BNUMBER:  B-274766
DATE:  January 2, 1997
TITLE:  Advanced American Diving Service, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Advanced American Diving Service, Inc.

File:     B-274766

Date:January 2, 1997

Tamara H. Lewis, Esq., and Joseph A. Yazbeck, Jr., Esq., Allen, 
Yazbeck & O'Halloran, for the protester.
Margaret S. Easton, Esq., and David C. Groff, Esq., Groff & Murphy, 
for Fletcher General, Inc., an intervenor.
John Breiling, Esq., and Robert C. Turner, Esq., Department of the 
Army, for the agency.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester's alternate design 
proposal for bulkheads as technically unacceptable and impermissibly 
made award on the basis of initial proposals is denied, where record 
shows agency reasonably concluded that the proposal contained 
informational deficiencies so significant that it did not demonstrate 
the technical feasibility of the design, and award to lowest-priced, 
technically acceptable offeror without discussions was consistent with 
the solicitation.   

DECISION

Advanced American Diving Service, Inc. (AAD) protests the rejection of 
its lowest-priced proposal as unacceptable and the award of a contract 
to Fletcher General, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DACW57-96-R-0030, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for 
fabrication/installation of two floating bulkheads (to dewater 
spillway bay work areas) and construction of flow deflectors/pier 
extensions at the John Jay Lock and Dam, Klickitat County, Washington.  
AAD challenges the agency's determination that its proposed alternate 
design for the bulkheads was not supported by sufficient information, 
rendering its proposal technically unacceptable.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, which contemplated an award of a fixed-price contract, 
permitted offers of either government or contractor designed 
bulkheads, and contained three technical evaluation factors of equal 
weight:  (1) technical realism, applicable to alternate design 
proposals, (2) qualifications, and (3) past performance.  For 
technical realism, the RFP advised that an alternate approach "must be 
practical and meet or exceed the quality and schedule terms of the 
government's design and technical approach" and, in this regard, that 
offers "should demonstrate that the alternate approach is realistic 
and more beneficial in terms of schedule and performance risk than the 
government specified approach."  The RFP also stated that, to be found 
acceptable, offers "must provide a reasonable assurance, in the 
opinion of the government, that the required work will be performed 
satisfactorily, ahead of schedule and under budget without undue 
risk."  Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the 
lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal.  The RFP advised that 
the government intended to make award without discussions, and that 
initial proposals therefore should be submitted on the offeror's most 
favorable terms.      

Five firms submitted proposals.  AAD and Fletcher General both 
submitted alternate design proposals.  AAD offered a commercial 
modular interlocking steel barge product known as Flexifloat, which 
normally is deployed in a flat, horizontal position.  AAD proposed to 
assemble seven of these units, turn them on their sides (and ends), 
and stack them side-to-side and end-to-end in a vertical position to 
form a bulkhead.  Although AAD's proposed price ($7,266,000) was low, 
its design was evaluated as technically unacceptable due to inadequate 
or omitted structural and engineering data necessary to demonstrate 
the feasibility of the design.[1]  The Corps therefore made award to 
Fletcher General as the low ($7,599,800) technically acceptable 
offeror.[2] 

Specifically, the Corps determined that key categories of information, 
primarily concerned with structural details and engineering analysis, 
necessary to demonstrate adequate structural capacity of AAD's 
alternate design, were missing from the firm's proposal.  This 
included details of load capacity or structural support necessary to 
convert the normally horizontally-deployed floats to a vertical 
bulkhead, including the internal bracing system, properties of 
materials used, such as strengths or allowable stresses, and lock 
connections between units.  Additional areas of missing information 
included procedures for positioning the system into the proposed 
vertical mode.  The agency considered all of this information to be of 
critical importance because using the floats in a vertical position as 
a bulkhead would subject them to load conditions and structural forces 
(i.e., a two-way bending action) different from those that would be 
encountered when they are used in the horizontal position where 
continuous buoyant support conditions exist.  The agency was 
specifically concerned that the floats would tend to tip, causing 
instability, since the floats are built to be bottom-heavy so they 
will float top-side up.[3]  The agency determined that this potential 
instability was not addressed in AAD's proposal--the manufacturer's 
data AAD submitted addressed only the horizontal application of the 
floats.  Further, the agency considered the drawings AAD submitted to 
be inadequate to the extent that they addressed the design, because 
the drawings were not stamped and certified by a professional engineer 
or otherwise supported by the manufacturer's designers.   

AAD argues that its submitted data--one page of manufacturer's 
specifications (including unit dimensions, weight, rated-load 
capacity, lock spacing, lock strength, plate thickness, deck beam 
spacing and deck bearing); one page of manufacturer's descriptive 
literature on the unit locking or connector system (with a 
photograph); and six drawings showing the physical arrangement of the 
floats and connectors--adequately presented its alternate design, and 
that the agency either ignored the data or failed to appropriately 
analyze it.

In reviewing a technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate proposals; 
rather, we will examine the record to ensure that the evaluation was 
reasonable and consistent with the RFP evaluation criteria and 
applicable statutes and regulations.  Information Sys. & Networks 
Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 284 (1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  203;  Dylantic, Inc., 
B-261886, Oct. 30, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  197.  Based on our review of the 
record, we conclude that the Army reasonably determined that AAD's 
alternate design proposal was technically unacceptable for lack of 
adequate supporting information.  We discuss some areas of the 
evaluation below.  

STRUCTURAL CAPACITY

AAD argues that its submitted manufacturer's data sheet clearly showed 
the structural capacity of the Flexifloats as 5,000 pounds per square 
foot (psf) (listed under deck bearing) and the lock strength (between 
units) as 70 tons, which it claims would be sufficient to resist the 
anticipated 2,564 psf hydrostatic pressure.  It claims that the Army 
should have performed some analysis to determine if the Flexifloat 
bulkhead would have the requisite structural capacity if deployed 
vertically as AAD proposed. 

The agency determined that the overall structural capacity of the 
Flexifloat units in the proposed vertical mode could not be determined 
based on the data submitted.  Although the submitted manufacturer's 
data indicated a deck bearing capacity of 5,000 pounds psf in the 
horizontal mode, there was no data to demonstrate the same rating in 
the proposed vertical mode and, further, the structural capacity (or 
sufficient data to calculate it) for the remaining bottom, side, and 
end surfaces was not indicated (in either the horizontal or vertical 
mode).  The agency recognized that the protester's drawings indicated 
internal bracing/trussing of the units, which theoretically could 
provide sufficient support for the anticipated load.  However, the 
proposal did not include specific information in this area--such as 
the dimensions of the internal bracing beams, their steel weight or 
strength, and the method of their connection--and without it the 
agency was unable to determine the sufficiency of this support.  In 
this regard, the agency noted that, due to the inherent instability of 
the floats (due to the uneven weighting of the bottom, top and side 
plates), their tendency to tip sideways could actually be exaggerated 
by the bracing, depending on the center of gravity of the bracing, 
which was not indicated.  

The steel weight was of particular concern to the agency because AAD's 
proposal indicated that its design was one-half the weight of the 
government's design, but did not address how sufficient structural 
capacity would be achieved given this diminished weight.[4]  
Similarly, because the proposed lock connections were not synchronized 
with the supporting beam structure, the agency questioned whether the 
70-ton rating indicated for horizontal usage (in the submitted 
manufacturer's data) would be valid for the proposed vertical 
application; in any case, vertical lock strength was not established 
with any data.  Even assuming that the 70-ton rating would remain 
valid in a vertical deployment, moreover, the agency found nothing in 
the proposal supporting an assumption that the joint at the center of 
the second tier of the proposed bulkhead (i.e., the second row of 
floats from the bottom), where two 20 x 10 foot units would be 
connected by four locks, would be adequate to resist the maximum 
anticipated hydrostatic load.      

The agency's conclusions were reasonable.  The agency's areas of 
concern related directly to the realism/feasibility of AAD's proposed 
design, and those areas were not explained by the proposal.  Rather, 
as indicated, AAD merely furnished standard manufacturer's 
information, which contained no detailed description of how the 
system, designed to be used for an entirely different purpose, in a 
different configuration, could successfully be used as AAD proposed.  
AAD essentially would have the agency rely upon the specifications in 
the manufacturer's literature in determining structural capacity.  The 
record establishes, however, that the stresses that would result from 
vertical deployment of the floats would be different from the stresses 
encountered when the floats are deployed in the standard horizontal 
position; there thus was no basis for assuming that the standard 
manufacturer's information would be applicable here.  It was for this 
reason (and because a design without sufficient structural capacity 
could put lives at risk in the dewatered work area) that the agency 
determined that additional information, relating to vertical 
deployment of the floats, was necessary to determine whether the 
design was feasible.  While, as the protester points out, the RFP only 
requested an explanation of the "design concept" (as distinguished 
from final construction drawings, which were not required until after 
award), it also requested drawings which indicated "major components 
and dimensions, structural design approach (including connector 
details) materials used and fabrication methods," as well as supported 
claims and a reasonable assurance of satisfactory performance.  We 
agree with the Corps that the information included in AAD's proposal 
was inadequate under the RFP's terms because it was insufficient to 
establish the feasibility of deploying the floats vertically, as AAD 
proposed.
   
While AAD generally disagrees with the agency's conclusion that its 
proposal included inadequate information in this area, it has not 
specifically refuted those conclusions; in particular, it has not 
refuted the agency's overall concern--which we have found to be 
reasonable on its face--as to the validity of the submitted horizontal 
deployment data for purposes of evaluating the proposed vertical mode 
design.[5]  AAD does contend that the agency needed only to analyze 
the submitted data to determine sufficient structural capacity; 
however, the protester fails to indicate exactly how the submitted 
data could be analyzed to determine sufficient structural capacity, 
given the omitted information the agency considered essential to 
determining acceptability in this area.[6]

DEWATERING SYSTEM POSITIONING 

The Corps determined that AAD's proposal omitted all details on how 
its proposed bulkhead assembly would be aligned, fastened, and 
positioned, including procedures for water ballasting and deballasting 
of the floats and safety.  In this regard, the agency noted that basic 
details, such as the location of the Flexifloat hatches (for 
ballasting and deballasting), were not included.  Instead, the 
proposal simply cross-referenced the RFP drawings for the 
government-designed bulkhead.  The agency determined that these 
references were inadequate given that AAD's design based on a 
nonstandard usage of the floats differed significantly from the 
government design. 

AAD insists that because it planned to use the government design 
methods (except for the minor change of additional bolts) there was no 
reason to show its aligning, positioning, and safety procedures, 
including ballasting and deballasting; its methods would not differ 
from the government's methods.  

The agency's conclusions were reasonable.  The omitted information was 
directly related to the technical subfactor, "Dewatering System 
Positioning Procedures," under which offerors were required to 
"[e]xplain how the system will be positioned, aligned and fastened," 
and "[i]dentify the equipment that will be used and safety 
precautions."  AAD could not satisfy this requirement by generally 
referring to the government's design, without some explanation or 
information that would enable the Corps to independently assess 
whether the same methods could in fact be used for AAD's design.[7]  
The Corps certainly was not required to assume that the same methods 
could be used--on the basis of AAD's unsupported assertions--given the 
significant differences between AAD's and the agency's designs, and 
the previously discussed structural capacity informational 
omissions.[8] 

DISCUSSIONS

AAD argues that the agency should have held discussions to permit it 
to correct any deficiencies in its proposal.  However, there generally 
is no requirement that an agency hold discussions when the 
solicitation advises offerors that the agency intends to make award 
without discussions.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.610(a)(3) 
(FAC 90-31); Triple P Servs., Inc., B-271777, July 24, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  
39.  Since the solicitation advised offerors that the agency intended 
to make award without discussions, AAD could not presume that it would 
have a chance to improve its proposal through discussions.  The burden 
was on AAD to submit an initial proposal containing sufficient 
information to demonstrate its merits, and the protester ran the risk 
of having its proposal rejected by failing to do so.  
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., B-255343.2; B-255343.4, Mar. 14, 1994, 94-1 
CPD  para.  325.  Given that the solicitation advised offerors of the 
possibility of award without discussions, and our conclusion that the 
Corps reasonably determined that AAD's proposal was unacceptable as 
written, there was no requirement for the agency to hold discussions 
with AAD.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The 45 technical evaluation points were allocated among 6 
subfactors:  15 points were allocated to feasibility of technical 
approach and concept, 10 points to schedule, 5 points to adequacy of 
data, 5 points to safety, 5 points to dewatering system 
design/procedure, and 5 points to dewatering system 
positioning/sealing.  AAD's proposal received 10 points, all under the 
schedule subfactor.

2. The protester also submitted the third low proposal, based on the 
government design, which was determined acceptable.

3. AAD's proposal indicated that the connections between units would 
be made with the heavier-sided bottoms facing in one direction and the 
lighter-sided deck tops facing in the opposite direction.  

4. AAD contends that because its submitted data adequately indicated 
structural capacity, there was no need for it to submit the steel 
weight of its design.  In this regard, the protester maintains that 
the reduced steel weight of its design was attributable to a more 
efficient design than the agency's, which, unlike AAD's, uses thick 
plate steel with no stiffening or truss type supports.  

5. In fact, AAD's own consulting engineers discovered a design 
deficiency in their review of the proposal after award--they agreed 
with the agency that the capacity of the proposed joint at the second 
tier connecting the two 20 x 10 units would be exceeded by the 
anticipated hydrostatic load, and suggested that the firm's proposed 
design would need to be changed by moving these two units to the top 
tier and replacing them with the 40 x 10 foot unit from the top tier.  
AAD asserts that this change does not mean that its design was 
invalid.  Even if AAD is correct, however, this deficiency perfectly 
illustrates the agency's concern--since the Flexifloat product was not 
designed for vertical deployment, AAD essentially was proposing a 
product the structural capacity of which had never been demonstrated.  
Without information in the proposal addressing structural issues 
relating to vertical deployment of the floats, there was no basis to 
conclude that the proposed design was feasible.

6. We permitted AAD to clarify its claim that the agency only needed 
to perform elementary engineering calculations on the submitted data 
in order to determine sufficient structural capacity.  In response, 
AAD submitted multiple pages of detailed calculations by its 
consulting engineers, with no clear explanation of how the 
calculations related to this issue, or how the agency could have 
performed the same calculations based on the limited information 
provided in the firm's proposal.  AAD's claim in this regard thus does 
not bring the evaluation into question.

7. The agency's concern in this area is buttressed by the Flexifloat 
manufacturer, which was consulted by the protester after award.  In a 
letter to the parties, the manufacturer states that the "primary 
concern with the use of Flexifloats for this application [i.e., the 
vertical application proposed by AAD] was the possible imploding of 
the units due to differential water pressure between the inside and 
outside of the units . . . ; [the protester] has since informed me 
that his company developed a procedure to allow the floats to be 
flooded in such a manner that the pressure differential will not 
exceed approximately 10-feet of head."  This procedure was not 
referenced in the firm's proposal.  Additionally, AAD's consulting 
engineers, in a post-award letter of opinion, describe an "upending or 
flipping" procedure to successfully position the bulkhead; the agency 
states that this flipping procedure is different from the government 
design method indicated on government drawing sheet No. 9 (and 
referenced by the protester in its proposal), which shows a series of 
winches and pulleys used to position the bulkhead.  This inconsistency 
is not addressed by the protester.    

8. Under technical feasibility, the protester further contends that, 
because two of the three technical evaluators initially rated its 
proposal acceptable, the overall unacceptable rating was unreasonable.  
Although the initial point scores varied among evaluators--in fact 
only one evaluator rated the proposal at an acceptable level with 35 
out of 45 possible points and the remaining two rated it at an 
unacceptable level with 11 and 0 points respectively--the record 
clearly indicates that all three evaluators determined that there were 
informational deficiencies and agreed on the consensus rating of 
unacceptable and 10 points.  In any case, a difference of opinion 
among evaluators does not evidence an erroneous evaluation where, as 
here, there is no showing that the evaluation was improper.  See 
Mounts Eng'g, 65 Comp. Gen. 476 (1986), 86-1 CPD  para.  358; Monarch 
Enters., Inc., B-233303 et al., Mar. 2, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  222.