BNUMBER:  B-262245; B-262245.2
DATE:  November 22, 1995
TITLE:  Triad Technologies

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Triad Technologies

File:     B-262245; B-262245.2

Date:     November 22, 1995

J. Joseph Christie, Ph.D. for the protester.
Bruce P. Windesheim for All-Bann Enterprises, Inc., an interested 
party.
Craig E. Hodge, Esq., and Phillip B. Hunter, Esq., Department of the 
Army, for the agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Where record shows that agency reasonably evaluated proposals, there 
is no basis to object to agency's selection of technically superior, 
lower-cost offer.

DECISION

Triad Technologies protests the award of a contract to All-Bann 
Enterprises, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DAAM01-95-R-0010, issued by the U.S. Army Chemical and Biological 
Defense Command (CBDCOM), for the development of a reliable 
manufacturing procedure for DS2P, which the agency intends as a 
replacement for DS2, the standard decontaminant for the U.S. Army.  
Triad argues that the agency's selection decision was contrary to the 
terms of the solicitation, which provided that technical, management, 
and quality assurance factors would be significantly more important 
than cost.

We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part.

Triad contends that its proposal presented the best value to the 
government and that the selection of All-Bann was inconsistent with 
the factors listed in the solicitation.  Triad argues that All-Bann 
has no experience with chemical formulation technology and that 
Triad's superiority in this area was indicated by its ability to 
identify several errors in the RFP.  Triad also alleges that the 
selection decision was made on cost rather than technical grounds, 
contrary to the solicitation's emphasis on technical factors.

The record contains no support for Triad's contention that its 
proposal presented the best value to the government in accordance with 
the factors listed in the solicitation.  In response to the Triad's 
assertion that All-Bann has no experience with chemical formulation 
technology, the awardee has provided our Office with evidence that its 
wholly owned subsidiary, DalDen Corporation, has extensive experience 
with chemical formulation technology and specific experience with the 
formulation, batch mixing, and testing of DS2P.  All-Bann also 
provided this information in its technical proposal, which the agency 
evaluated.  By contrast, the record includes a copy of a letter dated 
August 2, from CBDCOM to the protester, which contains an extensive 
list of deficiencies and weaknesses in Triad's proposal.  These 
represent the issues remaining after discussions in all three areas of 
the protester's proposal--technical, management, and quality 
assurance.  Neither Triad's protests nor its responses to the agency 
report address the evaluators' determination that its best and final 
offer contained these deficiencies and weaknesses.  While Triad is 
correct that All-Bann proposed a much lower cost than did Triad, the 
agency also considered All-Bann's technical proposal, which received a 
technical score of 93 points out of 100, to be far superior to 
Triad's, which received 44 points.  We have no basis to conclude that 
the agency's evaluation and selection of All-Bann was either 
unreasonable or inconsistent with the factors listed in the 
solicitation.  See Advanced Envtl. Technology Corp., B-259252, Mar. 
20, 1995, 95-1 CPD  149.

The protester's initial proposal, submitted on February 15, 1995, 
noted two errors in the solicitation, which the agency corrected by 
amendment.  While the protester considers its ability to detect such 
errors indicative of its technical superiority,[1] the evaluators 
commented that the protester's technical score would have increased 
significantly had Triad, in accordance with solicitation instructions, 
spent more time discussing its approach to problems and accomplishment 
of the statement of work.  The evaluators considered that Triad could 
have resolved the errors that it found simply by directing a question 
to the contracting officer prior to the submission of proposals, or 
merely by mixing a small batch of DS2P on its own, to check its 
characteristics.  The record shows that Triad simply neglected to 
discuss the greater portion of the required effort in the belief that 
despite the solicitation instructions, the effort was "too involved, 
too extensive, and too time-consuming" to be discussed in its 
technical proposal.

To the extent that Triad argues that the agency failed to respond to 
several other errors and discrepancies in the solicitation, and 
neglected Triad's request for an advance payment provision, the 
protester should have raised such issues at a minimum prior to the 
time set for receipt of best and final offers.[2]  See 4 C.F.R.  
21.2(a)(1) (1995); Vertiflite, Inc., B-256366, May 12, 1994, 94-1 CPD  
304.

The protest is denied in part and dismissed in part.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The solicitation contained no indication that an offeror's ability 
to detect errors in the RFP would be a factor in the selection.  

2. With respect to the advance payment issue, we note that advance 
payments are restricted by both statute and regulation, see 31 U.S.C  
3324(a) (1988); Federal Acquisition Regulation  32.402(b); Advance 
payment for maintenance of equip., B-219074, July 26, 1985, 85-2 CPD  
97, and agencies have broad discretion, in cases where they are 
permitted, to decide whether and under what terms a contract should 
provide for such payments.  John L. Holland Enters., B-248200.2, Oct. 
9, 1992, 92-2 CPD  234.