BNUMBER:  B-271066 
DATE:  May 20, 1996
TITLE: Virginia Accelerators Corporation, B-271066, May 20, 1996
**********************************************************************

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:Virginia Accelerators Corporation

File:     B-271066

Date:May 20, 1996

Maxine Cade, Esq., Cade & Vaughn-Carrington, for the protester.
Joseph H. Orens, for Berkeley Research Associates, Inc., and Sam V. 
Nablo, Ph.D., for Electron Processing Systems, Inc., the intervenors.
Capt. David P. Harney, and Mark H. Rutter, Esq., Department of the 
Army, for the agency.
David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest against award to highest technically evaluated offerors, 
instead of protester, under Small Business Innovative Research Program 
solicitation is denied where there is no showing of agency bad faith 
or of violation of regulations, and award decision was consistent with 
the terms of the solicitation.

DECISION

Virginia Accelerators Corporation (VAC) protests the Department of the 
Army's rejection of its proposal submitted under Department of Defense 
Fiscal Year 1995 Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) 
solicitation No. 95.3, Topic No. A95-101.[1]  VAC maintains that the 
Army improperly evaluated proposals.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation sought SBIR proposals for 126 different topics.  
Topic No. A95-101, at issue here, sought proposals for innovative 
research into cleaning flue gas (to remove sulfur dioxide, nitrous 
oxides and other contaminants) using irradiation with fast electrons 
in the electron beam dry scrubbing process.  The Army received 15 
proposals.  Based on the evaluation, VAC's proposal was ranked ninth, 
with a total score of 75 out of a possible 100 points.  The Army made 
award to Berkeley Research Associates, Inc., based on that firm's 
highest-rated proposal's score of 100 points, and to two other 
firms--Electron Processing Systems, Inc. and L&W Research, Inc.--based 
on their proposals' scores of 94 and 85.

VAC challenges the Army's technical evaluation, arguing that 
Berkeley's proposed electron beam generator will not produce 
sufficient power to be of use for electron scrubbing, and that the 
agency failed to recognize that VAC's proposed approach was the most 
promising one.  VAC attributes the allegedly erroneous evaluation to a 
lack of qualified agency evaluators; according to the protester, 
"[t]he heart of VAC['s] protest is that [the Army] did not use experts 
in the field of electron beam scrubbing to evaluate proposals."

Where an agency is conducting an SBIR procurement, it has the 
discretion to determine which proposals it will fund.  In light of the 
agency's discretion, we limit our review of awards under SBIR 
procurements to determining whether the agency violated any applicable 
regulations or solicitation provisions, or acted in bad faith.  
Systems Research Co., B-260280.2, Aug. 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  62; Noise 
Cancellation Technologies, Inc., B-246476;  B-246476.2, Mar. 9, 1992, 
92-1 CPD  para.  269.  The selection of individuals to serve as evaluators 
also is within the discretion of the contracting agency and we will 
not review the qualifications of board members absent a showing of 
possible bad faith or a conflict of interest.  Geographic Resource 
Solutions, B-260402, June 19, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  278; Solid Waste 
Integrated Sys. Corp., B-258544, Jan. 17, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  23.     

VAC has provided no evidence (and the record does not otherwise show) 
that the Army's actions--including the selection of evaluators and the 
evaluation itself--were motivated by bad faith or conflict of 
interest, violated any applicable regulations, or were inconsistent 
with the terms of the solicitation.  On the contrary, the record 
clearly shows that the evaluation of proposals and resulting proposal 
selection were proper.

The solicitation advised that the topic would focus on research into 
"compact" sources of electron beam generation for use in cleaning up 
fossil fuel emissions from such sources as maritime vessels, tractor 
trailers, locomotives, small power plants, refuse incinerators and 
other small contributors to atmospheric pollution.  The Army primarily 
downgraded VAC's proposal because its approach, although offering the 
potential for efficiently producing a high average power electron 
beam, also produced a higher level of X-rays than the other proposed 
approaches and, as a result, would require shielding in the form of 
lead or earthen berms.  In order to provide the required shielding, 
VAC proposed to bury the system underground.  The agency determined 
that the required shielding rendered VAC's proposed system impractical 
for cleaning such mobile emission sources (outlined in the 
solicitation) as maritime vessels, tractor trailers, and locomotives.  
In addition, the agency downgraded VAC's proposal because VAC's  
proposed electron beam generator could not be efficiently scaled down 
to meet the solicitation requirement for a compact source of electron 
beam generation while still preserving the beam characteristics that 
are optimal for cleaning omissions. 

These evaluation judgments clearly were consistent with the stated 
objectives for the research topic, and clearly were based on the 
contents of VAC's proposal; as there is no showing of bad faith, 
conflict of interest or regulatory violation, we have no basis to 
object to the awards.[2]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The SBIR program requires federal agencies to reserve a portion of 
their research requirements for small businesses.  Agencies enter into 
funding agreements in the form of grants, cooperative agreements or 
contracts with small businesses after receiving and evaluating 
proposals submitted in response to a solicitation.

2. Further, since as a result of the evaluation of its proposal VAC 
was ranked ninth and therefore is not in line for an award here, it is 
not an interested party to challenge to the evaluation of Berkeley's 
proposal.  See Dick Young Prods. Ltd., B-246837, Apr. 1, 1992, 92-1 
CPD  para.  336.