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.