BNUMBER:  B-270592.2; B-270592.3; B-270592.4; B-270592.5
DATE:  March 29, 1996
TITLE:  Global Industries, Inc.

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Global Industries, Inc.

File:     B-270592.2; B-270592.3; B-270592.4; B-270592.5

Date:March 29, 1996

Richard S. Ewing, Esq., James A. Dobkin, Esq., John D. Roesser, Esq., 
Arnold & Porter, for the protester. 
S. Gregg Kunzi, Esq., Thomas L. McGovern III, Esq., and David W. 
Burgett, Esq., Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., for Nightingale, Inc., an 
intervenor.  
C. Joseph Carroll, Esq., and Jonathan Cramer, Esq., Department of 
Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., Glenn Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, 
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the 
preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions in a procurement for 
ergonomic chairs where it did not identify evaluated problems with the 
comfort of the protester's chairs which were of serious concern to the 
agency's evaluators but were considered to be correctable. 

DECISION

Global Industries, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Nightingale, Inc. by Federal Prison Industries, Inc., doing business 
under the trade name UNICOR, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
IPI-R-0315-95.  Global protests, among other things, that the agency 
failed to conduct meaningful discussions. 

We sustain the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP contemplated the award of a 5-year fixed-price requirements 
contract to provide two lines of office chairs, the "Economy 
Ergonomic" and the "Medium Range Ergonomic."  Within each chair line, 
offerors were required to propose specified models, plus a variety of 
options, applicable to the different models being offered, such as 
soft wheel casters, seat angle adjustment, and adjustable lumbar 
support.  The chairs were to be purchased from the awardee in the form 
of chair kits that would be assembled by inmates, and then marketed by 
UNICOR.  The RFP required that offerors submit written proposals and 
certified test reports showing compliance with various requirements.  
In addition, offerors were obliged to make a 90-minute in-person 
presentation to UNICOR setting forth their approaches to accomplishing 
the requirements of the statement of work.  At the presentation, 
offerors were required to provide certain production samples for the 
agency to evaluate and test.  

The RFP provided that award would be made to the responsible offeror 
whose proposal represented the best value to the government, taking 
into consideration price and technical quality, with the technical 
factor being more important than price.  As amended, the RFP listed 
the following technical subfactors, in descending order of importance:  
(1) acceptability of components; (2) aesthetics, comfort level, and 
marketability; (3) manufacturing capability and history of production; 
(4) vertical integration; (5) product rights; and (6) ease of 
assembly.

The agency received five offers in response to the solicitation.  Each 
offeror made an in-person presentation to UNICOR, which included a 
question and answer session and an examination of the sample chairs.  

The technical evaluation panel (TEP) members then discussed the 
advantages and disadvantages of each proposal and assigned an overall 
numerical score to each.  In evaluating proposals, the evaluators did 
not assign particular ratings (numerical or adjectival) for any of the 
six technical factors.  Rather, after discussing the strengths and 
weaknesses of each proposal, the TEP agreed to an overall numerical 
score which was based on the following evaluation framework:  
excellent--91 to 100 points (a comprehensive and thorough proposal of 
exceptional merit with no or only minor weaknesses); very good--71 to 
90 points (a proposal where strengths outweigh existing weaknesses, 
and any major weaknesses are correctable); good--51 to 70 points (a 
proposal where weaknesses equal strengths, and weaknesses are probably 
correctable); fair--31 to 50 points (a proposal where one or more 
weaknesses outweighs any strengths, and these weaknesses could 
probably be improved, minimized, or corrected); and poor--0 to 30 
points (a proposal with one or more major weaknesses that are either 
difficult to correct or are not correctable).  At the hearing 
conducted by our Office in connection with this protest, the TEP chair 
testified that the members of the TEP "were aware in our minds of each 
level of importance" of the individual subfactors, when calculating 
each proposal's total numerical score.  In addition, the record 
evidences that the first technical subfactor, acceptability of 
components, was essentially evaluated on a "go/no go" basis, in that 
under this subfactor the TEP primarily examined proffered test reports 
to determine whether the offered chairs complied with the required 
testing standards.    

Following evaluation, three proposals, including Nightingale's and 
Global's, were included in the competitive range.  The initial 
technical scores and proposed costs of the competitive range proposals 
were as follows:

Offeror             Technical Score (100 points maximum)Total Price

Nightingale         [deleted]           [deleted]

Offeror A           [deleted]           [deleted]

Global              [deleted]           [deleted]
Under the scoring system described above, Global's proposal was rated 
"very good" and described as "[a] proposal which demonstrates overall 
competence . . . . Any major weaknesses are correctable."  Global's 
comparatively lower technical rating reflected the TEP's determination 
that Global's proposal had certain significant weaknesses under the 
aesthetics, comfort level and marketability subfactor.  As indicated 
above, this subfactor was the most heavily weighted, relatively 
evaluated subfactor (i.e., subfactor not evaluated on a go/no go 
basis).  Specifically, the TEP noted that the overall comfort of the 
Economy Ergonomic chairs was compromised by a "bottoming out" of the 
seat foam,[1] and, with regard to the Medium Range Ergonomic chairs, 
by pressure being placed on the outside of the legs--referred to as 
"pressure points."  The TEP's initial consensus evaluation of Global 
included the following assessment:  

     "The weaknesses in aesthetics and comfort raises questions about 
     the marketability of the products and were the primary reason 
     that this proposal is roughly in the low-middle of the very good 
     range."
  
Written discussions were subsequently conducted with each competitive 
range offeror.  No questions were posed to Global regarding the 
agency's concerns under the aesthetics, comfort and marketability 
evaluation factor, particularly the "bottoming out" and "pressure 
point" concerns.  

Best and final offers (BAFO) were subsequently requested and 
submitted.  The final evaluated scores and proposed prices were as 
follows:

Offeror             Technical Score     Evaluated Price

Nightingale         [deleted]           [deleted]

Offeror A           [deleted]           [deleted]

Global              [deleted]           [deleted]  
In selecting Nightingale for award, the contracting officer repeated 
the TEP's earlier concerns regarding the comfort of Global's chairs, 
stating:

     "Global's products were also generally attractive; however, the 
     comfort of its product lines was mixed.  The econo-line's seat 
     cushions had a tendency to "bottom out" which impacts long-term 
     comfort.  The medium range chairs were fairly comfortable; 
     however, the seat foam put pressure on the outside of the legs 
     and would have a negative impact upon long-term comfort.  
     Global's proposal included many strengths (i.e., manufacturing 
     capability, vertical integration, product rights) and this is 
     reflected in their overall technical rating.  Additionally, 
     Global submitted the lowest total price and is a very good value 
     to the Government." 

On November 14, 1995, the agency awarded the contract to Nightingale.  
This protest followed.  Performance of Nightingale's contract has not 
been suspended based on the agency's determination that continued 
contract performance is in the best interest of the government. 

DISCUSSION

Global protests that by virtue of UNICOR's failure to advise Global of 
the agency's concerns regarding the comfort factors associated with 
Global's chairs, UNICOR failed to conduct meaningful discussions.    

In negotiated procurements, contracting officers generally are 
required to conduct discussions with all offerors whose proposals are 
within the competitive range.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  253b(d)(2) (1994); Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.610.  Although the discussions need 
not be all-encompassing, discussions must be meaningful; that is, the 
agency must lead offerors into the areas of their proposals which 
require amplification or revision.  Jaycor, B-240029.2 et al., Oct. 
31, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  354.  As reflected in FAR  sec.  15.610, the 
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 effectively requires agencies 
to point out weaknesses, deficiencies or excesses in proposals that 
need to be addressed in order for an offeror to have a reasonable 
chance of being selected for award.  See FAR  sec.  15.609(a); Price 
Waterhouse, B-222562, Aug. 18, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  190.  In short, 
discussions cannot be meaningful unless they lead an offeror into 
those aspects of its proposal that must be addressed in order for it 
to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award.  Eldyne, 
Inc., B-250158 et al., Jan. 14, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  430, recon. denied 
Department of the Navy--Recon., 72 Comp. Gen. 221 (1993), 93-1 CPD  para.  
422.  

The agency maintains that it was not required to discuss the 
weaknesses in Global's proposal relating to comfort because these 
weaknesses did not rise to the level of deficiencies rendering 
Global's proposal technically unacceptable.  We disagree.

The record shows that "the primary reasons" the agency questioned, 
during its evaluation, whether Global's chairs could be successfully 
marketed were their tendency to "bottom out" and the problems related 
to "pressure points," which adversely impacted on the comfort of the 
chairs.  At the hearing conducted in connection with this protest, the 
TEP chair testified that these weaknesses were "of major importance" 
and a "serious concern" to the agency evaluators, that the weaknesses 
would be "of major value and concern to the consumers," and that they 
would "affect marketability" of the chairs.  Thus, regardless of the 
label the agency attaches to its concerns, the agency itself made it 
clear at the hearing that the problems had a serious impact on the 
evaluated comfort and marketability of the chairs.  We think it is 
well-established that these are exactly the kind of "weaknesses" that 
under both the FAR and our decisions should be pointed out during 
discussions.  See, e.g., Eldyne, Inc., supra.    

The agency also argues that it was not required to discuss these 
because they were inherent in Global's design, and revision of that 
design would have required substantial time and effort.  The record 
does not support the agency's argument.  We first note that the chairs 
proposed by Global for this procurement incorporated various aspects 
of different existing chair lines; they were not "off-the-shelf" 
chairs.  At the hearing both the TEP chair and the contracting officer 
agreed that the weaknesses in Global's proposal were considered 
"correctable."  Indeed, the TEP chair testified that these problems 
would possibly be easily resolved to the agency's satisfaction by 
altering the density, shape, or width of the seat foam, and Global's 
representatives testified that Global could have effectively addressed 
the agency's comfort concerns by altering the density, shape or width 
of the foam used in the seat cushions, or by altering the height of 
the chair seat, and that such alterations could have been accomplished 
in a matter of days.  On this record, we find without merit the 
agency's assertion that discussions regarding these matters were not 
required because the weaknesses were inherent in Global's product 
design.  

Finally, the agency maintains that any weaknesses with regard to the 
evaluation factor aesthetics, comfort and marketability were 
inappropriate topics for discussions in that such matters generally 
reflected the inventiveness of each offeror in the development of its 
products, and raising such issues would involve the agency in "product 
development."  The agency maintains that if such weaknesses had been 
brought to Global's attention, the agency would have been required to 
discuss similar "product development" matters with other offerors, and 
that this would have constituted technical leveling.  

We first note that while technical leveling is defined by FAR  sec.  
15.610(d) as helping an offeror bring its proposal up to the level of 
other proposals "through successive rounds of discussions," Global had 
only a single round of discussions during which the agency's serious 
concerns were not identified.  We also fail to see how labeling the 
concern a "product development" matter is of any consequence with 
respect to the question of whether discussions were required.  In any 
case, we note that notwithstanding the contracting officer's assertion 
that matters regarding aesthetics, comfort and marketability were not 
appropriate topics for discussion, the agency's discussion letter to 
Nightingale stated:

     "Please consider the following list of weaknesses/clarifications 
     that the evaluation panel has identified as requiring additional 
     information.

                    .     .     .     .    .
     
     "Aesthetics, Comfort, Marketability

        "1.  The mechanisms using a 'bolt' type adjustment were wobbly 
        when unscrewed.  Combined with a short screw length, this make 
        losing the bolts a concern." 

While the agency now argues that this weakness was mistakenly 
categorized under the aesthetics, comfort and marketability subfactor, 
it appears to be similar in kind to the perceived weaknesses in 
Global's proposal under this factor; indeed, the agency has offered no 
plausible rationale which warrants redefining or 
re-categorizing this concern after the fact.  Under these 
circumstances, the agency should have afforded Global comparable 
discussions regarding weaknesses in Global's proposal under the 
aesthetics, comfort and marketability subfactor.

We sustain the protest.[2]

RECOMMENDATION

Where, as here, an agency determines that it is in the best interest 
of the government to proceed with contract performance in the face of 
a protest in our Office, and we sustain the protest, we are required 
by the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C.  sec.  3554(b)(2), 
to make our recommendation for corrective action without regard to any 
cost or disruption from termination, recompeting or reawarding the 
contract.  Accordingly, we recommend that the agency reopen the 
negotiations with all competitive range offerors, conduct meaningful 
discussions, and request the submissions of BAFOs.[3]  If a proposal 
other than Nightingale's is determined to offer the best value to the 
government, Nightingale's contract should be terminated and award made 
to that offeror.  In addition, we recommend that Global be reimbursed 
for the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing this protest, 
including attorneys' fees.  Bid Protest Regulations, section 
21.8(d)(1), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,743 (Aug. 10, 1995) (to be 
codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(d)(1)).  In accordance with section 
21.8(f)(1), 60 Fed. Reg. supra (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8 
(f)(1)), Global's certified claim for such costs, including the time 
expended and costs incurred, must be submitted directly to the agency 
within 90 days after receipt of this decision.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. That is, a person sitting in the chair could feel the chair bottom 
through the foam pad on the chair seat.

2. Global has raised various other issues in connection with this 
procurement, the primary one of which is an allegation that 
Nightingale's chairs do not meet the RFP requirements regarding 
adjustable lumbar support.  We have considered this issue and conclude 
that Nightingale's chairs do, in fact, meet the solicitation 
requirements regarding adjustable lumbar support.  We note that 
amendment No. 3 states that the chairs submitted with an offeror's 
proposal should "emulate" Human Factors Standard (HFS) 100, which 
states that "[c]urrent research does not clearly indicate the specific 
requirement for lumbar support."  Global's representative acknowledges 
that HFS 100 fails to specify any minimum requirement for lumbar 
support and that this suggests that, if there is some curvature of the 
lumbar area of the chair back, then lumbar support, as indicated by 
HFS 100, has been provided.  The chairs that Nightingale submitted 
with its proposal, as demonstrated by cutaways of the chair back 
examined at the hearing, show a curvature of approximately 3/8-inch 
when the chair is unoccupied, and when a person sits in the chair 
against the chair back pressure is exerted against the two "wings" of 
the chair, which are slightly closer to each other than the width of 
even a small person's back, thus causing forward movement of the 
lumbar support mechanism to meet the user's back.  Under the 
circumstances, the lumbar support provided by Nightingale's chairs 
satisfied the RFP's requirements regarding adjustable lumbar support.  
We have also considered and rejected the various other allegations 
raised in Global's protest including, for example, that the RFP 
contained ambiguities and that Nightingale's proposal contained an 
incorrect price.  

3. Based on the hearing testimony of Global's representatives, it 
would appear that this action could be completed in a matter of a few 
days.