BNUMBER: B-274846.2; B-274846.3
DATE: January 14, 1997
TITLE: Polar Power, 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:Polar Power, Inc.
File: B-274846.2; B-274846.3
Date:January 14, 1997
Brian M. Regan, Esq., and Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo,
for the protester.
Brian E. Toland, Esq., and Vera Meza, Esq., Department of the Army,
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
Protest that contracting agency unreasonably evaluated protester's
technical proposal is denied where the record shows that the
evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation's
stated evaluation criteria; protester's proposal was downgraded
principally due to its failure to substantiate its claims, as
required, and its disagreement with the agency's judgment as to the
impact that this lack of substantiation had on various aspects of its
proposal does not render that judgment unreasonable.
DECISION
Polar Power, Inc. protests the award of contracts to Goodman Ball,
Inc., Dynamic Corporation of America, Fermont Division, and T&J
Manufacturing, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DAAK01-95-R-0075, issued by the Department of the Army for the
development of a 3-kilowatt (kw) tactical quiet generator. Polar
Power principally argues that the Army unreasonably evaluated its
proposal.
We deny the protests.
BACKGROUND
The solicitation contemplated the award of contracts to two or more
offerors for an engineering and manufacturing effort leading to the
procurement of 3-kw, 60 Herz (Hz) tactical quiet generator sets, with
an option to develop and produce 3-kw,
400 Hz generator sets. Cost reimbursement contracts would be awarded
for phase I (engineering and manufacturing development), with an
option for phase IIA (continued engineering and manufacturing
development). Fixed-price production contracts for phases IIB and III
would subsequently be awarded to one of the successful offerors under
the solicitation.
Award would be made to the offerors whose proposals represented the
best value to the government, considering four areas: technical,
integrated logistics support (ILS), past performance, and cost. The
technical area was slightly more important than the ILS area, which
was slightly more important than the past performance area, and the
past performance and cost areas were equally important. Proposals
would be adjectivally rated under the technical and ILS areas and
their factors and subfactors and the past performance area.[1] Cost
would be evaluated for realism.
The technical area contained three factors: technical design and
performance; specific design characteristics; and capabilities,
plans, personnel, and facilities. The second factor was significantly
more important than the first, and the third factor was significantly
less important than either of the other two. The first two technical
factors are the only ones at issue here.
The specific design characteristics factor consisted of six
subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: weight; high
temperature and altitude; noise suppression; fuel tank capacity;
dimensions; and reliability predictions.
The technical design and performance factor consisted of five equally
weighted factors: overall design and approach; environmental
characteristics; maintainability and life; engine analysis; and
generator/electrical analysis.
Army evaluation teams reviewed each of the five proposals received and
forwarded numerous errors, omissions, and clarifications (EOC) to the
source selection evaluation board (SSEB). The source selection
authority (SSA) eliminated the proposals of both Polar and another
firm from the competitive range but subsequently reinstated them
following agency-level protests. The EOCs were forwarded to the
offerors, discussions were conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO)
were requested and received. The final relevant evaluation results
were as follows:
GBI T&J Fermont Polar[2]
Technical S S S M
Design & PerformanceS S S M
Specific Design HS HS HS S
Capabilities S S S M
ILS S S HS S
Past PerformanceL-M L-M M N
Cost Phase I $576,024 $951,915 $1,030,196 $829,452
The SSEB recommended that contracts be awarded to Goodman Ball, T&J,
and Fermont as representing the best overall value to the government.
In accepting this recommendation, the SSA noted that Polar's proposal
could provide some technical advantages, but that the firm had
insufficient design drawings, analyses, component evaluations, and
supporting data that would lead to a high degree of confidence that it
could deliver a well-designed, quality product ready for production in
a timely manner.[3] The SSA further stated that the risks associated
with pursuing this inadequately supported design far outweighed the
relative difference in cost.
Award was made on September 18. Polar was given copies of the
debriefing charts on September 23 and received its debriefing on
September 30. The firm's protest was filed on October 7, and its
November 25 comments on the agency report were opened as a
supplemental protest. Polar primarily argues that the Army's
evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable and inconsistent with the
evaluation criteria.
ANALYSIS
In reviewing a protest against the propriety of an evaluation, it is
not our function to independently evaluate proposals and substitute
our judgment for that of the agency. Polar Power, Inc., B-257373,
Sept. 2, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 92. Rather, we will review an evaluation
only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the
solicitation's evaluation criteria. Id. The fact that a protester
disagrees with the agency's judgment does not itself establish that
that judgment is unreasonable. ESCO, Inc., 66 Comp. Gen. 404 (1987),
87-1 CPD para. 450. Here, the record reasonably supports the Army's
conclusion, reflected in its evaluation, that Polar's proposal's
central problem was its inadequate substantiation of its claims, as
illustrated by the following examples.
Under the specific design characteristics factor, the most important
subfactor was weight. Generator sets were not to weigh more than 324
pounds (without the battery), and lighter units would generally be
rated higher than heavier units. Offerors were required to provide a
detailed weight breakdown of each generator set component with
information and data to verify and support each component weight.
Polar's initial proposal estimated the weight of its generator at 230
pounds and supported this estimate with a weight analysis broken down
by major subassembly. In an EOC, the Army asked Polar to provide a
more detailed weight breakdown so that it could be assured that all
components were considered. The firm was also asked to state the
basis for its estimates, such as manufacturers' data. Polar's
response proclaimed its confidence in the reasonableness of its
estimates, and stated that it would provide more accurate estimates as
the design was finalized. In its BAFO request, the Army told Polar
that its weight appeared unrealistic in comparison with similar units
and reminded the firm that it had not provided a weight list of its
components. Polar's BAFO characterized the Army's request as
unrealistic but attached a component weight analysis, stating that the
numbers were "from memory."
To compare Polar's unit with those of the other offerors, the Army
added the weight of fuel to arrive at a total of 263 pounds. The Army
agrees that Polar's unit would probably have a low weight, but states
that it was rated only satisfactory due to the proposal's incomplete
analysis and lack of a thorough estimate. According to the Army, the
weight analysis did not appear to include a number of items; it listed
as "included" the weight for several listed components but did not
identify where their weights were included; and some component weights
appeared to be unrealistically low.
Polar contends that a light-weight 2.2 kw generator it provided to the
Army's Missile Command (MICOM) supports its low-weight claims.
However, the Army asserts that the two units are not comparable, and
that the MICOM unit did not include all of the components that are
required here. Polar's assertion that the additional weight of the
required components would still result in a lighter generator does not
mitigate the fact that the proposal's claims were unsupported. In
addition, our review of Polar's weight estimate shows that, at a
minimum, it is not clear that all of the components are included,
leaving the weight estimate uncertain. Polar does not satisfactorily
address the Army's concern that some component weights are
unrealistically low and, under the circumstances, we have no basis to
question the Army's evaluation.
The next most important subfactor was high temperature and altitude,
under which required and desired performance characteristics were
listed. Polar contends that this aspect of its proposal should have
been rated highly satisfactory instead of satisfactory because it
showed that it could produce a liquid-cooled generator for the Marine
Corps which was capable of operating in a very high-temperature
environment, and because its proposed unit substantially exceeded the
desired characteristics with respect to altitude.
The Army states that Polar's alleged capabilities with respect to the
Marine Corps generators are mentioned in its proposal but are in no
way substantiated, and thus do not support a higher rating. Given the
RFP's express requirements for the substantiation of claimed
capabilities, we have no basis to question the Army's views here. We
also do not agree with Polar that the Army was required to contact the
Marine Corps to obtain the required substantiation. Offerors bear the
burden for failing to submit an adequately written proposal, donald
clark Assocs., B-253387, Sept. 15, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 168, and
contracting agencies are not obligated to go in search of needed
information which the offeror has omitted or failed adequately to
present. Telos Field Eng'g, B-251384, Mar. 26, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 271.
Polar's argument that its proposed unit substantially exceeded the
desired characteristics with respect to altitude is not supported by
the record. The firm's proposal indicates that its unit met, but did
not exceed, one of the two desired characteristics under certain
conditions.[4] Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude that the
Army's evaluation of Polar's proposal under this subfactor was
unreasonable.
The next most important subfactor was noise suppression. Noise levels
were not to exceed 85 decibels (dBA) at the operator's position or 75
dBA at 7 meters, and the desired maximum noise level at 7 meters was
70 dBA. Offerors were required to describe the noise suppression
characteristics of their proposed designs and to include the noise
level characteristics, noise level design, suppression materials and
construction, and contribution of generator set components to noise
levels.
In its initial proposal, Polar claimed that its generator had a
40-percent probability of meeting a maximum noise level of 58 dBA at 7
meters and 72 dBA at 1 meter, and a 100-percent probability of meeting
a maximum noise level of 65 dBA at
7 meters and 75 dba at 1 meter. In response to the Army's request to
support these claims, Polar stated that its claims were based on its
present product line and asserted that similar generators of other
manufacturers met a lower noise level. In its BAFO request, the Army
told Polar that its noise level predictions were weakly substantiated,
and advised that:
"Extrapolation from other generators is not adequate. To reduce
noise by design, the designer must identify the sources of noises
and determine the type of noises . . . . Because the offeror has
not shown the sources, the approaches used to suppress the noise
may not be effective. [Polar] provides virtually no information
on suppression material except to reference an appendix; but this
appendix is missing."
In its BAFO, Polar stated that it presently manufactured 65 dBA
generator sets, which supported its claims, and relied for further
support on the generator that it had demonstrated to MICOM. Polar's
proposal was rated marginal because its noise level predictions were
weakly substantiated. Polar does not address this concern, but again
relies upon its MICOM generator to support its claims. Once again,
there is no basis for us to consider that these units are comparable,
particularly where the Army explains that the MICOM unit used an
air-cooled engine with noise traps, whereas this unit is water-cooled
with no noise traps. As the Army states, while Polar might have made
extrapolations between the two units, it did not do so in its
proposal.[5]
Turning to the technical design and performance factor, we dismiss a
number of Polar's allegations as untimely.
Polar's initial protest, filed after its debriefing, consisted of such
general allegations as, "Regarding risk and capabilities, it was
irrational for Polar Power to have previously received high marks in
the same subject areas from [the Army] on a similar generator
procurement, and have fared so poorly on this procurement." Given the
general nature of the allegations, the agency report did little more
than deny them and provide supporting documentation. In its November
25 comments, Polar, for the first time, challenged the Army's view
that its proposal represented high risk with respect to its use of a
permanent magnet (PM) alternator as a starter motor; its use of
composite housing; its liquid-cooled alternator design; its generator
cooling system; and its inverter, inverter switch, PMG in-house
design, and PMG switch.
Under our Bid Protest Regulations, protests based on other than
solicitation improprieties must be filed within 10 days of when the
protester knew or should have known their bases. Bid Protest
Regulations, section 21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. Reg. 39040, 39043 (1996) (to
be codified at 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.2(a)(2)). These regulations do not
contemplate the piecemeal presentation or development of protest
issues; where a protester raises a broad ground of protest in its
initial submission but fails to provide details within its knowledge
until later, so that a further response from the agency is needed for
an objective review of the matter, these later issues will not be
considered. See Management Sys. Applications, Inc., B-259628,
B-259628.2, Apr. 13, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 216.
One of the debriefing charts provided to Polar on September 25 listed
the firm's "weak points":
"Low probability of success based on need to develop: cooling of
set, inverter, inverter switch, [permanent magnet generator (PMG)
in-house design, PMG switch, PMG reverse start, composite
housing, liquid cooled alternators, and set layout."
In our view, this debriefing chart shows that the specific issues
above, first raised in Polar's November 25 comments, are based on
information in Polar's possession sufficient to put it on notice of
these issues prior to the filing of its initial protest. As a result,
we consider these issues to have been filed in a piecemeal fashion and
will not review their merits, as they do not independently satisfy our
timeliness requirements. Litton Sys., Inc., Data Sys. Div., B-262099,
Oct. 11, 1995, 95-2 CPD
para. 215.
One area for evaluation under the maintainability and life subfactor
was "accessibility characteristics." After the initial evaluation,
Polar was asked to support its very general accessibility approach and
was advised of Army concerns that all maintenance access would be
through the top door of the unit. Drawings provided in its BAFO
showed that Polar had redesigned the housing to allow it to come apart
and had added an access door for the battery. Polar also explained
that it had redesigned access to the lubrication oil for ease of
checking its level.
While the information contained in the BAFO alleviated some of the
Army's concerns,[6] Polar's proposal was rated marginal here because
the Army believed there was insufficient information to support the
firm's accessibility approach. The Army was concerned about the
accessibility for checking and adding coolant and for various
scheduled maintenance items; it was concerned that items such as the
oil filter, fuel filter, and injectors were not identifiable for
access on Polar's drawing; and it was concerned that the firm had not
adequately defined how the housing would be removed for unscheduled
maintenance. Our review of the record shows that the Army's concerns
were reasonable. Many parts on Polar's drawings are not labeled,
leading to uncertainty as to precisely what they are. While the
drawings name the oil filter, fuel filter, and injectors, there is no
indication of their location except an arrow pointing to the left.
Finally, Polar's contention that its drawings adequately show that the
housing is completely removable misses the point; the Army could not
discern how the housing was removed.
As a final matter, Polar cites a sentence in the SSEB report which
states that the technical factors and subfactors were equally weighted
to argue that the Army improperly failed to evaluate its proposal in
accordance with the stated evaluation scheme. In response, the Army
asserts that the sentence was a misstatement, and that proposals were
in fact evaluated in accordance with the evaluation scheme which, as
relevant here, stated that the specific design characteristics
subfactors would have various weights.
Polar maintains that there is no evidence that the Army properly
evaluated the proposals, but the proper question is whether, given the
Army's express denial of the allegation, there is any evidence that it
did not properly evaluate the proposals. There is none. Moreover, it
is the ultimate evaluation by the agency which is governed by the
tests of rationality and consistency with the RFP evaluation criteria,
not the assessment by lower-level evaluation teams or boards. See
Contel Fed. Sys., 71 Comp. Gen. 11 (1991), 91-2 CPD para. 325. The SSA's
source selection statement properly sets forth the evaluation scheme,
and the language of the statement indicates that the SSA was well
aware that certain subfactors, such as weight, were more important
than others. Considering the record as a whole, we have no reason to
conclude that the agency's evaluation was improperly conducted.[7]
The protests are denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Under the technical and ILS factors and subfactors, proposals would
be rated as highly satisfactory (HS), satisfactory (S), marginal (M),
or unacceptable (U). Under the past performance area, proposals would
be rated as presenting low (L), moderate (M), high (H), or neutral (N)
risk.
2. Under the specific design characteristics factor, Polar's proposals
was rated marginal under the
noise suppression and
reliability predictions
subfactors; satisfactory
under the weight, high
temperature and altitude,
and dimensions subfactors;
and highly satisfactory
under the fuel tank capacity
subfactor. The proposal was
rated marginal under all of
the design and performance
subfactors except that
concerning engine analysis.
3. The RFP required delivery of a mockup generator set 90 days after
award and delivery of prototype sets 210 days after award.
4. Polar also argues that the Army unreasonably evaluated its proposal
as having a power output capability of 2.7 kw at 4,000 feet, a figure
which is not contained in its proposal. While it appears that Polar
is correct, there is no evidence that this was a definitive factor in
the evaluation--it was not listed as a weakness and appears nowhere in
the source selection documents.
5. To the extent Polar is arguing that the Army improperly failed to
consider its MICOM experience under the past performance factor,
Polar's past performance proposal made no mention of this experience.
6. The Army's submission is somewhat confusing, but it appears that
its concerns regarding accessibility for checking the oil level and
for checking the battery were alleviated. As for Polar's complaint
that the source selection document still shows a concern about the
ease of removing the battery, we have no basis to equate the ease of
removing the battery with the ease of checking the battery.
7. Polar's contention that the Army never intended to consider its
proposal for award is belied by the record, which shows that the Army
went to great efforts to help the firm provide a proposal which would
meet its needs, but that Polar chose to submit a poorly substantiated
proposal. Polar's related contention that the Army did not consider
its BAFO because it had only 24 hours in which to do so is similarly
unsupported by the record.