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.