
                                Decision
 
        The protest is GRANTED.  The respondent awarded the contract
   to an  offeror whose proposal failed to offer instructors meeting
   the mandatory work experience required  by the solicitation.  The
   protester  met  that requirement.   The  award thus  violated the
   procurement  statutes and regulations  mandating an award  to the
   most  advantageous   offer  meeting  the   requirements  of   the
   solicitation.    The  award  to  WRS  is  to  be  canceled.   The
   respondent  may proceed with  the procurement in  accordance with
   statute  and regulation and  may, for example,  evaluate existing
   compliant proposals and make an award, or amend the  solicitation
   to state its needs accurately.
 
                                      _____________________________
                                      JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
   ____________________________       ____________________________
   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS         JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
   Board Judge                        Board Judge