BNUMBER:  B-272182
DATE:  September 9, 1996
TITLE:  Heimann Systems, 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:Heimann Systems, Inc.

File:     B-272182

Date:September 9, 1996

Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq., for the protester.
Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Rand L. Allen, Esq., and Mark H. Neblett, Esq., 
Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for EG&G Astrophysics Research Corporation, an 
intervenor.
Joni M. Gibson, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency.
Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that evaluation of technical and price proposals was 
improper is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was 
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria.

2.  Use of price scoring formula in the evaluation of proposals is not 
objectionable merely because the solicitation did not inform offerors 
that the formula would be used.

DECISION

Heimann Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to EG&G 
Astrophysics Research Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. MS-96-R-0006, issued by the United States Marshals Service (USMS), 
Department of Justice, for the acquisition and installation of x-ray 
security screening systems.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price, indefinite quantity, 
indefinite delivery contract for 1 base year, with four 1-year 
options.  Offerors were required to submit technical and price 
proposals, plus a sample x-ray screening unit for testing and 
evaluation.  The technical proposals and samples were to be evaluated 
under the following criteria:  meeting specifications (60 of 100 
available points); degree to which system's performance and features 
exceed specifications, especially "resolution" and "penetration" (20 
points); execution plan, resumes, corporate overview, and corporate 
references (10 points); and past performance (10 points).  The 
technical evaluation was worth 60 percent of the overall score, and 
the price evaluation 40 percent, with award to be made on a best value 
basis.  

Of six proposals received by the closing date, two--Heimann's and 
EG&G's--were included in the competitive range.  These proposals were 
scored as follows[1]:

Offeror    Raw Technical ScoreNormalizedTechnical Score
                                 Price Score
                                            Price      
                                                       Total Score

Heimann    96.6       57.99      31.78      $8,703,620 89.74

EG&G       76.2       43.80      40.00      $6,915,850 83.80
Discussions were held with Heimann and EG&G.  Heimann was informed 
that its proposal was technically acceptable, with no deficiencies, 
but two weaknesses were identified, only one of which is relevant 
here.  The sample units were required to undergo a "power supply 
interruption" test, the purpose of which was to determine how long it 
would take for a unit to automatically power-up and resume functioning 
should power be cut.  Heimann was advised that, during the test, black 
lines (vertical bands) appeared across the monitor of Heimann's unit 
following the restoration of power.  In addition, Heimann was told 
that its price was considered "somewhat excessive."  EG&G, whose 
proposal was found conditionally technically acceptable, was informed 
of two deficiencies and two weaknesses in its proposal.  Both offerors 
were advised that they would be given 4 days to make any repairs or 
changes to their sample units, after which best and final offers 
(BAFO) were to be submitted.

Based on the BAFOs and retesting, EG&G's unit was found technically 
acceptable because all cited deficiencies and weaknesses had been 
corrected.  Although Heimann's unit passed the power interruption 
test, as it had before, the black lines which appeared on the screen 
following restart still appeared.  Heimann corrected the other cited 
weakness in its proposal and reduced its price.  The BAFO scoring was 
as follows:

Offeror    Raw Technical ScoreNormalizedTechnical Score
                                 Price Score
                                            Price      
                                                       Total Score

Heimann    99         59.40      35.36      $7,824,240 94.76

EG&G       91.6       54.96      40.00      $6,915,850 94.96
Because EG&G's proposal received a higher total overall score, and 
offered a significantly lower evaluated price than Heimann's, it was 
judged the best value to the government, and award was made to EG&G on 
May 21.  

Heimann challenges both the technical and price evaluations.  In 
reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not 
our role to reevaluate proposals.  Rather, our Office examines the 
record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and 
in accord with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria.  All Star 
Maintenance, Inc., B-271119, June 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  278.

HEIMANN'S TECHNICAL SCORE

Heimann maintains that since it was told in discussions that its 
proposal contained no deficiencies, only weaknesses, and Heimann 
corrected the weaknesses in its BAFO, its proposal, which received 99 
raw score points, should have received the maximum possible score of 
100 (60 normalized) points.  This 1-point raw score increase would 
raise Heimann's total normalized score to 95.36, higher than EG&G's, 
and, Heimann asserts, thus would entitle Heimann to award.

This argument is without merit.  There is no basis to conclude that 
Heimann's technical proposal was entitled to a perfect score, since 
the "black lines" problem with its monitor was not resolved in 
Heimann's BAFO.  In this regard, although Heimann asserts that it 
corrected all weaknesses in its BAFO, its BAFO letter stated with 
respect to the "black lines" problem only that:

        ". . . our technical personnel have analyzed this problem and 
        have identified the solution.  This problem being fairly 
        minor, we have decided not to implement it on the test unit 
        but a viable solution is available should USMS decide this to 
        be mandatory to meet the minimum requirement." 

The agency determined that Heimann's proposal was technically 
acceptable notwithstanding this weakness, but Heimann's failure to 
correct it reasonably justified a 1-point reduction in Heimann's raw 
score.

UNDISCLOSED PRICE SCORING FORMULA

The price scores were determined as follows:  USMS assigned the 
maximum        40 points to the lowest-priced proposal in the 
competitive range (EG&G's), and then  divided EG&G's price by 
Heimann's and multiplied by 40 to arrive at Heimann's score of 35.36.  
Heimann objects to the use of this scoring method on the basis that it 
was not disclosed in the solicitation.  This argument is without 
merit.  While the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that 
price and technical evaluation factors, and their relative importance, 
be set forth in the solicitation, see FAR  sec.  15.605(d)(1) and (2) (FAC 
90-31), it does not require agencies to disclose the price evaluation 
formula that will be applied.  The use of the type of price scoring 
formula that the agency utilized here, without disclosure in the RFP 
of the agency's intention to use it, is relatively common and is not 
objectionable.  See Centex Constr. Co., Inc., B-238777, June 14, 1990, 
90-1 CPD  para.  566; Didactic Sys., Inc., B-190507, June 7, 1978, 78-1 CPD  para.  
418.    

Heimann argues that the final price score computation should have 
included two proposals that were eliminated from the competitive 
range; since one was priced lower than EG&G's proposal, Heimann 
concludes that doing so would have reduced EG&G's price score 
sufficiently to make Heimann's proposal the highest rated.  This 
argument is specious.  It clearly would be irrational to base the 
scoring of BAFOs on a comparison with initial offers that were 
rejected before reaching the BAFO stage of the competition.[2]  
Utilization of an otherwise acceptable scoring approach that produces 
an irrational result in a given case is inappropriate.  Francis & 
Jackson, Assocs., 57 Comp. Gen. 244 (1978), 78-1 CPD  para.  79.

WARRANTY

Heimann maintains that its offered warranty--3 years on the screening 
unit and        5 years on the x-ray generator--went beyond the 
required 1-year warranty, but that this was not reflected in the 
technical and price evaluations.  Heimann argues that the value of the 
additional warranty it offered is $139,181, based on repair services 
required on the current incumbent contract; subtracting $139,181 from 
Heimann's BAFO price would result in a high overall score of 95.40.  
This argument is without merit.  The technical evaluation report 
clearly shows that Heimann's warranty was considered a strength under 
the technical evaluation criterion for qualities that exceed 
specifications.  Further, there was no basis for factoring the value 
of the extended warranty into Heimann's price, since the RFP did not 
provide for consideration of the value of an extended warranty in the 
price evaluation.  See North Am. Automated Sys. Co., Inc., B-216561, 
Feb. 15, 1985, 85-1 CPD  para.  203.  Heimann raises other arguments 
concerning the warranty which are without merit, and do not warrant 
discussion.

PAST PERFORMANCE INTERPRETATION

The RFP, section L-2 (5), "Corporate References/Past Performance," 
required that offerors provide "a minimum of five (5) current, or 
previous clients who are receiving, or have received 'like' 
supplies/services to the USMS requirement."  Heimann argues that this 
provision should have been construed as requiring client references 
who have received the exact unit offered, and that, since EG&G's unit 
is not the precise unit previously furnished, EG&G's proposal should 
have been downgraded in this area.  Heimann's strict reading of the 
term "like" is unwarranted.
USMS states that its intention was to obtain references from previous 
clients who had purchased the same or similar equipment, and the word 
"like," as relevant here, is defined as "the same or nearly the same," 
"having the characteristics of," and "similar to."[3]  Given that the 
RFP did not elsewhere require that the references be based on the 
identical unit, there was no basis for downgrading EG&G's proposal in 
this area.

Heimann also argues that EG&G's proposal was deficient because its 
sample unit was a prototype rather than a production model, which 
Heimann read the RFP as requiring.  There was no requirement that the 
sample be a production model.   Section L-21 of the RFP required as a 
sample "one (1) X-ray System with Dual Energy Color System Option as 
proposed by the offeror"; it did not state that the sample must 
currently be in production or commercially available.  Where the 
solicitation does not require that the item to be procured be a 
production model, there is no basis to object to the offering of a 
prototype.  See generally Agema Infrared Sys., B-222623, June 4, 1986, 
86-1 CPD  para.  524.[4]

ALLEGED IMPROPER MODIFICATION OF EG&G'S SAMPLE UNIT

Heimann maintains that EG&G was improperly permitted to repair or 
modify its sample unit after the BAFO deadline for doing so.  This 
argument is refuted by the record.  EG&G's sample unit initially 
failed the power supply interruption test.  Following discussions, 
EG&G corrected the problem by installing an uninterruptible power 
source (UPS) on the unit.  When EG&G's unit was subsequently retested 
after BAFOs, the unit was found to be unplugged, and it would only 
start after being plugged in for approximately 30 minutes.  Once 
started, the unit passed the power supply interruption test.  Four 
days later, the contracting officer contacted EG&G and requested 
clarification as to how to start the unit.  EG&G informed him of the 
installation of the UPS and stated that the reason for the 30-minute 
start-up delay was either that the UPS battery had not been fully 
charged, or had become discharged when the unit was disconnected from 
AC power.  EG&G stated that this would not happen if the machine were 
plugged in so the battery could sustain a charge of at least 50 
percent; the battery then would remain charged and the unit could 
easily be started.  The unit was subsequently retested and started 
after being unplugged from AC power for 30 minutes.  As EG&G's unit 
was not defective in any way, and did not require repairing or 
modifying, Heimann's argument is without merit.[5]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The raw technical score was "normalized" by multiplying it by 60 
percent in order to attain the proper weighted score required under 
the RFP.  The price score was derived by assigning the maximum 40 
points to the lowest price and proportionately fewer points to the 
higher-priced proposal based on the amount of the price difference.

2. Heimann raises additional arguments which are equally without 
merit, and do not warrant discussion.

3. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983.

4. USMS states that EG&G's sample unit, model 215, is an upgraded 
model of an earlier version of Linescan X-ray machines produced by 
EG&G and used by USMS under a prior contract.

5. Heimann claims that it could have rectified its unit's "black 
lines" problem had it been given the same extra time given EG&G to 
correct its unit's start-up delay problem.  However, as we found 
above, unlike Heimann's unit, the problem with EG&G's unit did not 
reflect any defect and EG&G's actions did not constitute repair or 
modification.  Moreover, Heimann's BAFO statement that it would 
correct the problem only if mandatory indicated that it had no 
intention to fix the problem in its BAFO; there is no indication that 
the problem would have been addressed had more time been granted.