THIS OPINION, INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER,
             IS RELEASED WITHOUT REDACTION ON JUNE 13, 1995
                         _____________________
 
                         DENIED: July 26, 1994
                         _____________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 12855-P
 
 
                             L.A. SYSTEMS,
 
                                        Protester, 
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
 
                                        Respondent.
 
        Shelton H. Skolnick, Wayne Finegar, Amy Hall, Amer Syed, and
   Bruce Trimble of  Skolnick & Leishman,  Derwood, MD, counsel  for
   Protester.
 
        F.  Jefferson Hughes,  Mark Langstein,  and  Jerry A.  Walz,
   Office of General  Counsel, Contract Law Division,  Department of
   Commerce, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), HENDLEY, and VERGILIO.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
        On June 6, 1994, L.A. Systems filed with the Board this pre-
   award  protest   challenging  actions  of  the   respondent,  the
   Department  of   Commerce,  National   Oceanic  and   Atmospheric
   Administration (NOAA).   In  particular, the  protester maintains
   that in "rejecting"  its "alternate" proposals, the  agency acted
   contrary to the  terms of the solicitation, with  the result that
   it failed  to  obtain full  and  open competition,  and  violated
   regulation by  failing to evaluate in accordance  with the stated
   evaluation criteria.
 
        The protester filed its protest  in a timely manner, and has
   stated a  claim upon which  relief can be granted.   Accordingly,
   the Board denies  the agency's motion to dismiss.   The protester
   has not demonstrated an agency violation.  As is evident from the
   materials submitted  to the protester  in response to  its agency
   protest,  and  reinforced  in the  record  developed  during this
   proceeding, the  agency acted fully in accordance  with the terms
   of the solicitation, statute  and regulation in not pursuing  the
   alternate  proposals of  the  protester.   The  Board denies  the
   protest.
 
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
   The solicitation
 
        1.   The agency issued a request for proposals to obtain all
   services  required to maintain  the equipment/system specified in
   the solicitation--the National Weather Service Telecommunications
   Gateway (NWSTG).  Protest File, Exhibit 2 at C-2 (   C.1, C.2).
 
        2.   For   the  six-month   base  period  and   each  option
   period,[foot #] 1    the    solicitation     identifies    fifty-
   eight items  of hardware (by  line item number, number  of units,
   and total  number  of months  of required  maintenance) in  three
   broad   categories   of  maintenance.[foot #] 2      The  offeror
   is required  to supply a  unit price and  a total price  for each
   line item of maintenance.  Protest File, Exhibit 2 at B-1 to B-33
   (  B.2).  The solicitation specifies that award  is to occur on a
   fixed-price basis.  Id. at L-3 (  L.6), M-4 (  M.5).
 
        3.   The  solicitation  specifies  that  in performing  that
   portion   of    the   contract   requiring    total   maintenance
   responsibility,  the  contractor  shall  "provide  labor,  parts,
   transportation and substitute equipment as necessary for ensuring
   performance within the  parameters defined by  the manufacturers'
   recommended performance  specifications."  The  solicitation both
   recognizes  that the  agency  may  make  alterations  or  install
   attachments,  upgrades, or expansions on any systems or equipment
   covered by the resulting contract, and specifies that the parties
   "may  renegotiate an adjustment  under the Changes  Clause should
   the  alterations   or  attachments   increase  or   decrease  the
   maintenance costs  to the  Contractor."   Also, the  solicitation
   specifies:  "Contractor-sponsored alterations  or attachments  to
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1                      Although pricing is required
   only on the  former, the solicitation describes the contract both
   as encompassing a base period running from April 1, 1994, through
   September 30,  1994,  with four  one-year option  periods to  run
   consecutively  thereafter, and as  encompassing a base  period of
   eight  months, with  four  twelve-month  option  periods  to  run
   consecutively thereafter.   Protest File, Exhibit 2  at B-1, B-8,
   B-15, B-22, B-28 (  B.2), F-1 (  F.3).
 
        [foot #] 2                      The  varieties  of  hardware
   maintenance  require either: (1)  contractor maintenance 24 hours
   per  day, 7  days per week  (with either  a 2 or  4 hour response
   time); (2)  contractor maintenance  8 hours per  day, 5  days per
   week; or  (3) shared  contractor/Government maintenance  24 hours
   per day, 7 days per  week for parts support, telephonic technical
   support, and  on-site support  (with either a  next-day or  5 day
   response time).  Protest File, Exhibit  2 at B-1 to B-33 (  B.2),
   at A-1 to A-5 (  J, Attachment A).
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   the  system  shall   be  made  only  with  the   consent  of  the
   Government."  Protest File, Exhibit 2 at C-3 to C-4 (  C.4.1).
 
 
        4.   The solicitation's instructions  for the preparation of
   technical and  cost or  pricing proposals  expressly address  the
   submission of alternate proposals:
 
             Offerors   may,   at  their   discretion,   submit
        alternate proposals or proposals which deviate from the
        requirement; provided,  that an  offeror also  submit a
        proposal  for performance of  the work as  specified in
        the statement of work.  Any "alternate" proposal may be
        considered  if overall performance would be improved or
        not compromised, and  if it is in the  best interest of
        the  Government.   Alternate  proposals, or  deviations
        from  any  requirement  of this  RFP,  must  be clearly
        identified.
 
   Protest  File, Exhibit  2  at L-3  (  L.7(3)).   The  scope of  a
   permissible deviation from requirements is not articulated beyond
   references to performance and best interest.
 
        5.   The   solicitation   notes  that   standard   form  33,
   Solicitation,  Offer, and  Award (SF  33), is  being used  in the
   procurement, and that the submission of the completed form
 
        is an offer which  can be unilaterally accepted by  the
        Contracting  Officer  and   awarded  on  said  SF   33.
        Therefore,  the  following  points   must  be  strictly
        adhered to by the Offeror in submitting the proposal.
 
   Protest File,  Exhibit 2 at  L-4 (  L.8.1).   One  the of  points
   provides:  "UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE ALTERATIONS OR CHANGES TO
   THE SF 33  OR THE RELATED PAGES WHICH ARE A  PART OF THE ENCLOSED
   REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND PROPOSAL PACKET."  Id. (  L.8.1(b)).
 
        6.   In section  M,  a paragraph  captioned  "evaluation  of
   proposals" states:
 
        Proposals to be acceptable  and eligible for evaluation
        must be prepared in accordance with and comply with the
        instructions given  in this  solicitation document  and
        must meet the specifications set forth in Section C and
        Section J.    Proposals meeting  the  requirements  and
        complying with the  provisions of the Standard  Form of
        Contract  will  be  evaluated  in  accordance  with the
        procedures  described herein  and  award  made to  that
        responsible  offeror whose proposal is determined to be
        the most advantageous to the Government.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 2 at M-2 (  M.2) (emphasis added).
   Protester's submission and agency actions
 
 
        7.   By December 20,  1993, the protester submitted  a basic
   proposal, as well as two "alternate" (i.e., deviating) proposals.
   In  these proposals,  it proposes  to  replace specific  existing
   equipment and provide maintenance on the resulting system.  Under
   these   proposals  the  protester  is  not  offering  to  provide
   maintenance on every stated line item of hardware.  Protest File,
   Exhibits 3, 4.   These proposals do not offer maintenance  on the
   entirety of equipment specified in sections C and J.
 
        8.   The  agency   reviewed  the  deviating   proposals  and
   concluded in  a memorandum  to the file  (with a  final signature
   date  of  April   19,  1994)  regarding  the   competitive  range
   determination:  "While the  government appreciates the  offeror's
   efforts in this  regard, such proposals are outside  of the scope
   of  this solicitation  and were not  considered in  the technical
   evaluation   process."       Protest   File,    Exhibit   5    at
   4.[foot #] 3
 
        9.   By  letter  dated  April 21,  the  agency  informed the
   protester   of  its   determinations   regarding  the   deviating
   proposals:
 
        The   Government   appreciates  the   two   alternative
        proposals that  entail the replacement of  the existing
        . . . hardware with  newer and more  efficient systems.
        Unfortunately, such  alternative proposals  are outside
        the scope of this solicitation and these proposals were
        not considered in the technical evaluation process.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 6.
 
        10.  By letter to the agency  dated April 25, the  protester
   protested  the   agency's  position   concerning  the   deviating
   proposals.  Protest File, Exhibit 7.
 
        11.  In  a  memorandum  dated  May  18  to  the  contracting
   officer,  the   chairman  of  the   technical  evaluation   panel
   articulated  his  rationale  underlying   the  treatment  of  the
   deviating proposals.   The  chairman states  that "the  alternate
   proposals are  outside the scope  of this contract, which  is for
   the maintenance of  existing operational computer equipment.   It
   is still my  opinion that this is sufficient  cause for rejecting
   the alternative  proposals; this contract is not intended for the
   purchase of ADP hardware."  The memorandum concludes:
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 3                      Despite  testimony   of  the
   protester's  president that  as  early  as  February  a  contract
   specialist informed  the protester "that the  alternate proposals
   were not something  the government wanted to do,"   Transcript at
   122, nothing  in the record  suggests the finality of  a decision
   before mid-April,  Finding 8,  or a reason  for the  protester to
   have known how the agency would proceed.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        In  summary, my  position on  this matter  is that  the
        alternate proposals  should not  be considered  because
        they are  ADP hardware procurement actions  that should
        undergo  the full  competitive process.     As  further
        justification  for  my  position, I  maintain  that  an
        evaluation  of  the  alternate  proposals  will   cause
        significant delays in  the contract award process  that
        is    already   several    months   behind    schedule.
        Furthermore,  implementing   either  proposal   may  be
        impossible and would certainly be exceedingly difficult
        and resource intensive  for what would  prove to be  an
        unnecessary interim measure.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 9.
 
        12.  As explained in a letter to the protester dated May 24,
   the contracting  officer denied the  protest to the agency.   The
   contracting officer stated that existing procurement  regulations
   preclude acceptance of the deviating proposals.  Further,
 
        The  intent  of  provision  L.10  [sic--L.7(3)]  is  to
        provide  offerors an  opportunity to  propose alternate
        methods of satisfying the Government's requirement.  In
        this  case,   the  Government's   requirement  is   for
        maintenance,   not  replacement   of  equipment.     If
        replacement  were  our  requirement,  many  competitors
        would  be  capable  of  satisfying  this   requirement;
        therefore, competition  in this environment  would have
        to be sought.
 
        Consideration   of   this  alternate   proposal   would
        constitute  a   change  of  such   magnitude  that   in
        accordance  with  FAR  16.606(a)(4) [sic--15.606(b)(4)]
        the solicitation would have to be canceled and reissued
        under the changed circumstances.
 
             . . . .
 
        . . .  Implementing  either of the  alternate proposals
        would be  significantly more difficult because  the new
        equipment must coexist  with the current systems  in an
        already  constricted  facility   while  operations  are
        phased over.   If possible, it would  certainly consume
        most of  SOC's [Systems  Operation Center's]  resources
        for several  months at a time when it can ill afford to
        divert them from  other high priority projects.   These
        costs would have to be weighed against the claimed cost
        savings.  Once implemented, it would only be an interim
        measure because  there are  plans in motion  for a  new
        upgrade over the course of the next few years as a part
        of  the modernization of  the National Weather Service.
        The  upgrade  path  will  entail  the  conversion  from
        mainframe to  client/server based systems.   Neither of
        the alternate proposals conform to the upgrade path.
 
        NOAA continually reconsiders our hardware configuration
        to optimize performance and minimize cost; however, our
        current requirement remains  a maintenance requirement.
        . . .
 
        In summary, the Government's position on this matter is
        that  the  alternate   proposals  were   not  [to]   be
        considered  because they are  outside the scope  of the
        current solicitation.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 10.
 
        13.  The testimony  of  agency  personnel  elicited  at  the
   hearing is  consistent with,  buttresses, and  expands upon,  the
   above-quoted reasons and rationale of the agency for not pursuing
   the  deviating proposals.   For example, the  contracting officer
   noted  that were  the agency to  pursue equipment  replacement or
   maintenance on  a reconfigured system,  the agency would  have to
   seek competition  to satisfy those  needs.  Transcript  at 12-13,
   23.  A new solicitation would result  in lost efforts and delays;
   the agency  would have a  continuing need for maintenance  of the
   existing system, and would have to forego any benefits (technical
   and  cost) achievable from awarding the pure maintenance contract
   envisioned in  the solicitation.   Id. at  14-15.   The deviating
   proposals are  not  attractive to  the agency  from a  technical,
   cost,[foot #] 4  and   time/delay  perspective.     Id.   at  28-
   30; Protest File,  Exhibit 11.  The testimony of the chief of the
   network  monitoring and analysis  branch of the  National Weather
   Service  added  additional  insights.   The  existing  system has
   reduced  or eliminated potential  sources of system  failure; the
   deviating  proposals  introduce  unacceptable  single  points  of
   failure into  the system.   Transcript at  202-03, 223.   Monthly
   maintenance  cost  savings  are anticipated  from  the  resulting
   contract  for pure maintenance; to pursue the deviating proposals
   would  not allow  the agency  to benefit  from those  savings and
   would   require  the   agency  to   expend   additional,  perhaps
   unavailable,   money   for    the   protester-proposed   hardware
   replacement.  Id.  at 212-14.   The deviating proposals  conflict
   with  the planned  upgrade and  modernization  of the  system--in
   terms of the  direction of technology and the  yearly expenditure
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 4                      The  protester   faults  the
   agency's  technical  and  price analyses,  in  part,  because the
   deviating  proposals  could  have  been  improved  (in  both  the
   technical and cost aspects) after discussions at the time of best
   and  final  offers;  this argument  downplays  the solicitation's
   notice that award  could be made  without discussions, such  that
   "each initial offer should contain  the offeror's best terms from
   a  cost  and  price  and technical  standpoint."    Protest File,
   Exhibit 2 at L-2 (  L.1, 48 CFR  52.215-16 (JUL 1990)).  On their
   face, the deviating proposals  are not the lowest priced  offers;
   moreover, the analysis does not associate any cost with resources
   which  must   be  expended  to  implement  hardware  replacement.
   Transcript at 28-30; Protest File, Exhibit 11.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   of funds.  Id. at 214-22.  Further, the replacement of equipment,
   as proposed in  the deviating proposals,  is a major  undertaking
   requiring  numerous agency  resources (now  tasked elsewhere)  to
   plan and accomplish; the proposed plans may not be accomplishable
   because of space limitations for  the location of equipment.  Id.
   at 230-33.   The chief of the systems section in charge of all of
   the operational software running on the system noted deficiencies
   inherent  in the  deviating proposals.   The proposed  system has
   single  points of  failure.   The proposed configurations  do not
   exactly equate to the current system, such that more than a swap-
   out/swap-in is required.   A migration to either  proposed system
   is a  major  undertaking  which  would entail  direct  costs  and
   resources of the  agency, and would pull resources  away from the
   agency's  other  projects.   Agency  concerns  over  the proposed
   systems  exist as to  processing power, memory,  and input-output
   capabilities.  Id. at 273-86.
 
 
        14.  The testimony of the protester's personnel revealed the
   protester's view  that the agency  could and should  have pursued
   negotiations   with   the  protester   regarding   the  deviating
   proposals;  the  protester  maintains  that, under  the  existing
   solicitation,  the agency could  have made an  award for hardware
   replacement and  maintenance of  the reconfigured  system or  for
   maintenance  of   hardware  significantly  different   from  that
   described  in the  solicitation (e.g.,  the  agency could  obtain
   through  Government excess property the equipment proposed by the
   protester, and  maintenance would  be provided  on that  system).
   Transcript at 256-61.
 
        15.  If one  defines  "technical evaluation"  as  scoring  a
   proposal  against the technical  factors and subfactors  found in
   section M of the solicitation, Protest File, Exhibit 2  at M-3 to
   M-4 (  M.4), the agency did not conduct a technical evaluation of
   the protester's  deviating proposals.   However,  the agency  did
   consider  the deviating  proposals.    Not  only did  the  agency
   recognize  that   the  "alternate"  proposals  deviate  from  the
   solicitation  requirements,  but  also  it  determined that,  for
   significant and  substantive reasons,  to pursue  the protester's
   approach would not be in the best interests of the Government.
 
                               Discussion
 
        The protester states that  its "alternate" proposals  (which
   propose  to  substitute  equipment  and  maintain  the  resulting
   system) complied with  the terms of the  solicitation, paragraphs
   C.4.1, L.7(3) and M.2 (Findings 3, 4, 6).  The protester contends
   that in rejecting the  deviating proposals, the agency  failed to
   act in  accordance with the  cited solicitation provisions.   The
   protester  raises two grounds  of protest.   First, the protester
   alleges  that the  agency actions  failed to  seek full  and open
   competition.   Second,  the protester  contends  that the  agency
   violated  regulation, 48 CFR  15.608(a) (1992) ("An  agency shall
   evaluate competitive proposals solely on the factors specified in
   the  solicitation."),  by  failing   to  evaluate  the  deviating
   proposals in accordance with paragraph M.2 of the solicitation.
 
        In performing its  de novo review, the Board  is not limited
   to   the  considerations  and   rationale  put  forward   by  the
   contracting  officer at  the  time the  agency decided  to pursue
   neither  deviating proposal.  The Board must consider information
   developed in the record of the protest.  See Grumman Data Systems
   Corp.  v. Widnall,  15 F.3d  1044, 1046-47  (Fed. Cir.  1994) (In
   terms of a challenge to a source selection determination, under a
   de novo standard  of review, "the reviewing board  is not limited
   to the findings  made by the agency  or contained in the  initial
   decision.    Under de  novo  review,  a  board may  consider  the
   analysis developed by the agency, or produce and consider its own
   analysis.")  (citations omitted).  The protester bears the burden
   of proof; to prevail it  must demonstrate a violation of statute,
   regulation or condition of procurement authority.
 
   Agency motion
 
        The agency  requests the  Board to  dismiss  the protest  as
   untimely filed or for failing to  state a claim upon which relief
   can be granted.  The agency contends  that it is obvious from the
   face of the solicitation that the agency could not  make an award
   for the  procurement of  hardware and the  maintenance of  such a
   system,  or  for  the  maintenance  of  a  system  configured  as
   protester proposes in its deviating proposals.  The agency treats
   the  protest as  challenging  the  agency's  formulation  of  its
   requirements,  and maintains  that,  under  Rule 5(b)(3)(i),  the
   protester was  required  to  protest  the  allegedly  restrictive
   solicitation  prior  to  the  submission  of  initial  proposals.
   Agency Motion at 6.
 
        The agency's motion fails to  give weight to the language of
   the  solicitation  found  in  paragraph  L.7(3),  which   invites
   "alternate"  proposals which deviate from the requirements of the
   solicitation.    With  this  language,  the  agency  is  actively
   permitting offerors to  propose deviations from the  requirements
   and  indicating  that  it  will  consider  such  "alternates"  in
   proceeding  with satisfying its requirements and before making an
   award determination.  A prerequisite to the consideration of such
   a  deviating proposal  is  that it  improve,  or not  compromise,
   overall performance, and that it be  in the best interest of  the
   Government.   As the  agency recognizes,  this language does  not
   entitle the agency  to circumvent the requirements  for obtaining
   full and open competition, or  of other procurement statutes  and
   regulations,  in making  an  award.    Implicitly,  the  language
   suggests  that should  the agency  prefer a deviating  offer, the
   agency will proceed  in accordance with statute  and regulation--
   actions which may well entail amending  or canceling the existing
   solicitation.  48 CFR 15.606(b)(4), (c) (1993).   In light of the
   solicitation language which  invites "alternate" offers deviating
   from  stated requirements,  this  protest  which  challenges  the
   agency's actions in relation to that language is timely.
 
        In support of  its assertion that  the Board should  dismiss
   the protest for failing to state a claim upon which the Board can
   grant relief, the agency notes  that the protester maintains that
   the  agency  improperly  rejected  the  deviating  proposals  and
   requests that the  agency be required  to evaluate the  deviating
   proposals.   The agency states:   "Because  this procurement  has
   been synopsized and  solicited for maintenance services  only and
   not for hardware supply, if  the Board required the evaluation of
   these proposals, the fundamental nature of this procurement would
   have  to be  changed,  which  is not  relief  available from  the
   Board."  Agency Motion at 6.
 
 
        Under the Brooks  Act, the Board "shall  review any decision
   by   a  contracting  officer   alleged  to  violate   statute  or
   regulation."   40  U.S.C.   759(f)(1)  (1988).   The  protester's
   claims  relate to alleged  violations of statute  and regulation,
   each  tied to  the terms  of  the solicitation  and the  agency's
   actions with  respect to those  terms.  A cognizable  protest has
   been  presented--if the protester prevails, the Board can fashion
   relief.  A claim  which is meritless when the  facts are reviewed
   does  not merit  dismissal  for the  reasons  articulated by  the
   agency.  The Board denies this aspect of the agency's motion.
 
   The merits
 
        Underlying  the protest  is the  assertion  that the  agency
   failed  to  comply  with  the  solicitation  requirements.    The
   protester  brazenly   insists  upon  an   interpretation  of  the
   solicitation which is irrational and anti-competitive.
 
        The solicitation recognizes both that the contractor will be
   required  to "substitute  equipment  as  necessary  for  ensuring
   performance with  the  parameters defined  by the  manufacturers'
   recommended performance specifications" and that the equipment to
   be  maintained may  be altered  over  the life  of the  contract.
   Finding 3.   The  solicitation also  enables offerors  to "submit
   alternate proposals which deviate from the requirement."  Finding
   4.  However,  the competition achieved is for  the maintenance of
   the existing  system--that is,  the equipment  specified by  line
   item number for which unit  prices are required.  Findings 1,  2,
   5.  Competition has not been achieved for an award based upon the
   maintenance  of alternate equipment, let alone the replacement of
   equipment as the protester proposes.
 
        Contrary to the  assumptions of the protester,  the language
   of the  solicitation  does not  guarantee  that the  agency  will
   perform a  technical evaluation  on any  proposal which  deviates
   from the  requirement.  Findings 4,  6.  The  agency did consider
   the protester's deviating proposals.  There exist  well-supported
   reasons underlying the  conclusion of the  agency that to  pursue
   the deviating proposals under this procurement is not in the best
   interests of the  Government.  Findings  12, 13, 15.   The agency
   emphasizes in the letter denying  the protest to the agency that:
   the requirement  to be satisfied  is maintenance of  the existing
   system, not  replacement  of the  existing system;  to satisfy  a
   replacement  requirement under  the  maintenance language  of the
   solicitation would  be anti-competitive; to proceed  toward award
   with  either deviating proposal would require canceling the given
   solicitation and  procuring under  a changed circumstance;  there
   exist difficulties  (technically and  in terms  of resources)  in
   implementing   the  replacements   proposed   in  the   deviating
   proposals; and the replacements are contrary to the scheduling of
   the  maintenance and  the planned  up-grade of  the  equipment at
   issue.   Finding  12.    The record  further  developed for  this
   protest fully supports and adds  to these conclusions.   Findings
   13, 15.
 
 
        The  agency conducted a  review of the  deviating proposals.
   The analysis supports the conclusion that  further pursuit of the
   deviating  proposals would not necessarily result in improved (or
   not  compromised)  performance, and  would  not  be  in the  best
   interest of  the Government.   In its treatment of  the deviating
   proposals,  the agency has  fully complied with  the solicitation
   provisions.   Contrary  to the  protester's  assertions, for  the
   agency  to  pursue, on  a  sole-source  basis,  an award  to  the
   protester  based  on  either  deviating  proposal  would  violate
   provisions of  statute and regulation  calling for full  and open
   competition;  the  agency would  be  satisfying requirements  not
   apparent  under  the   solicitation.     Under  the   protester's
   interpretation, the language  permitting proposals which "deviate
   from  the   requirement,"  Finding   4,  becomes   akin  to   the
   solicitation  setting   forth  no  requirements,   standards,  or
   specifications  under which the  agency may without  altering the
   solicitation  make  an  award  for  whatever  it  pleases.    The
   protester  has  not  suggested  how  such  an  approach  achieves
   competition consistent with statute, 41 U.S.C.   253a (1988).
 
        The protester's  analysis  of the  evaluation and  selection
   criteria in  the  solicitation  fails  to  give  meaning  to  the
   language.   The protester's alternate, deviating proposals do not
   offer  maintenance  on  the entirety  of  equipment  specified in
   sections C  and J.   Finding 7.   Section M specifies  that to be
   acceptable,  any proposal "must meet the specifications set forth
   in Section C and Section J."   Finding 6.  The solicitation  also
   instructs offerors to make no alterations to pages related to the
   award  document;  a  change in  the  equipment  to be  maintained
   constitutes an  alteration  to  section  B and  the  line  items.
   Finding 5.   Given  this language, the  agency could not  make an
   award  to  the protester  based  upon  either  of  the  deviating
   proposals.  Such  an award would be contrary  to paragraphs L.8.1
   and M.2.
 
                                Decision
 
        The  protester   has  failed  to  demonstrate   the  alleged
   violations of  statute and  regulation.   Accordingly, the  Board
   DENIES  the  protest.    The   previously  entered  Board-ordered
   suspension  of  the  agency's  applicable  procurement  authority
   lapses by  its very terms.   40 U.S.C.   759(f)(2)  (1988); Order
   (June 15, 1994).
 
                                        _________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge
   I concur:
   _________________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
   Board Judge
 
   HENDLEY, Board Judge, concurring.
 
 
        I concur with  the result reached by the  majority.  Because
   alternate proposals were permitted, the  sole rationale I use  to
   justify  the denial  of  the  protest  is this:  The  protester's
   alternate proposals are not the lowest-priced offers, Finding 13,
   n.4, coupled with the fact that there were no particular benefits
   associated with  the proposals.   The agency  is not  required to
   pursue alternate  proposals which obviously  are not in  the best
   interest of the Government.
 
 
                                        _________________________
                                        JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                        Board Judge