BNUMBER:  B-272681; B-272681.2
DATE:  October 25, 1996
TITLE:  ABB Power Generation, 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:ABB Power Generation, Inc.

File:     B-272681; B-272681.2

Date:     October 25, 1996

B. Michael Schestopol, Esq., and James F. Nagle, Esq., Oles, Morrison 
& Rinker, for the protester.
Gregory W. Vanagel, Esq., and William A. Hough, Esq., Army Corps of 
Engineers, for the agency.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that contracting agency improperly failed to disclose 
evaluation guidelines for rating certain proposal features as more 
desirable or less desirable is denied since agencies are not required 
to inform offerors of their specific rating methodology.

2.  Where record shows that even if protester's proposal had received 
the maximum possible score in an evaluation area associated with an 
allegedly inadequately discussed issue, it still would not have been 
in line for award; there is no basis to conclude that any inadequacy 
in discussions prejudiced the protester by depriving it of an 
opportunity for award. 

DECISION

ABB Power Generation, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
National Electric Coil (NEC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DACW21-95-R-0055, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah 
District, to rewind and refurbish four hydroelectric generators at the 
Hartwell Power Plant in Hartwell, Georgia.  ABB principally challenges 
the Army's evaluation of its proposal.

We deny the protests.

BACKGROUND

Each generator consists of a rotating cylinder inside a stationary 
cylinder, or stator.  Current is produced by induction through coil 
windings which are part of the stator.  The successful offeror would 
receive a fixed-price contract to design, manufacture, supply, and 
install new sets of stator coils and to otherwise refurbish the 
generators in accordance with specified performance requirements.    

Award would be made to the firm whose proposal offered the best 
overall value to the government.  The RFP stated that the Army was 
more concerned with obtaining superior technical features than with 
making an award at the lowest overall price, but would not make an 
award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve slightly 
superior features.  Proposals would be evaluated based upon four 
factors, in descending order of importance:  technical; previous 
experience; management; and price.  One of the three technical 
subfactors, at issue here, was winding installation.

Offerors were required to submit a completed contractor compliance 
checklist along with their technical proposals.  This checklist 
repeated the specifications and required offerors to indicate whether 
they proposed to conform with each specification, including those 
which could be met in more than one way.  Offerors' technical 
proposals were to have sufficient information and descriptive data to 
corroborate the checklist and other required information.

The Army evaluated each of the six proposals it received and included 
all of them in the competitive range.  Written and oral discussions 
were conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted.  The 
final evaluation results for the four highest-rated offers were as 
follows:[1]

                Firm A       NEC      Firm B      ABB

Technical        30.1       34.4       28.5      17.2

Previous Experience27.0     16.0       17.0      28.0

Management        9.5        9.0        9.0       9.0

Total            66.6       59.4       54.5      54.2

Price         $9,267,023 $5,680,180 $7,619,126[DELETED]  
The source selection board report identified the advantages and 
disadvantages of each proposal, and the source selection decision 
summary contained a comparative analysis of the board's findings.  In 
concluding that NEC offered the best value to the government, the 
contract specialist stated that although Firm A had a higher score 
overall, NEC outscored the firm in the technical area, and the risk 
associated with NEC's previous experience was not considered 
significant enough to outweigh the cost difference between the two.  
ABB's lower-rated proposal was not addressed in the contract 
specialist's cost/technical tradeoff analysis.  However, she noted 
that the firm's side packing system was a "conformance fit" system, as 
opposed to the superior "interference fit" system offered by NEC, and 
that ABB's proposed check wedging system did not afford the most 
optimum method for checking spring deflection, while NEC's description 
of its check wedge system indicated a superior approach.  The award 
was made to NEC on July 3, 1996, and these protests followed.

ABB's protest centers around the Army's evaluation of its technical 
proposal under the winding installation subfactor.  ABB contends that 
the agency improperly failed to advise offerors of its evaluation 
guidelines and conducted inadequate or misleading discussions with the 
firm.  

DISCUSSION

In accordance with the evaluation plan, the evaluators divided the 
winding installation subfactor into four areas, one of which was side 
packing.  Side packing is the medium that envelops the stator coils to 
protect them from damage.  

Paragraph 2.7.2 of the RFP's specifications informed offerors that:

     "One of the following side packing systems shall be used:

          (1)Multiple layers of conducting felt shall be used to 
             completely fill the space between the coils and the sides 
             of the slots.
          (2)A semi-conducting silicone rubber compound shall be 
             applied to the sides of the coils and cured before coil 
             insertion.  The silicone rubber shall form an 
             interference fit with the sides of the slot.
          (3)A semi-conductive coil wrapper used in conjunction with 
             conducting putty shall be continuously applied throughout 
             the length of the slot.  The coil shall be inserted into 
             the slot before the putty has cured.
          (4)Other approved systems.  No systems will be approved     
             which required the side filler to be driven in the slot         
             after the coil has been inserted."

Item number 31 of the contractor compliance checklist essentially 
restated these alternatives.  ABB's compliance checklist indicated 
that the firm was offering a system which utilizes a semi-conductive 
wrapper in conjunction with conducting putty--alternative (3).

The evaluation plan contained guidelines for rating each area of the 
proposals, including offerors' side packing systems.  Offerors 
proposing the silicone rubber "interference fit" system--alternative 
(2)--would receive the maximum 20 points; offerors proposing the 
semi-conductive coil wrapper system--alternative (3)--would receive 10 
points; and offerors proposing the felt system--alternative (1)--would 
receive 0 points.[2]  These guidelines were not disclosed in the 
solicitation.  ABB's proposal received 10 points, commensurate with 
its offer to provide alternative (3).[3]  
ABB argues that the Army improperly failed to disclose its evaluation 
guidelines with respect to side packing systems.[4]  The firm equates 
these guidelines to undisclosed evaluation factors, and asserts that 
the competition was not meaningful because offerors were competing "in 
the blind."

We do not agree with ABB.  These guidelines provided the evaluators 
with guidance as to how certain features should be evaluated and, as 
such, they constituted an evaluation methodology, not undisclosed 
evaluation factors.  Agencies are not required to inform offerors of 
their specific rating methodology.  Lexis-Nexis, B-260023, May 22, 
1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  14.  In appropriate circumstances, agencies may 
establish evaluation standards to provide evaluators with guidelines 
as to the quality of proposals in certain evaluation areas, and the 
fact that certain features have been identified by the agency as more 
desirable or less desirable does not require that they be disclosed to 
offerors.  Id.  The guidelines at issue here merely reflected what the 
agency, based on prior experience, reasonably viewed to be a superior 
technical approach to satisfying the side packing system requirement; 
the RFP left it to the offerors to devise what they believed to be the 
best approach to meeting the agency's requirements, including 
selection of one of the side packing alternatives, and there was no 
guarantee that the agency would consider each approach to be equally 
effective.  Pitney Bowes, 68 Comp. Gen. 249 (1989), 89-1 CPD  para.  157, 
aff'd, 
B-233100.2, June 22, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  587; Canadian Commercial 
Corp./Canadian Marconi Co., B-250699.4, Mar. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  251.  

ABB next argues that the agency conducted inadequate discussions with 
the firm because its proposal and response to a discussion question 
made it clear that the firm believed it was offering an 
interference-fit side packing system--alternative (2) in the 
evaluation guidelines--for which 20 (not 10) points were to be 
awarded.[5]  ABB asserts that the agency was obligated to pursue the 
matter with the firm during discussions before concluding that it did 
not offer an interference-fit system.  We need not reach this issue, 
since the record shows that even if ABB were correct, the firm would 
not be prejudiced by any impropriety on the agency's part.

In response to the protests, the Army reevaluated proposals, giving 
ABB full credit for having proposed an interference-fit side packing 
system.  ABB's revised technical score is 27.2, as compared with NEC's 
technical score of 34.4, and ABB's revised overall score is 64.2, as 
compared with NEC's overall score of 59.4.  Notwithstanding these 
revisions, the Army's conclusion that NEC represents the best value to 
the government remains unchanged.
  
The reevaluation shows that NEC's score under the most important 
evaluation factor, technical, is higher than ABB's, principally 
because the firm's description of its check wedging system indicated a 
superior approach.[6]  The Army acknowledges that one of NEC's 
references reported an incident wherein its check wedge materials 
installed in 1984 were dropping out, indicating significant risk of 
winding failure and materials damage which could lead to a unit 
shutdown.  This risk led to NEC's significantly lower rating under the 
previous experience factor.  However, in performing her cost/technical 
tradeoff analysis, the contracting officer stated that  NEC's proposal 
of a superior check wedge system may have reduced the risk of wedges 
falling out.  Given NEC's technical superiority, the contracting 
officer stated that the firm's higher risk under the previous 
experience factor was not considered significant compared to the total 
cost premium represented by ABB's proposal.  Consequently, NEC's 
proposal was a better value to the government.
     
ABB challenges this reevaluation by asserting that the assessment of 
NEC's check wedging system as superior is inconsistent with its 
previous experience rating and the incident noted above.[7]  The firm 
suggests that NEC's proposed check wedge system must be defective if 
check wedges fell out.  However, there is nothing in the record to 
suggest that the check wedge system proposed by NEC in 1996 has any 
relationship to the system used by NEC in 1984 when it installed the 
coils in the incident at issue, and the protester's disagreement with 
the agency's evaluation does not itself render the evaluation 
unreasonable.  Litton Sys., Inc., B-237596.3, Aug. 8, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  
115.  

Thus, the results of the agency's reevaluation indicate that NEC's 
proposal was technically superior to ABB's, largely on the basis of 
its check wedging system, and that the risk which led to NEC's lower 
previous performance rating was not significant when compared to the 
large cost premium represented by ABB's proposal.  Under the 
circumstances, we are unable to conclude that any inadequacy in 
discussions prejudiced the protester by depriving the firm of an 
opportunity for award.  Environmental Sys. and Servs., Inc., B-244213, 
Oct. 2, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  283.   Prejudice is an essential element of a 
viable protest, and we will not sustain a protest where, as here, no 
prejudice is evident from the record.  Lithos Restoration Ltd., 71 
Comp. Gen. 367 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  379.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. No proposals are at issue here save those of ABB and NEC.

2. The fourth alternative was scored according to how closely it 
matched the other three specifically identified methods.  While it is 
not at issue here, it is unclear how the agency could properly give 0 
points to a proposal offering alternative (1) when that very 
alternative was listed in the solicitation as an acceptable method of 
side packing.

3. NEC's proposal received 20 points for offering an interference-fit 
side packing system.  ABB does not challenge this rating.

4. ABB also raises this argument with respect to the second of the 
three technical evaluation subfactors, winding losses.  Our conclusion 
concerning the evaluation guidelines is applicable to both of these 
arguments.

5. As noted above, ABB's compliance checklist indicated that the firm 
was offering an alternative (3) system.  While the description of the 
system in the text of its proposal (a system "which consists of 
wrapping the slot portions of the coil with a folded semi-conducting 
protection paper filled with a small amount of an elastic compound in 
the fold") is consistent with the specification definition of an 
alternative (2) system, the proposal also referred to the system as an 
"interference-type round-packing system."  Also, in response to a 
discussion question concerning the type of elastic compound ABB 
proposed to use, ABB, referring to an enclosed photograph, advised the 
agency to "note . . . the interference fit."

6. The check wedge system allows for measurements to be taken that 
would indicate how well the packing around the coils is holding up and 
may indicate the need for maintenance repairs in order to prevent a 
failure.  A greater number of check wedges allows for more measurement 
along the length of the spring and provides for a more accurate 
estimation of the compression changes in the spring.  NEC provided for 
more check wedges than did ABB.

7. ABB also complains that the Army's evaluation improperly failed to 
consider NEC's negative performance on a project taken over by ABB in 
1991.  This allegation, raised for the first time in its comments, is 
untimely.  ABB knew when it filed its initial protest that previous 
experience was an evaluation factor, and challenged the Army's 
evaluation of NEC under this factor, arguing that NEC had no 
performance history.  Yet the protester also knew when it filed its 
initial protest that it had taken over a project on which NEC had 
performed badly.  If ABB believed that NEC's performance on this 
project should have had a negative impact on its previous experience 
rating, as it now suggests, the firm should have raised the issue in 
its initial protest.  A protester may not introduce a new issue in its 
comments that it could have raised in its initial submission to our 
Office, as our Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate the 
unwarranted piecemeal presentation of protest issues.  See Remtech, 
Inc., 70 Comp. Gen. 165 (1991), 91-1 CPD  para.  35.