United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: Ricoh America’s Corporation 

File: B-402239 

Date: February 22, 2010 

Anthony Massey for the protester. 

Capt. Bridget E. Keenan, Department of the Army, for the agency. 

Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

In a commercial-item acquisition conducted using two-step sealed bid procedures, a 

protest that awardee’s multi-functional devices (MFD), commonly referred to as 

copiers, are technically unacceptable and were not on the firm’s General Services 

Administration (GSA) schedule contract is denied, where the record confirms that 

the awardee’s MFDs met all of the requirements of the solicitation and are, in fact, on 

the firm’s GSA schedule contract. 

DECISION 

Ricoh America’s Corporation of West Caldwell, New Jersey, protests the award of a 

contract to Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA, Inc., issued by the Department 

of the Army under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W911S7-09-T-0053 for 

multi-functional devices (MFD), commonly referred to as copiers, for Fort Leonard 

Wood in Missouri. 

We deny the protest. 

The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for “cost per copy” 

MFDs for a base year, with four 1-year options. RFQ at 7. These MFDs were to 

include six different “volume band copiers” for both black and white, and color 

copies. Id. at 6. The acquisition was to be conducted using the commercial item 

acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 along with 

the two-step sealed bid procedures of FAR Part 14. “Step one” of the evaluation 
involved assessing “technical proposals” for acceptability without considering price,1

and “step two” involved the submission of “sealed priced bids” by those vendors who 

submitted technically acceptable proposals in “step one.” The solicitation 

anticipated award to the vendor with the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable 

proposal. Id. at 3-5; FAR § 14.5. According to the RFQ, to be eligible for award, each 

vendor had to hold a current “Mission & Installation Contract Command--McPherson 

Digital Copier Services Blanket Purchase Agreement” (BPA) and a current General 

Services Administration (GSA) schedule contract. In addition, the MFDs identified 

by each vendor had to be “currently manufactured [and] actively marketed on the 

[vendor’s] GSA contract.” RFQ at 6, 8. 

The solicitation required that vendors’ MFDs be “Common Access Card (CAC) 

ready.” RFQ at 5. In this regard, CAC technology provides identification, 

authentication, and encryption capability for network access. The solicitation 

required that vendors’ CAC technology meet the requirements of paragraph C.1.3.5 of 

the solicitation’s performance work statement, which required that all MFDs 

connected to the Fort Leonard Wood network “support CAC identification, to 

include controlled release of the device for walk-up printing or scanning.” Id. at 10. 

The solicitation further required vendors to “[u]se CAC as the primary access 

credential” and to “[i]mplement two-factor authentication techniques as the access 

control mechanisms in lieu of passwords,” pursuant to “Army Regulation 25.2,” 

which prescribes Army policies and procedures for information assurance. Id. at 10. 

As explained by the agency, “two-factor identification” is an authentication method 

that involves the use of a CAC card and a personal identification number, or “pin,” 

for that card to gain access to the network. Declaration of Army Chief of 

Information Technology Systems Support at 6. 

As part of the technical acceptability determination, the solicitation required the 

agency to assess the acceptability of vendor’s CAC software. For software that had 

not been previously approved by the “Army Networthiness Office,” this assessment 

was to include performing a “Vulnerability Test” on the software. Id. at 3, 10. The 

solicitation stated that only those firms whose CAC software met the requirements 

of the RFQ and passed the vulnerability test (if required to be performed) would be 

further considered for award. Id. 

Four vendors submitted technical proposals during step one of the evaluation. As 

relevant here, Konica’s proposal was based on a “bizhub 361 copier with embedded 

Actividentity ActivClient as its CAC solution,” which passed vulnerability testing. 

Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. Ricoh’s proposal was based on a copier with 

separate CAC “E-copy” software, which had been previously tested and approved by 

 

1

 The evaluation factors considered in step one included, in descending order of 

importance, common access card technology, equipment offered, maintenance and 

support service, past performance, and phase-in and phase-out plan. RFQ at 7. 

Page 2 B-402239 
Fort Leonard Wood personnel and therefore did not require vulnerability testing. Id. 

The agency held discussions with all four vendors, and at the conclusion of 

discussions, determined that all four proposals were technically acceptable. 

When the agency requested prices, the record shows that Konica submitted the 

lowest price of $786,686.50 (including base and option years) and Ricoh submitted 

the third lowest price.2

 Agency Report, Tab 19, Unsuccessful Offeror Notification to 

Ricoh, at 1. Based on its low price, the agency selected Konica for award. 

Upon receiving notice of the intended award, Ricoh timely filed a protest with our 

Office. Ricoh contends that Konica’s MFDs do not meet certain requirements of the 

RFQ.3

In reviewing protests of agency evaluations, we review the record to ensure that the 

evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the 

terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. CSI 

GmbH, B-400434, Oct. 22, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 194 at 2. 

Ricoh contends that Konica’s MFDs were not on the firm’s GSA schedule contract or 

BPA at the time it submitted its proposal. However, the record confirms that Konica 

possessed both the required GSA schedule contract and BPA, and that Konica’s 

MFDs with the embedded CAC technology are listed on its GSA schedule contract, 

and were listed at the time it submitted its proposal. Contracting Officer’s Statement 

at 3-4. 

Ricoh also contends that Konica’s MFDs were technically unacceptable because they 

do not “encrypt scan to e-mail files at a 256 bit level.” Protest at 4. However, the 

solicitation did not require that MFDs be capable of 256-bit encryption; rather, the 

solicitation required “two-factor authentication” (i.e., an authentication method that 

involves a CAC card and a pin) and the agency confirms that Konica’s MFDs met this 

requirement. Declaration of Army Chief of Information Technology Systems Support 

at 6. Although Ricoh complains that certain agency responses to vendor questions 

and statements led it to believe that 256-bit encryption for the MFDs was required, 

 

2

 Ricoh also submitted an alternative price based on technology that was not 

identified in its technical proposal submitted during step one of the evaluation. The 

agency informed Ricoh that it would not consider its alternative price since it was 

not evaluated during step one of the evaluation. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. 

3

 Ricoh’s alternative price was second low, as opposed to third low; as a result--and 

because at the outset of this protest, Ricoh’s second-low price for its alternative 

clouded the question of Ricoh’s interested party status--we developed this protest on 

the merits. We also viewed Ricoh’s protest as challenging the technical acceptability 

of the intervening offeror. 

Page 3 B-402239 
Page 4 B-402239 

 

our review of the record leads us to conclude that these agency statements did not 

modify the clear requirements of the RFQ, and cannot reasonably be construed to 

have misled Ricoh.4

Finally, Ricoh contends that the agency did not comply with the solicitation in 

determining technical acceptability. However, the record shows that the agency 

evaluated technical proposals in accordance with the evaluation process set forth in 

the solicitation and reasonably determined that Konica’s MFDs, which passed the 

vulnerability tests, met the requirements of the RFQ and were technically acceptable. 

To the extent that the protester complains that the vulnerability testing was flawed, 

or not in accordance with the solicitation, the record does not support its 

contention. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel 

 

 

 

 

4

 In its comments, Ricoh complains that the agency failed to comply with provisions 

of “Army Regulation 25-2” that were required because “the regulation was referenced 

in total in the [RFQ].” Comments at 2. However, the entire “Army Regulation 25.2” 

was not incorporated by reference into the solicitation. The only provisions 

incorporated into the solicitation were those requiring “two-factor authentication,” 

which Ricoh does not challenge. RFQ at 10.