BNUMBER:  B-270210
DATE:  February 20, 1996
TITLE:  Mathews Associates, Inc.

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

Matter of:Mathews Associates, Inc.

File:     B-270210

Date:     February 20, 1996

Daniel W. Perreault for the protester.
Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Thomas D. Carroll, Esq., Department of 
the Army, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably considered and evaluated the characteristics of 
offered rechargeable batteries in selecting the higher priced, 
technically superior proposal for award.

DECISION

Mathews Associates, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's award 
of a contract to Bren-Tronics, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. DAAB07-95-R-G305.  Mathews asserts that the technical evaluation 
was unreasonable and that the resulting source selection was improper.  

We deny the protest.

The agency issued the RFP on January 9, 1995, seeking proposals for a 
fixed-price,  indefinite quantity, 4-year contract to provide 
quantities of five specified portable rechargeable battery systems.  
The statement of work (SOW) attached to the solicitation included a 
description of a portion of the battery requirement as     
"BB-503/TAS, BB-516/U, BB-588/U and BB-590/U military rechargeable 
Nickel-Cadmium batteries or their replacement by rechargeable 
batteries of alternate design offering better value to the 
government."  The SOW required the contractor to produce Nickel 
Cadmium batteries that would meet the requirements of military 
specification MIL-B-49436 revision B, or batteries of alternate design 
that would meet or exceed requirements proposed by the contractor and 
accepted by the government.[1]  The SOW also listed certain minimum 
requirements that proposed alternate batteries must meet.   

The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror 
whose proposal represented the best value to the government, taking 
into consideration technical, cost, and performance risk.  The 
technical factors were said to be more important than cost, and 
significantly more important than performance risk.  The RFP listed 
the following six most heavily weighted evaluation factors, in 
descending order of importance:  (1) the BB-590/U, (2) the BB-X847/U, 
(3) the BB-588/U, and (4) the BB-516/U rechargeable battery systems, 
(5) the state of charge option for each battery, and (6) the 
BB-503/TAS rechargeable battery system.  The RFP also specifically 
provided that the BB-590/U evaluation factor was of far greater weight 
than any of the remaining factors.

The RFP stated that each rechargeable battery system would be 
evaluated to determine the degree to which it met or exceeded the 
minimum technical requirements identified in the SOW.  The RFP 
explicitly noted that in some instances the minimum technical 
requirements in the SOW were less than the requirements in the 
applicable military specification.  

A deficiency was defined in the RFP as the failure of a proposed 
battery to meet a minimum technical requirement identified in the SOW, 
and a disadvantage as the failure of a proposed battery to meet a 
minimum technical requirement identified in the applicable military 
specification, but where the battery met or exceeded a minimum 
technical requirement identified in the SOW.  An advantage was defined 
as an instance in which a proposed battery met or exceeded both the 
minimum technical requirements identified in the SOW and the 
corresponding military specification.

The degree to which these ratings affected the final rating was 
determined by the relative importance of the performance 
characteristic at issue.  In this regard, the solicitation included a 
Desired Performance Matrix, which listed various performance 
requirements, such as capacity and weight, and their corresponding 
importance in the evaluation.  For example, while capacity was 
weighted as a highly important performance requirement, cycle life was 
of low importance.[2]  The RFP also included a section titled 
"Enhanced Performance (Desired)," which instructed all offerors to 
provide sufficient information to allow the agency to assess the 
degree to which the proposal enhanced the performance of each system 
above the minimum requirements.  

Two offerors submitted proposals.  Mathews offered MIL SPEC Nickel 
Cadmium model batteries for four of the five specified batteries, and 
a Lithium Ion model battery for the BB-X847/U.  Bren-Tronics also 
offered a Lithium Ion battery for the BB-X847/U, MIL SPEC Nickel 
Cadmium model batteries for the BB-516/U and BB-503/TAS, and Nickel 
Metal Hydride model batteries for the BB-590/U and BB-588/U.  Each 
offeror included with its proposal the required bid samples for the 
alternate design batteries being proposed.[3]  After evaluation, both 
proposals were included in the competitive range.  The agency 
conducted written and oral discussions with both offerors.  

The Army received best and final offers (BAFO) on September 15.  
Bren-Tronics's proposal received an "outstanding" rating for its 
proposed Nickel Metal Hydride batteries (the first and third most 
heavily weighted evaluation factors), primarily because they 
demonstrated a 60 percent increase in capacity over the existing MIL 
SPEC Nickel Cadmium battery.  In contrast, Mathews's proposed MIL SPEC 
Nickel Cadmium BB-588 and BB-590 batteries offered no improvement in 
performance over the applicable military specification, and its 
proposal was given an "acceptable" rating for these factors.  The 
agency noted that capacity was a highly rated performance requirement 
because increased capacity, i.e., a longer service life for the 
battery before it has to be recharged, allows a soldier to carry fewer 
batteries.  Bren-Tronics also received an  "outstanding" rating, in 
contrast to Mathews's "good" rating, for its BB-X847 Lithium Ion 
battery due to its contractual commitment to deliver a BB-X847 battery 
which achieves a higher level of performance than required by the RFP.  
Bren-Tronics's BAFO received an overall technical rating of 
outstanding, with a low risk, and an evaluated price of $15,234,539.  
Mathews's BAFO received an overall technical rating of acceptable, 
with a moderate risk, and an evaluated price of $10,778,688.  The 
agency determined that Bren-Tronics's proposal offered the best value 
to the government and made award to that firm on September 29, 
whereupon Mathews filed this protest.[4]

Mathews challenges the evaluation of both its own and the awardee's 
proposal.  The protester contends that the awardee's Nickel Metal 
Hydride batteries failed to meet the temperature extreme requirements 
contained in the military specification and that the agency failed to 
consider the fact that these batteries may vent hydrogen.  Mathews 
also argues that its proposal was unfairly downgraded because it did 
not agree to higher performance requirements than what was listed in 
its proposal for a Lithium Ion battery for BB-X847.[5] 

The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the 
discretion of the contracting agency since that agency is responsible 
for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  
Mesa, Inc., B-254730, Jan. 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  62.  In reviewing an 
agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate the proposal; 
instead, we will examine the record to ensure that the evaluation was 
reasonable and consistent with the RFP evaluation criteria.  Id.  A 
protester's disagreement with the agency's judgment, standing alone, 
is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.  
Ionsep Corp., Inc., B-255122, Feb. 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  97.

Mathews first argues that Bren-Tronics's proposed Nickel Metal Hydride 
batteries, which were rated outstanding, do not meet the temperature 
extreme requirements for storage and operation contained in military 
specification MIL-B-49436 revision B.  In our view, the evaluation of 
the Nickel Metal Hydride battery's temperature performance was both 
reasonable and consistent with the RFP.  Contrary to Mathews's 
position, the RFP simply did not require that the alternate batteries 
meet each of the requirements contained in MIL-B-49436 revision B, 
which is a performance specification used to purchase Nickel Cadmium 
rechargeable batteries like those offered by the protester.  Rather, 
the SOW listed certain minimum requirements that alternate batteries 
proposed under this solicitation must meet.  The agency responds, and 
the protester does not dispute, that the awardee's proposed Nickel 
Metal Hydride batteries meet the temperature requirements contained in 
the SOW,[6] and the agency states that the awardee's Nickel Metal 
Hydride batteries are suitable for their intended use in training 
exercises.        

Next, Mathews argues that the agency failed to consider that the 
awardee's Nickel Metal Hydride batteries may vent (release) hydrogen 
under certain circumstances.
The record shows that the agency explicitly considered that Nickel 
Metal Hydride batteries may vent hydrogen under conditions of 
overcharge, high temperature, or abuse.[7]  However, the agency 
determined that the fact the batteries would only be used in training 
would minimize the possibility that the batteries would be subjected 
to abuse.  The agency also points out that the Bren-Tronics Nickel 
Metal Hydride batteries are designed with safety features to minimize 
the risk of venting.  For example, the Bren-Tronics Nickel Metal 
Hydride batteries include temperature sensors that relay the internal 
battery temperature back to the charger, and will terminate the 
charging cycle if a predetermined heating limit is exceeded.  In the 
event that the Nickel Metal Hydride battery does vent, it is designed 
with two waterproof breathers to allow for the release of the hydrogen 
into the surroundings, to prevent the pressure from the released gas 
from building within the battery.  The record shows that the agency 
considered the fact that the awardee's alternate batteries may vent 
hydrogen under certain conditions, but determined that adequate 
safeguards were designed into Bren-Tronics's Nickel Metal Hydride 
batteries which minimized any possible associated risks.

In sum, the record shows that the agency considered the temperature 
extremes performance of Bren-Tronics's Nickel Metal Hydride batteries 
and that they may vent hydrogen, in evaluating the BB-590/U and 
BB-588/U battery factors, and reasonably concluded that, 
notwithstanding these considerations, the significant advantages of 
Bren-Tronics's offered alternate Nickel Metal Hydride batteries, in 
particular their 60-percent increase in capacity, warranted an 
outstanding rating.

Next, Mathews argues that it was unfairly downgraded for its failure 
to agree to higher performance requirements than what was required 
under the RFP.  As discussed above, both Mathews and Bren-Tronics 
proposed a Lithium Ion model battery for the BB-X847.  In fact, for 
this battery, both offerors proposed using packages of Lithium Ion 
cells from the same cell manufacturer, Moli, Inc.  Mathews and 
Bren-Tronics submitted samples of this battery, the testing of which 
produced identical test results in excess of the required levels of 
performance.  Neither offeror was given the actual test results to 
review, but both were given the bottom line test results by the 
agency, and given an additional week to consider whether they would 
contractually agree to deliver Lithium Ion batteries that would 
achieve higher levels of performance than required in the RFP.  
Bren-Tronics committed to deliver a battery that would meet a higher 
level of performance, and Mathews declined to do so. 

We see nothing unreasonable in the agency's evaluation of the Lithium 
Ion BB-X847 battery.  The protester was on notice from the 
solicitation that the agency desired enhanced performance, and that 
the agency intended to evaluate the degree to which the proposed 
batteries could operate at higher levels of performance above the 
minimum technical requirements.  Both offerors had from March, when 
bid samples were submitted, to August, when they were asked to 
contractually agree to a higher level of performance, to assess the 
performance capabilities of their proposed batteries.  Under these 
circumstances, it was reasonable for the agency to give Bren-Tronics, 
which agreed to commit to the higher level of performance, a higher 
technical rating for the BB-X847 battery.    

Finally, Mathews challenges the propriety of the agency's decision to 
award to a higher-priced offeror which assertedly proposed technically 
nonconforming battery systems.  While Mathews alleges that the agency 
improperly evaluated             Bren-Tronics's proposal, as detailed 
above, the record reasonably supports the agency's rating of 
Bren-Tronics's proposal.  Award may be made to a higher rated, 
higher-priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the 
evaluation factors and the agency reasonably determines that the 
technical superiority of the higher priced offer outweighs the price 
difference.  General Serv. Eng'g, Inc., B-245458, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 
CPD  para.  44.   Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the 
selection of Bren-Tronics's significantly technically superior offer 
for award was reasonable and consistent with the RFP, which gave 
greatest weight to technical considerations.  Ameriko Maintenance Co., 
B-250786, Feb. 16, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  145. 

The protest is denied.  

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. MIL-B-49436 revision B is a performance specification currently 
used by the Army to purchase Nickel Cadmium rechargeable batteries.  

2. Capacity is the measure of the service life of the battery before 
it has to be recharged.  Cycle life refers to the number of times that 
a particular battery can effectively be recharged.  

3. No samples were required where the offeror was proposing a battery 
in accordance with the applicable military specification because the 
agency already knew the performance capabilities of the Nickel Cadmium 
batteries.

4. In its protest letter, which was based upon information obtained at 
the debriefing, Mathews protested the evaluation of its proposed 
portable charger and its "moderate" risk rating.  The agency addressed 
these allegations in its protest report and Mathews failed to respond 
to the agency's position.  Accordingly, we view these  issues as 
abandoned.  See Monfort, Inc., B-256706, July 5, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  2.  

5. Mathews also apparently complains that the agency may have tested 
Bren-
Tronics's BB-390/A Nickel Metal Hydride battery before this 
solicitation was issued, and that the agency and the awardee therefore 
may have colluded to assure Bren-Tronics's of award.  Our Bid Protest 
Regulations require that a protest include a detailed statement of the 
legal and factual grounds of a protest, Section 21.1 (c)(4), 60 Fed. 
Reg. 40,737, 40,740 (Aug. 10, 1995) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.2(c)(4)), and that the grounds stated be legally sufficient.  
Section 21.1 (e), 60 Fed. Reg. supra (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.1(e)).  Mathews's argument regarding collusion is solely based upon 
the fact that Bren-Tronics made specific reference to a BB-390 battery 
in a document dated after the solicitation was issued, but before 
award.  In light of the fact that the awardee proposed a rechargeable 
Nickel Metal Hydride battery, it does not seem unreasonable for 
Bren-Tronics to refer to its battery using the applicable military 
nomenclature, BB-390, rather then the nomenclature for rechargeable 
Nickel Cadmium batteries, which is BB-590.  In any event, this 
inference is inadequate to form a basis of protest and we therefore 
dismiss the allegation of collusion.  Medical Serv. Corp. Int'l, 
B-252801, Apr. 19, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  335.  

6. To the extent that Mathews argues that the temperature requirements 
in the SOW "essentially circumvent" the temperature requirements in 
the MIL-B-49436 revision B, this aspect of its protest is untimely.  
The minimum temperature requirements for alternate batteries were 
contained in the RFP; the RFP also specifically noted that in some 
instances the minimum technical requirements in the SOW were less than 
the requirements in the applicable military specification.  Our Bid 
Protest Regulations require that protests based upon alleged 
improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to the 
closing time for receipt of initial proposal must be filed prior to 
that closing time.  Section 21.2 (a)(1), 60 Fed. Reg. supra (to be 
codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1)); Engelhard Corp., B-237824, Mar. 
23, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  324.  

7. Venting consists of the opening of the battery's vent mechanism 
which occurs when the battery's internal pressure increases above 
normal operating parameters.