BNUMBER: B-271293
DATE: May 24, 1996
TITLE: Orbit Advanced Technologies, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Orbit Advanced Technologies, Inc.
File: B-271293
Date:May 24, 1996
John W. Fowler, Jr., Esq., Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley, for the
protester.
Maj. Jeffrey W. Watson and Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Department of the
Air Force, for the agency.
Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
The contracting agency reasonably excluded the protester's proposal
from the competitive range where the number and magnitude of
deficiencies and weaknesses evaluated in the protester's unacceptable
proposal would necessitate a major proposal revision for the proposal
to be made acceptable.
DECISION
Orbit Advanced Technologies, Inc. protests the exclusion of its
proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP)
No. F33657-95-R-0049, issued by the Department of the Air Force for a
radome verification system.
The protest is denied.
The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, provided for the
award of a fixed-price contract for the construction of a radome
verification system at Warner-Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. The
radome in question is a bulbous-shaped housing that covers the radar
on the MC-130H Combat Talon II aircraft. Verification testing is
performed to ensure that the housing surface has no blemishes that
would degrade the effectiveness of the radar signal. The contractor
is to provide on a turnkey basis the complete facility necessary to
perform the radome verification testing. This includes construction
of an anechoic chamber,[1] a "parent enclosure," and provision of all
necessary equipment and software to perform the testing. Detailed
specifications for the facility and equipment were provided in the
RFP.
Offerors were informed that award would be made on a best value basis,
based upon an integrated assessment of the offerors' proposals under
stated specific evaluation factors and general considerations, and
considering the offerors' evaluated proposal and performance risks.
The following evaluation factors and subfactors were identified, as
being in descending order of importance:
Technical
a. Anechoic chamber and equipment
b. Parent enclosure
c. Software
c. Testing, time, and methodology
Management
a. Program management
b. Logistics management
Price
Offerors were also informed that the agency would assess the soundness
of approach presented by a proposal, as well as the offerors'
understanding and compliance with the RFP requirements. The RFP
provided that proposals were limited to 100 pages for the technical
evaluation factor and 50 pages for the program management factor, and
that technical proposals must identify the equipment and software
offered and how the offered equipment and software satisfied the
technical requirements. Offerors were also instructed to provide
sufficient cost/price information to establish the reasonableness,
realism, and completeness of proposed pricing.
The Air Force received four proposals, including Orbit's, by the
closing date for receipt of proposals. Initial proposals were
evaluated under an adjectival rating scheme, as follows:[2]
Offerors A B C Orbit
Technical
Anechoic Chamber Y/L Y/M Y/M R/H
Parent Enclosure Y/M R/H Y/L R/H
Software Y/L Y/M Y/L Y/M
Testing, time, and methodology Y/L Y/M Y/L
R/H
Management
Program Management Y/H Y/M Y/H Y/H
Logistics Management Y/M Y/M Y/M Y/M
Price $6.2M[3] $8.5M $7.2M $6.9M
Orbit's unacceptable ratings under three of the four technical
evaluation subfactors reflected the evaluators' view that Orbit's
proposal required major revisions to become acceptable. In this
regard, the agency's evaluators identified 39 deficiencies and 39
other areas requiring clarification in Orbit's proposal. For example,
under the anechoic chamber subfactor, the evaluators found, among
other things, that Orbit did not provide emergency lighting for the
chamber; that Orbit did not provide limit switches on the positioner
axes of the "unit under test" (UUT); that Orbit's proposed signal
source subsystem did not meet spectral purity or internal leveling
requirements; and that Orbit's proposed power supplies for the UUT
stimulus generator did not meet resolution and ripple requirements.
Orbit's proposal was also assessed as unacceptable under the parent
enclosure subfactor because Orbit did not address the acoustical
control and facility power requirements. Under the testing, time, and
methodology subfactor, Orbit's proposal was evaluated as not being
compliant with the specification requirements for back-to-back beam
deflection; also it did not address required validation and acceptance
testing. With regard to price, the agency determined that Orbit had
failed to provide sufficient data in its price proposal to allow the
agency to assess the reasonableness, realism, or completeness of the
proposed pricing.
Given the number and magnitude of the deficiencies identified in
Orbit's initial proposal, the Air Force concluded that Orbit's
proposal could not be made acceptable without significant revision.
The Air Force determined that "[t]here was no reasonable expectation
that [Orbit] will so significantly correct their deficiencies . . .
that [it] would improve [its] potential for award over another
offeror." The remaining offerors' proposals were found to include
weaknesses and deficiencies of less magnitude than Orbit's and which
would not require major revision for the proposals to become
acceptable. Orbit's proposal was thus excluded from the competitive
range, which included the remaining three offerors' proposals. This
protest followed.
Orbit does not challenge the agency's evaluation of its proposal but
asserts that the deficiencies and weaknesses identified in its
proposal can be corrected without major effort. In this regard, Orbit
argues that most of the deficiencies or weaknesses identified in its
proposal are informational deficiencies.[4]
An offeror must submit an initial proposal that is adequately written
and that affirmatively states its merits, or run the risk of having
its proposal rejected as technically unacceptable. Defense Group,
Inc., B-253795, Oct. 25, 1993, 94-1 CPD para. 196. Generally, offers that
are technically unacceptable as submitted and would require major
revisions to become acceptable are not required to be included in the
competitive range for discussion purposes. Engineering & Computation,
Inc., B-258728, Jan. 31, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 155. In reviewing whether a
proposal was properly rejected as technically unacceptable for
informational deficiencies, we examine the record to determine, among
other things, whether the RFP called for detailed information and the
nature of the informational deficiencies--for example, whether the
deficiencies tend to show that the offeror did not understand what it
would be required to do under the contract. Id.
Here, we find reasonable the agency's exclusion of Orbit's proposal
from the competitive range. The RFP required offerors to provide
sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed system
satisfied the RFP's specifications. The RFP also required offerors to
provide sufficient price/cost information to establish the
reasonableness, realism, and completeness of the offeror's proposed
price. Orbit failed to satisfy any of these requirements. As noted
above, Orbit's proposal was evaluated as containing 78 deficiencies
and weaknesses, essentially because Orbit failed to provide
information showing compliance with significant specification
requirements and in some instances, offered noncompliant equipment.
While Orbit argues that all of the evaluated deficiencies and
weaknesses are correctable, the number and magnitude of Orbit's
deficiencies and weaknesses support the Air Force's judgment that
major revisions to Orbit's proposal would be required to demonstrate
Orbit's compliance with the RFP's requirements.[5] Also, as pointed
out by the Air Force, the extensiveness of the deficiencies in Orbit's
proposal calls into question Orbit's understanding of the contract
requirements. Given the extensiveness of the evaluated deficiencies
and weaknesses in Orbit's proposal (which Orbit does not contest), we
agree with the Air Force that correction of Orbit's proposal would
necessitate a major proposal revision. Under these circumstances, the
agency was not required to include Orbit's unacceptable proposal in
the competitive range.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. An "anechoic chamber" is designed to be free of echo and
reverberation.
2. Proposals were evaluated under each evaluation factor as either
"B," blue/exceptional; "G," green/acceptable; "Y," yellow/marginal;
or "R," red/unacceptable. A yellow rating indicated that the proposal
failed to meet evaluation standards but could be corrected, while a
red rating indicated that the proposal failed to meet a minimum RFP
requirement and could not be corrected without major revision.
Proposals were also evaluated for proposal risk as either "H," high;
"M," moderate; or "L," low risk.
3."M" means million.
4. Orbit acknowledges that its proposed power supply for the UUT
stimulus generator system is not compliant with the RFP's
specifications, but asserts without proof that this deficiency is also
easily correctable.
5. Orbit also argues that the number of informational deficiencies in
its proposal is understandable given the RFP's page limitations.
Orbit, however, did not protest the solicitation's page limitations.
In any event, we find from our review of Orbit's technical proposal
that Orbit did not even use all the pages to which it was entitled
under the RFP.