Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a 

GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been 

approved for public release. 

Decision 

Matter of: Dell Marketing LP 

File: B-400784 

Date: January 27, 2009 

Jennifer S. Zucker, Esq., Michael J. Schaengold, Esq., and Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq., 

Patton Boggs LLP, for the protester. 

Anne B. Perry, Esq., Kieth Szeliga, Esq., and Jessica Mailman, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin 

Richter & Hampton LLP, for Hewlett-Packard Company, an intervenor. 

Uri R. Ko, Esq., Ellen Rothschild, Esq., Dorothy Guy, Esq., and Ryan Warrenfeltz, 

Esq., Social Security Administration, for the agency. 

Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that agency misevaluated quotations in response to solicitation for computer 

workstations is denied where record shows that agency’s evaluation was in 

accordance with terms of solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. 

DECISION 

Dell Marketing, LP, of Round Rock, Texas, protests the issuance of a blanket 

purchase agreement (BPA) to Hewlett-Packard Company (HP), of Bethesda, 

Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SSA-RFQ-08-1428, issued by the, 

Social Security Administration (SSA), to purchase computer hardware under the 

successful vendor’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. Dell asserts that the 

agency misevaluated the quotations submitted in response to the RFQ and failed to 

engage in meaningful discussions. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-unit-price BPA to acquire an estimated 

quantity of microcomputer workstations, 19-inch and 22-inch flat panel LCD 

monitors, sound cards, speakers, keyboards and memory upgrades, along with a 

4-year warranty on all equipment, and miscellaneous support and installation 

services. RFQ at 13. 
The RFQ advised that the agency would use a three-step evaluation process. During 

step one, quotations would be reviewed for technical and past performance 

acceptability. RFQ at 81-82. The step one evaluation is not at issue in the protest. 

During step two, the technically acceptable quotations were to be evaluated for 

conformance with various standards relating to implementation of section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794d (2000), along with certain 

agency-specific (SSA) accessibility standards. RFQ at 82. The step two evaluation 

was to be based on a review of written materials submitted with the quotations, in 

particular, the vendors’ voluntary product accessibility templates (VPATs); the 

agency also reserved the right to conduct a hands-on evaluation to assess products’ 

existing level of compliance with the section 508 and SSA standards. Id. The agency 

would issue the BPA following step two to the firm whose products were determined 

to be the most compliant with the section 508 and SSA standards; otherwise, it 

would move on to step three. Id. During step three, where two or more quotations 

were fully compliant, or two quotations were deemed equally compliant, the BPA 

would be issued to the vendor with the lowest priced, technically acceptable 

quotation. RFQ at 83. 

The agency received three quotations, including Dell’s and HP’s. The agency 

determined that Dell’s and HP’s quotations were technically acceptable. Agency 

Report (AR), exh. 39. With respect to compliance with the section 508 and SSA 

accessibility standards, the agency determined initially that it did not have sufficient 

information to reach a conclusion with respect to either vendor’s quotation. 

Accordingly, the agency engaged in three rounds of clarifications relating to the 

vendors’ VPAT information (as well as an additional round relating to changes to the 

agency’s requirements and clarifications of technical issues relating to the quoted 

equipment). AR, exhs. 10, 11, 20, 21, 25, 26, 34, 35. During this time, the agency also 

performed hands-on testing of the vendors’ offered products, and memorialized its 

conclusions. AR, exhs. 17, 24; Agency Letter, Nov. 25, 2008, attachs. A-C. Thereafter, 

the agency determined that HP had quoted the most section 508 compliant products 

and, consistent with the scheme discussed above, issued a BPA to HP, 

notwithstanding that its price was higher than Dell’s. After being advised of the 

agency’s issuance of the BPA to HP, Dell filed the instant protest. 

By way of background, the section 508 accessibility standards, which are 

promulgated by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 

are divided into several categories. Under 36 C.F.R. part 1194, subpart B (2008), all 

electronic and information technology (EIT) is divided into six broad categories: 

software applications and operating systems (36 C.F.R. § 1194.21); web-based 

intranet and internet information and applications (36 C.F.R. § 1194.22); 

telecommunications products (36 C.F.R. § 1194.23); video and multimedia products 

(36 C.F.R. § 1194.24); self contained, closed products (36 C.F.R. § 1194.25); and 

desktop and portable computers (36 C.F.R. § 1194.26). Additionally, 36 C.F.R. 

§ 1194.31 contains the section 508 accessibility standards for all types of EIT in terms 

of functional performance criteria, and 36 C.F.R. § 1194.41 contains the standards for 

Page 2 B-400784 
all types of EIT in terms of the availability of product information, documentation 

and support. These accessibility standards were applied by the agency to the 

information provided by the competitors in their respective VPATs to determine the 

degree to which vendors’ products met the requirements of section 508. AR, exh. 15. 

The agency also conducted hands-on testing of the vendors’ products to evaluate 

their compatibility with several SSA-specific software applications that are used by 

the agency’s employees with disabilities. The two software applications of relevance 

here are JAWS (a screen reader application) and MAGic (a screen magnification 

application). RFQ at 18. As noted, these applications are referred to in the record as 

the SSA accessibility standards. 

Dell’s protest relates to the agency’s assessment of the vendors’ products’ degree of 

compliance with the section 508 standards and compatibility with the SSA standards. 

In reviewing protests relating to an agency’s evaluation of quotations or proposals, 

we will not independently reevaluate proposals; rather, we will review the record to 

ensure that the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation 

and applicable statutes and regulations. Engineered Elec. Co. d/b/a/ DRS Fermont, 

B-295126.5, B-295126.6, Dec. 7, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 4 at 3-4. We have considered all of 

Dell’s assertions and find them to be without merit. We discuss Dell’s principal 

arguments below.1 

 

1

 Dell raised numerous assertions in its initial protest. The agency provided a 

detailed response to these arguments in its report. In its comments on the agency 

report, Dell made no further mention of several of these arguments; accordingly, we 

deem them abandoned. See Accumark, Inc., B-310814, Feb. 13, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 68 

at 2 n.1. Among these abandoned arguments are the following: the agency 

improperly found that the HP workstation was more compliant with the section 508 

standards relating to functional performance criteria (36 C.F.R. § 1194.31) and 

product information, documentation and support (36 C.F.R. § 1194.41); the agency 

improperly failed to find Dell’s 19-inch monitor to be either the most compliant 

monitor quoted, or that it was at least as conforming as HP’s monitor, and 

misevaluated both vendors’ 19-inch monitors under 36 C.F.R. §§ 1194.26 and 1194.31 

(desktop and portable computer standards and functional performance criteria, 

respectively); the agency improperly failed to evaluate HP’s 22-inch monitor under 

the section 508 standards relating to telecommunications products (36 C.F.R. § 

1194.23); the agency improperly found HP’s quotation technically acceptable, despite 

the fact that its 22-inch monitor did not meet the RFQ’s warranty requirements; and 

the agency improperly evaluated the vendors’ websites in its section 508 compliance 

assessment. 

Page 3 B-400784 
ADEQUACY OF EVALUATION DOCUMENTATION 

Dell asserts that the agency did not adequately document its evaluation conclusions 

in its section 508 compliance review. According to the protester, the agency merely 

gave evaluation credit to vendors for the self-representations on their VPATS,2

without reviewing in detail the content of the submissions, and assigned point scores 

for compliance with the various standards without identifying the underlying 

rationale. 

This argument is without merit. In this regard, the record shows that the agency’s 

evaluators engaged in a protracted review of the vendors’ VPAT submissions, during 

which they repeatedly sought additional information where they identified 

deficiencies or informational gaps in the VPATs. For example, after reviewing the 

initial VPATs, the evaluators summarized their conclusions, noting those areas 

where the vendors failed to address the informational requirements of the VPATs. 

AR, exh. 14, at 1-2. The agency then sent clarification requests to both vendors 

requesting additional details in support of their claims regarding compliance. AR, 

exhs. 25, 26. For example, the agency sent the following inquiry to Dell after 

reviewing its initial VPATs submission: 

In reviewing the section 508 information templates [VPATs] that [were] 

submitted for the hardware in SSA-RFQ-08-1428 it has been determined 

that the templates that [were] submitted [do] not provide enough 

remarks/explanation as to how and why they do not support the 

requirements or why you feel [that one or another of the standards] is 

‘Not Applicable.’ Please provide detail[ed] responses on all the 

templates stating the reason why they support the requirements or why 

you feel it is not applicable. Also, please provide templates on your 

website. 

AR, exh. 26. This process was repeated numerous times throughout the agency’s 

evaluation. AR, exhs. 25, 26, 29, 30. 

The record also shows that the agency’s evaluation conclusions changed throughout 

this process in response to the information received from its requests for 

clarification. Cf. AR, exh. 14 (indicating that the evaluators reached no firm 

conclusions respecting the degree to which the vendors’ products fully supported, 

supported in part, or did not support the section 508 standards), AR, exh. 32 

(indicating that the evaluators reached a preliminary conclusion that HP quoted two 

 

2

 The vendors indicated on their VPATS that their products “supported” the section 

508 standards, “partially supported” the standards or declared that the standards 

were “not applicable (N/A).” AR, exhs. 10, 11, 27, 28, 34, 35. 

Page 4 B-400784 
products that fully supported the section 508 standards and two that partially 

supported the standards, while also finding that Dell offered two products that 

partially supported the section 508 standards and one that was “indeterminable” 

from the VPAT), and exh. 38 (the agency’s final determination that four HP products 

fully supported and one partially supported the section 508 standards, and that one 

Dell product fully supported and four partially supported the standards). In short, 

we find that, contrary to Dell’s assertions, the evaluators in fact performed a detailed 

evaluation of the VPATS, and the record adequately memorializes that evaluation. 

MISEVALUATION OF QUOTED PRODUCTS 

Inapplicable Standards 

Dell asserts that the agency improperly assigned HP “evaluation points” for its 

workstation and 22-inch monitor under the software applications and operating 

systems criteria (36 C.F.R. § 1194.21). According to Dell, since this acquisition does 

not include software, giving credit for section 508 compliant software was 

unreasonable. Dell maintains that, in contrast, it received no similar evaluation 

points because its quotation accurately characterized this standard as not applicable. 

Similarly, Dell maintains that the agency improperly assigned HP an extra evaluation 

point for quoting a 22-inch monitor that had a compliant touch screen or touchoperated controls, even though the agency is not acquiring such products. 

According to the protester, in both situations, the competitors should have been 

assigned a “not applicable” rating for these items. 

The protester’s assertion is based on a premise that mischaracterizes the agency’s 

evaluation. The record shows that the VPATs were reviewed under numerous--and 

sometimes differing--regulatory categories, depending on the product in question. 

For example, the workstation VPATs were reviewed for compliance under 36 C.F.R. 

§§ 1194.21, 1194.23, 1194.26, 1194.31 and 1194.41. AR, exh. 38. Within each 

regulatory category, there were a discrete number of requirements; for example, 

under 36 C.F.R. § 1194.21, there were 12 requirements. Id. However, there is no 

indication in the record that the agency assigned evaluation points under the various 

categories, or that it subsequently tallied points for purposes of evaluating the 

compliance of a given product with the section 508 standards. Rather, the record 

shows that the agency’s methodology was to assign a rating of “supports” to a 

component where all of the standards were rated as either “fully supported” or “not 

applicable” AR, exh. 38; that is, the evaluation made no distinction between a “fully 

supported” and a “not applicable” rating for purposes of determining compliance. 

The controlling consideration was whether a component received one or more 

ratings of “partially supported” for a category; in that case, the component 

automatically received a rating of “partially supported” for the category. Id. Thus, 

the record shows that the agency’s ultimate evaluation conclusion would not have 

changed, even if the protester were correct that the agency improperly assigned HP’s 

workstation and 22-inch monitor “supported” rather than “not applicable” ratings for 

Page 5 B-400784 
some of the requirements. It follows that there is no basis for us to question the 

evaluation in this area. 

Disparate Evaluation 

Dell asserts that the agency disparately evaluated the quotations regarding the RFQ 

requirement for information, documentation, and support for their products that 

would accommodate disabled workers. Dell claims that HP and itself met the 

requirement the same way--in the form of a toll-free number, available Monday 

through Friday during regular business hours, that would accommodate callers using 

telecommunications device for the deaf/teletypewriter (TDD/TTY) terminals (which 

are used by hearing and speech impaired individuals). Dell also asserts that both 

vendors offered information, documentation and support via their websites 24 hours 

a day.3

 HP’s workstation, 19-inch monitor and 22-inch monitor were rated as fully 

supporting the standard, while Dell’s received partially supports ratings under 36 

C.F.R. § 1194.41. Dell maintains that these disparate evaluation conclusions were 

unreasonable given that the two vendors quoted identical approaches. 

This argument is without merit. While Dell may have quoted the same toll-free 

number approach as HP, the record shows that this aspect of the quotations was not 

the reason for the disparate ratings in this area. The agency evaluated the vendors’ 

websites under 36 C.F.R. § 1194.22 to determine whether they supported the section 

508 standards. The vendors’ VPATs and the agency’s evaluation conclusions show 

that HP’s website was rated “fully supports” for all 16 requirements under 36 C.F.R. 

§ 1194.22, whereas Dell’s was rated “fully supports” under only 6 of the requirements 

and “partially supports” under 5 (Dell designated 5 of the requirements “not 

applicable”). AR, exh. 11, at 16-17; 34, 38. Consistent with its evaluation 

methodology (discussed above), the agency therefore rated HP’s website as “fully 

supports” and Dell’s as “partially supports.” AR, exh. 38. 

In rating the vendors’ other offered components, the agency assigned “fully 

supports” ratings to the HP products under 36 C.F.R. § 1194.41 because HP quoted 

TDD/TTY terminals and a website that had been determined to fully support the 

section 508 standards. AR, exh. 38. In contrast, when rating Dell’s other 

components, the agency assigned “partially supports” ratings to Dell’s workstation 

and 22-inch monitor under 36 C.F.R. § 1194.41 because, although Dell also quoted 

 

3

 The protester asserts that only one of the two information, documentation and 

support alternatives (i.e., either TDD/TTY or a section 508 compliant website) was 

required under the RFQ. The record shows, however, that Dell consistently 

proposed to meet the information, documentation and support requirement through 

both its TDD/TTY service as well as on-line website support. AR, exh. 10, 

at unnumbered pages 14-16, (workstation), 19 (19-inch monitor), and 23-24 (22-inch 

monitor). The agency therefore properly evaluated its quotation as offering both. 

Page 6 B-400784 
TDD/TTY terminal support and a website, its website had been rated only “partially 

supports.” This evaluation conclusion was unobjectionable; since the Dell website 

did not fully support the section 508 standards, and the remaining products were 

dependent on that website to provide prospective users with the information, 

documentation and support, the agency reasonably concluded that Dell’s 

components warranted a partially supports rating. 

HANDS-ON TESTING 

Dell asserts that the agency misevaluated its workstation when it conducted its 

hands-on test for purposes of determining whether the workstation was compatible 

with the SSA accessibility standards (the JAWS and MAGic software applications). 

The RFQ required vendors to supply workstations that had operating system 

software already installed, but the agency installed the JAWS and MAGis software 

applications prior to conducting the hands-on testing. The agency found that the 

Dell workstation did not perform as well as HP’s when these applications were run. 

AR, exh. 24; Agency Letter, Nov. 25, 2008, attachs. A-C. According to Dell, its and 

HP’s workstations employ the same [deleted], and therefore should have performed 

more or less identically; it thus infers that there had to be a problem with the 

agency’s installation of the JAWS and MAGic software applications on its 

workstation, or that the agency must have configured its workstation incorrectly 

prior to conducting the hands-on test. 4

 

This argument is without merit. First, Dell has not asserted or demonstrated that, 

even though its workstation and the HP workstation have certain components in 

common, they are configured identically, such that identical test results necessarily 

would be expected. HP points out, for example, that differences in other system 

components, firmware, or other hardware configuration questions leave open the 

possibility that the two workstations would perform differently. HP Supplemental 

Comments, Dec. 23, 2008, at 19. Further, there is no other evidence supporting Dell’s 

inference that the performance of its workstation during the hands-on test was 

attributable to errors on the part of the agency in installing the JAWS and MAGic 

software applications, or in otherwise configuring its workstation prior to the test. 

 

4

 Dell argues that the agency improperly failed to engage in meaningful discussions 

because it failed to bring the findings of the agency’s hands-on testing to its attention 

during discussions. However, since the record shows that the hands-on testing did 

not lead to a conclusion that the proposal was technically unacceptable, the agency 

was not required to bring the matter to Dell’s attention during discussions. See 

Portfolio Disposition Mgmt. Group, LLC, B-293105.7, Nov. 12, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 232 

at 2 (agencies are not required to discuss every element of a technically acceptable 

proposal that receives less than the maximum possible score). 

Page 7 B-400784 
Page 8 B-400784 

In any case, the record shows that, ultimately, the agency’s observations during the 

hands-on test resulted in its merely concluding that there was a difference in 

performance between the two workstations, not that the Dell product was 

technically unacceptable. In this respect, the record includes an e-mail chain that 

began with an e-mail from the head of the testing group to several other people in the 

agency. In response to that e-mail, one of the agency’s procurement officials stated: 

“It is unclear whether the report below proposed to fail the Dell 755, but the way I 

interpret the comments, it is a performance issue and not a failure.” Agency Letter, 

Nov. 25, 2008, attach. C, at 7. The head of the agency’s testing group essentially 

concurred, stating in response: 

I am only saying that MAGic flickers in inverse mode more on this 

system than in the others. Flickering has been an issue on EWD 

[employees with disabilities] systems before that have drawn 

complaints from EWD MAGic users. MAGic performance due to 

combined slowness and flickering was not as good on this Dell system 

compared to the others. 

Id. Likewise, there is no indication that the agency considered the hands-on test 

results for Dell in either the section 508 compliance findings, or in the source 

selection decision itself. In the final section 508 compliance evaluation report, there 

is no mention of the results of Dell’s test results, and there is only a passing 

reference to HP’s results. The report states: 

Based on a review of the VPATs provided by each vendor, the final 

determination is as follows: 

Hewlett Packard (4 Fully Supports, 1 Partially Supports) 

Dell (1 Fully Supports, 4 Partially Supports) 

Based on currently available information, the VPATs indicate that 

Hewlett Packard provides the most compliant all around solution. 

According to [one of the members of the hands-on test group] the HP 

also complies with SSA Assistive Technologies (JAWS, MAGic, 

Dragon). 

AR, exh. 38, at 1. These conclusions are repeated verbatim in the source selection 

decision, AR, exh. 42, at 6. It thus does not appear that the test results were used as 

a discriminator in the award decision. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel