BNUMBER:  B-272290; B-272290.2
DATE:  September 13, 1996
TITLE:  AlliedSignal, 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:AlliedSignal, Inc.

File:     B-272290; B-272290.2

Date:September 13, 1996

James M. McHale, Esq., Trisa J. Thompson, Esq., and Mary Baroody Lowe, 
Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for the protester.
Norman A. Steiger, Esq., Goldberg & Connolly, for Miltope Corporation, 
an intervenor.
Major David P. Harney, JAGC, and Dalford R.V. Widner, Esq., Department 
of the Army, for the agency.
Andrew T. Pogany, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Contracting agency is responsible for evaluating the data 
submitted by an offeror and ascertaining if it provides sufficient 
information as required by the solicitation to determine the technical 
conformance or acceptability of the offeror's proposed item; the 
General Accounting Office will not disturb this technical 
determination unless it is shown to be unreasonable. 

2.  Adjectival ratings, like point scores, are used as a guideline for 
intelligent decision-making by source selection officials; award 
should not and need not be based solely on these ratings or scores.  A 
selection should reflect the procuring agency's considered judgment of 
whether significant technical differences exist in the proposals that 
identify a particular technical proposal as superior regardless of 
close technical scores or adjectival ratings among proposals. 

DECISION

AlliedSignal, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Miltope 
Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAH01-96-R-0029, 
issued by the U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 
for the Soldier's Portable On-system Repair Tool (SPORT), a portable, 
electronic, interactive maintenance device to test weapon systems.  
The protester contends that the agency misevaluated Miltope's 
technical proposal which allegedly failed to contain sufficiently 
detailed technical information concerning the proposed weight of a 
major component of the SPORT, the Controller/Diagnostic Aid (CDA).[1]

We deny the protest.

The SPORT is comprised of two major components, the CDA and the 
instrumentation expansion chassis.  The CDA, essentially a small 
computer, operates as a portable maintenance device to access 
electronic and interactive technical manuals.  The expansion chassis 
augments CDA capability by allowing use of additional bus or 
instrumentation cards.  The CDA is detachable from the expansion 
chassis and is capable of controlling the expansion chassis.  Both the 
CDA and the chassis are required to be "ruggedized" to withstand the 
physical environment of forward battle areas.  The SPORT will have the 
capability to test weapon systems, such as the Abrams Tank, Patriot, 
and Paladin systems, and is the next generation of contact test sets 
which is an item comprised of commercially available circuit cards 
packaged into a rugged chassis that is currently in use.  The concept 
for this requirement, the SPORT, is identical--the contractor is 
expected to integrate and package existing commercial off-the-shelf 
(COTS) components and products to develop, test, and deliver the 
SPORT.

The RFP, issued on October 31, 1995, contemplated a fixed-price, 
indefinite quantity contract.  Section M of the RFP stated that the 
"end item is the obtaining of commercially available (modified to the 
minimum extent possible) state-of-the-art technology."  The RFP 
provided that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose 
proposal was determined to offer the best value to the government, 
price and other factors considered, and that award could be made to 
other than the lowest-evaluated offeror.  The RFP stated that three 
areas would be evaluated:  technical, performance risk (with possible 
ratings of high, moderate, and low risk), and price.  Technical was 
stated to be the most important area and was slightly more important 
than price which, in turn, was moderately more important than 
performance risk.[2]  The technical area was divided into three 
equally weighted "elements."  The first element was engineering 
approach, under which the agency would evaluate the extent to which an 
offeror's proposal exceeds specifications, "excluding the [CDA] weight 
and test approach [which] will be evaluated separately," the extent to 
which the offeror's proposed approach is workable and achievable, the 
extent to which successful performance is not contingent upon untried 
and unproved devices and techniques, and the offeror's schedule.[3] 

The second element under the technical area was the proposed weight of 
the CDA.  The RFP stated as follows:

        "(2)  CDA Weight - The government will evaluate the extent to 
        which the offeror's proposal exceeds the CDA weight 
        requirement as specified [in the SPORT specification].  A 
        weight of 13-15 pounds will receive a satisfactory rating,      
        11-12 pounds a very good rating, and 10 pounds or less an 
        outstanding rating."

The third element in the technical area, not relevant here, was test 
approach.  Additionally, the RFP advised offerors that proposal risk 
would be evaluated as follows:

        "Proposal risk is defined as the risks associated with an 
        offeror's proposed approach for meeting [the requirements and 
        is] integrated into the rating of each specific area, element, 
        and factor excluding performance risk.  [Proposal risk may 
        include an] apparent lack of a full understanding of the 
        government's requirement as evidenced by the offeror's 
        proposed approach and/or supporting rationale [or] 
        inconsistencies between an offeror's technical and price 
        proposals."

Finally, the RFP advised that proposed technical features in each 
proposal that the government deemed advantageous (such as those 
exceeding minimum requirements of the specifications) may be 
incorporated as contract requirements upon award.[4]

The agency received 12 proposals by December 21, 1995, the closing 
date for receipt of initial proposals.  Six offers, including the 
protester's and Miltope's, remained in the competitive range after 
initial and interim evaluations and following the receipt of proposal 
revisions.  As relevant here, Miltope proposed an "absolute" weight 
for the CDA of 9 pounds and received an "outstanding" rating for this 
feature with moderate risk because a breakdown of individual weights 
of existing COTS components was not provided; the protester proposed a 
CDA weight of [deleted] and received a [deleted] rating with [deleted] 
risk.  Aside from Miltope, two other offerors proposed CDA weights in 
the "outstanding" category (8.85 and 9.13 pounds).  In fact, all but 
one competitive range offeror offered lighter weight CDAs than did the 
protester.  Miltope was advised by the agency during discussions that 
11 technical features, including the CDA weight of 9 pounds, "would be 
incorporated as a part of any resultant contract."  After discussions 
were concluded, best and final offers (BAFO) were received and 
evaluated with the following results.[5]

   Offeror      Technical/        Proposal Risk
                                Performance Risk       
                                                     Price

Miltope         Very Good/Low[6]Low               $119,946,680

Allied          [deleted]       [deleted]           $[deleted]
The source selection authority (SSA) made a determination to award the 
contract to Miltope as the firm whose proposal represented the best 
value to the government.  In doing so, the SSA did not rely solely on 
the basis of Miltope's proposed CDA weight, but also on the following 
additional advantages of Miltope's technical proposal, among others, 
which were not proposed by the protester:  (1) an internal hard disk 
drive of 720 Mbytes, allowing the government additional disk drive 
space to store more applications; (2) monochrome display contrast 
ratio of 55:1 at an illumination of 100 foot-candles, and 19:1 at 
5,000 foot-candles, which significantly exceeded RFP requirements; (3) 
interactive authoring and display system for use in development of 
interactive manuals; and (4) CDA processor speed of 100Mhz, which will 
provide the capability to efficiently display complex, high resolution 
graphics and to perform multi-tasking operations.  

The protester argues that Miltope, by not breaking down the individual 
weights of each of its COTS CDA components, failed to present 
information adequate to demonstrate that its approach is workable and 
the end result achievable.  According to the protester, Miltope's only 
"demonstration" regarding its claim of a CDA weight of 9 pounds was a 
wholly unsupported statement that "[t]he product weight is absolute, 
based on actual units (previously shown in figure 3-2)."  The 
protester states that Figure 3.2 is only an "artist rendering of 
Miltope's CDA unit with a list of its features" and nowhere in its 
proposal "does a photograph or any other evidence appear showing any 
'actual units' which Miltope ever produced."  The protester also 
argues that the SSP permitted an "outstanding" rating to be awarded 
only if that offeror's proposal provided "extensive detail" to 
indicate the feasibility of its technical approach.  The protester 
therefore states that Miltope was not entitled to an "outstanding" 
rating for CDA weight because this weight was unsupported with 
substantial evidence in its proposal and was based on a bare promise.  
Finally, the protester states that had Miltope received a score of 
"satisfactory" on its CDA weight element (reflecting an evaluation 
finding of "minimum detail"), both firms would have received the same 
adjectival ratings in all areas, and the protester would have been 
entitled to award as the low, technically equal offeror.

A contracting agency is responsible for evaluating the data submitted 
by an offeror and ascertaining if it provides sufficient information 
as required by the solicitation to determine the technical conformance 
or acceptability of the offeror's item; we will not disturb this 
technical determination unless it is shown to be unreasonable.  See 
Inframetrics, Inc., B-257400, Sept. 30, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  138; SAIC 
Computer Sys., B-258431.2, Mar. 13, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  156.

The RFP here specified that a CDA weight of 10 pounds or less would 
merit an "outstanding" rating, a weight of 11 to 12 pounds would merit 
a "very good" rating, and a weight of 13 to 15 pounds would receive a 
satisfactory rating.  In awarding Miltope an outstanding rating, the 
agency did not rely on a bare promise from Miltope.  Miltope's 
proposal indicated that the item was a highly integrated (340 cubic 
inches) lightweight solution of 9 pounds when configured to the SPORT 
specification and that the "product weight is absolute, based on 
actual units (previously shown in Figure 3-2)."  Miltope's proposal 
also contained a modular design drawing of the item (Figure 2-4), 
showing its various components, with a picture of the unit 
distinctively labeled as "Photo of CDA."  

The agency's technical experts further explain that they were very 
familiar with existing COTS components.  The chairman of the 
evaluation committee states as follows:

        "Manufacturers [were] given [by Miltope] for some of the 
        components, thus, exact weights could have been verified for 
        these components.  While other components do not specify a 
        manufacturer, common industry standards are specified which 
        allow [agency experts] to make reasonable assumptions about 
        the weight of the components of the CDA.  For example, the 
        [technical experts] know about how much a 2.5 inch disk drive 
        weighs as they are very common and made by many manufacturers.  
        This is also true of the 5.25" ISO Standard  CD-ROM drive. . . 
        .  So much of the CDA is COTS and governed by industry 
        standards that exact model numbers and manufacturers of 
        components were not needed to make Miltope's proposed CDA 
        weight credible to the [technical experts]."

We think Miltope's proposal provided a basis for the evaluators to 
reasonably conclude that Miltope had provided adequate information to 
support its proposed 9-pound CDA.  Miltope's proposal of a 9-pound 
unit was not unusual or extraordinary; as stated above, the agency 
received three offers of approximately that weight.  Further, the 
components of Miltope's unit were commercially available, and the 
agency was well aware of the general industry-standard weights for the 
components.  Miltope's proposal broke down the components (drawings 
and modular designs were included in its proposal) and identified some 
components by make and model number.  Additionally, Miltope made a 
specific factual representation that its proposed weight was based on 
the "absolute" weight of "actual units," which can only be reasonably 
interpreted as a factual representation that Miltope had identified 
and purchased the components, assembled the unit, and established its 
weight.  Indeed, Miltope even furnished a photograph of the assembled 
unit.  We therefore conclude that the agency reasonably determined, 
based in part on its own technical expertise, that "adequate 
information" had been provided by Miltope in this COTS procurement.  
We also note that Miltope readily agreed to legally bind itself to 
provide a 9-pound unit by incorporating this feature into the 
resulting contract.

Concerning the protester's arguments about the SSP, a contracting 
agency's failure to follow an SSP does not provide a basis for 
questioning the validity of an award selection because the SSP is an 
internal agency instruction and, as such, does not give outside 
parties any rights.  See Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., 72 Comp. 
Gen. 91 (1993), 93-1 CPD  para.  72.

Finally, we note that even if, as the protester argues, both firms 
should have received identical adjectival ratings in all technical 
areas, this would not necessarily mean that the agency had to view the 
offerors as essentially technically equal and award to the low 
offeror.  Adjectival ratings, like point scores, are used as a 
guideline for intelligent decision-making by source selection 
officials; award should not and need not be based solely on these 
ratings or scores.  Rather, a selection should reflect the procuring 
agency's considered judgment of whether significant technical 
differences exist in the proposals that identify a particular proposal 
as technically superior regardless of close scores or ratings among 
proposals.  See generally RCA Serv. Co., B-208871, Aug. 22, 1983, 83-2 
CPD  para.  221; Sperry Flight Sys., B-212229, Jan. 19, 1984, 84-1 CPD  para.  82.  
Here, the agency specifically determined that Miltope proposed a 
technically superior proposal in many technical areas other than CDA 
weight.  The protester has failed to challenge these findings by the 
agency.  Accordingly, even if Miltope should have received only a 
"satisfactory" rating for its CDA weight, we would still have no basis 
to disturb the selection decision given the clear findings by the 
agency of the technical superiority of the Miltope proposal in other 
important technical areas.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In its comments, the protester has abandoned all other issues 
initially raised in its original and supplemental protests.  See 
Fisons Instruments, Inc., B-261371, July 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  31.

2. The agency's source selection plan (SSP) assigned the following 
weights to the three areas:  technical (45 percent); price (35 
percent); and performance risk       (20 percent). 

3. The protester notes that section L of the RFP provided as follows:
            "Section 2 - Engineering Approach.  The Technical Proposal 
            Engineering Approach section shall present information 
            adequate to demonstrate [that] the engineering approach is 
            workable and the end result is achievable [and that] 
            successful performance is not contingent upon untried and 
            unproved devices and techniques." (Emphasis supplied by 
            the protester.)

4. Section H-8 of the RFP, "Special Notice," stated that "[t]echnical 
aspects of an offeror's proposal and upon which award may be based, 
may be incorporated as a part of the resultant contract."

5. We limit our discussion to the proposals of the protester and 
Miltope.  The agency's SSP employed adjectival ratings for all 
evaluation areas except cost of "outstanding" ("unique approach [with] 
extensive detail [and] very low risk"); "very good" (an approach with 
"adequate detail" with a low to moderate degree of risk); 
"satisfactory" (an approach with "minimum detail" with a low to 
moderate degree of risk); "poor" (an approach with "minor errors, 
omissions or deficiencies" with significant risk); and (5) 
"unacceptable" (major errors, omissions or deficiencies with very high 
risk).

6. In the technical area, Miltope received a "very good/low risk" in 
                its engineering approach; Allied received a 
                "[deleted]."  In CDA weight, Miltope received an 
                "outstanding/moderate risk," and Allied received a 
                "[deleted]."  The protester notes that the "moderate 
                risk" rating given to Miltope for its proposed CDA 
                weight reflected a finding by the agency that "no 
                detailed weight analysis was provided" by the firm.