THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER
               AND IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN ITS
                     ENTIRETY ON DECEMBER 23, 1992
        
                                                               
 
         MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF DENIED:  December 11, 1992 
                                                               
 
 
                             GSBCA 12082-P 
 
             TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT & ANALYSIS CORPORATION,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                  ORACLE COMPLEX SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
 
        William  W. Goodrich, Jr.,  and Thomas W.A.  Barham of Arent
   Fox  Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, Vienna, VA,  and Jacob B. Pompan and
   Daniel A.  Perkowski of Pompan,  Ruffner & Bass,  Alexandria, VA,
   counsel for Protester.
 
        Avital   G.   Zemel,   Office   of   the   General  Counsel,
   Environmental  Protection Agency,  Washington, DC,  and L.  Carol
   Roberson,  Office  of General  Counsel,  Environmental Protection
   Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Richard  O. Duvall,  Richard L.  Moorhouse,  and Michael  H.
   Ditton of  Dunnells, Duvall & Porter, Washington, DC, counsel for
   Intervenor.
 
   Before Board Judges NEILL, HYATT, and VERGILIO.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
        On  October 8, 1992,  this protest was  filed by Technology,
   Management  & Analysis  Corporation (TMA).    The procurement  in
   question  involves  a  contract for  the  supply  and  support of
   relational  database  management   system  (RDBMS)  software  and
   related  services  under  request  for  proposals   (RFP)  number
   W002073-A3  issued by  the U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency
   (EPA).  
 
 
        Respondent  awarded the protested contract to Oracle Complex
   Systems Corporation (OCSC), which has intervened, as  a matter of
   right, in this protest.  Protester's initial complaint set  forth
   four bases of protest.  On November  3, on motion from protester,
   two of  the four counts  were dismissed with prejudice.   Shortly
   thereafter, the  Board granted  protester's motion  to amend  its
   complaint to  include two additional  counts.  The  first alleges
   negotiations  with OCSC after submission of best and final offers
   (BAFOs).   The second count  alleges that  the offer of  OCSC was
   unbalanced.  
 
        Both respondent and intervenor moved for summary relief with
   regard to the allegation  of negotiations with OCSC after  BAFOs.
   Protester  opposed the motions  and brought its  own cross-motion
   for summary relief on the same count.  We denied the cross-motion
   and  granted the  two  motions for  summary relief.   Technology,
   Management & Analysis Corp.  v. Environmental Protection  Agency,
   GSBCA 12082-P (Dec. 9, 1992).  
 
        Still before us is a motion  for summary relief filed by the
   EPA regarding the second count of the amended complaint,  namely,
   the  allegation that  the offer  of  OCSC was  unbalanced.   OCSC
   supports the motion.  For the reasons set out below, however, the
   motion is denied.  
 
                               Discussion
 
        Among the  facts relevant to  the protest count  alleging an
   unbalanced offer, respondent lists the following as undisputed: 
 
        5.  The  estimate of the  EPA's ordering needs  has not
        changed since the evaluation of the proposals and award
        of the contract. . . .
 
        6.  The  entire  basis  for Protester's  allegation  of
        materially  unbalanced  offer is  the  speculation that
        EPA's ordering pattern will change  during the contract
        (Answers to Respondent's  Second Interrogatories, # 23,
        24 and 25).  
   Respondent's Motion for Summary Relief as to Count VI at 4.  
 
        In a  relatively detailed opposition to  respondent's motion
   for summary relief,  counsel for protester  vigorously challenges
   the  two facts  set  out  above  and said  by  respondent  to  be
   undisputed.   See Protester's  Opposition to Respondent's  Motion
   for Summary Relief as to Count VI at 4-9.  
 
        It  is well  established that summary  judgment will  not be
   granted if the moving party fails to establish the absence of any
   genuine issue of material fact.   Copeland's Enterprises, Inc. v.
   CNV, Inc., 945  F.2d 1563, 1565-66 (Fed. Cir.  1991); Armco, Inc.
   v. Cyclops Corp., 791 F.2d  147, 149 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Integrated
   Systems Group, Inc., GSBCA 11494-P, 92-1 BCA   24,621, at 122,807
   n.2,  1991 BPD    335, at  2 n.2;  Griffin Services,  Inc., GSBCA
   11171, 91-3 BCA   24,156, at 120,872.  We find that respondent in
   this case  has not met its burden.   There clearly is an on-going
   dispute  between the parties regarding the stability or immutable
   character  of   the  EPA's  ordering  needs  and  pattern.    We,
   therefore, cannot grant respondent's motion to the extent that it
   is premised on an alleged lack of controversy on these issues.  
 
 
        A  second argument raised, in the alternative, by respondent
   in support of its  motion for summary relief is that  even if the
   OCSC  offer is  unbalanced,  neither  the  solicitation  nor  the
   Federal Acquisition  Regulation  (FAR) mandates  rejection  of  a
   materially  unbalanced offer.   Respondent's  Motion for  Summary
   Relief as to Count VI at 10-11.  
 
        Protester counters  this second  argument  of respondent  by
   citing  to a  provision in  Section M  of the  solicitation which
   notified offerors that  "buy-in" offers which are priced  low for
   some ordering  periods and  high for other  periods could  not be
   accepted.   Protester's  Opposition  to  Respondent's Motion  for
   Summary Relief as to Count VI at 3.  The  record for this case is
   not yet sufficiently developed for us to be able to conclude that
   this has or has not occurred or that the parties are in agreement
   or disagreement on that matter.  
 
        Protester  also points  out  that in  SMS  Data Products  v.
   United States, 900 F.2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Court held:
 
        [N]o  bid   meeting  the  definition   of  mathematical
        imbalance can  be accepted  if it  includes bid  prices
        representing  anything other than  the value of  a bona
        fide  fiscal year's requirements, either in the form of
        explicit  "separate   charges"  or   implicit  charges.
        Implicit charges occur  if the price of an  item is not
        proportional to its value, but instead includes part of
        another fiscal year's requirement.
 
   Id. at 1556.   Protester contends that in this case, it will show
   unbalancing  which falls  squarely under  the  SMS Data  Products
   rule.  Whether this  is correct rests  of course on our  eventual
   assessment  of the  record  as  developed on  this  issue by  the
   parties.   In a motion such as this,  however, we are required to
   resolve all significant doubt in favor of the non-movant.  Armco,
   791 F.2d  at  149.   Accordingly, we  assume that,  based on  the
   proffer offered in  its opposition, for purposes of  this motion,
   protester will meet its burden of proof on this matter.  For this
   reason, we reject the alternative argument of respondent.  
 
 
                                Decision
 
        Respondent's motion  for summary  relief as  to count  VI is
   DENIED.  
 
 
 
                                      ____________________
                                      EDWIN B. NEILL
                                      Board Judge 
 
   We concur:
 
 
   _______________________
   CATHERINE B. HYATT
   Board Judge 
 
 
   _______________________
   JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
   Board Judge