BNUMBER:  B-275079  
DATE:  January 22, 1997
TITLE: Matter of:CHI Fabrication Services

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

Matter of:CHI Fabrication Services

File:     B-275079 

Date:January 22, 1997

Timothy E. Heffernan, Esq., Watt, Tieder & Hoffar, for the protester.
Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., and Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Shaw Pittman 
Potts & Trowbridge, an intervenor.
Cecilia R. Jones, Esq., and Alden Abbott, Esq., Department of 
Commerce, 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

Agency properly rejected protester's proposal as technically 
unacceptable where solicitation required offerors to submit drawings 
and data to establish that offered item met design requirements, and 
protester's drawings and accompanying description did not indicate 
that all requirements were met.   

DECISION

CHI Fabrication Services (CHI) protests the award of a contract to 
General Scientific Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
52-PAPT-6-00009, issued by the Patent and Trademark Office, Department 
of Commerce, for the design and fabrication of file/mail carts.  The 
protester challenges the evaluation of technical proposals.  

We deny the protest.

The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price, 
indefinite-quantity contract for a base year, with four 1-year option 
periods, to provide a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 300 carts.  It 
included required dimensions, materials, and features of the cart, but 
left it to offerors to propose viable configurations.  The 
solicitation included a "rough drawing of what the cart to be proposed 
should resemble" and instructed offerors "to provide all necessary 
drawings and data that will assure the functional features have been 
met," as well as a "bill of materials of all components which 
discloses the type and grade of materials and that they meet 
structural and design constraints as set forth."  Generally, the 
solicitation required the cart to have the minimum dimensions of 51 
inches height, 19 inches depth and 40 inches width, with stainless 
steel construction and caster wheels welded to the base.  The cart was 
to be "6 inches above the ground to prevent jamming onto the instep" 
and was to have 4 shelves, each with the minimum dimensions of 11 
inches height (distance between each shelf), 16 inches depth, and 35.5 
width, with a retainer bar and latch mechanism in front to prevent 
files from falling out of the cart.  The solicitation further required 
the cart to have a minimum of five dividers for each shelf, which 
were to be "constructed of stainless steel and in a manner that allows 
files to be kept upright," and "adjustable as well as removable from 
the shelf (not the cart)."  While dividers were not shown on the 
drawing, the solicitation instructed offerors to include them on the 
drawings submitted with their proposals.

The solicitation set forth two equally weighted technical evaluation 
factors--compliance with specifications and past performance--which 
were significantly more important than price, and provided for award 
to be made to the responsible offeror whose offer provided the best 
value to the government.

The agency received eight proposals, 3 of which were rejected based on 
the initial evaluation.  The agency held two rounds of discussions 
with the remaining offerors, including CHI and General Scientific, and 
gave those offerors the opportunity to submit revisions and best and 
final offers (BAFO).  Following the initial evaluation, the agency 
advised CHI that its cart was noncompliant with the requirement that 
the dividers be adjustable as well as removable from the shelf, but 
not the cart.  In response, CHI's revised proposal included a drawing 
which showed a black line, labeled sash chain, one end of which was 
attached to a divider, and the other to an unlabeled black dot (which 
was inside a circle).  The firm's corresponding bill of materials 
indicated that the sash chain was 6 inches long.  After evaluation of 
revised proposals, the agency advised CHI that its sash chain approach 
for the dividers was unclear and potentially hazardous.  The protester 
responded by explaining that the sash chain would be welded to the 
retainer bar, and that the dividers when not in use would hang outside 
the front of the cart.  The agency reiterated to the protester that 
its approach was not clearly shown on its drawing and was potentially 
hazardous.

CHI's BAFO included additional drawings, including a top view, showing 
(1) a line, labeled sash chain, attached to an unlabeled black dot, 
and (2) five small half-circles, labeled sash chain, each attached to 
two unlabeled vertical lines.  The accompanying narrative description 
stated, "[a]lso detailed is another 3/16 inch S/S bar (1/shelf), which 
the shelf dividers are attached to by way of welding a chain and 
washer," and that "[t]his allows the dividers to be removed from the 
shelf, but not the cart."  After the BAFO evaluation, the agency 
determined that the functioning of CHI's proposed divider system 
remained unclear from the proposal.  However, based on CHI's remarks 
during discussions--that the sash chains would be welded to the 
retainer bar and the dividers would hang outside the cart when not in 
use--the agency concluded that the system was noncompliant with the 
6-inch ground clearance requirement.  In this regard, the evaluators 
determined that since one end of each 6-inch sash chain would be 
attached to a divider and the other end to the shelf retaining bar, 
the dividers on the bottom shelf, when not in use, would hang from the 
shelf's retaining bar and extend below the required 6-inch clearance, 
thereby presenting the potential hazards of dragging on the floor, 
obstructing the casters, or getting caught on elevators.[1]  The 
agency therefore determined that CHI's proposal was unacceptable, and 
made award to General Scientific.

CHI argues that its file/mail cart divider system is in fact 
technically compliant with all requirements.  According to the 
protester, contrary to the agency's evaluation, its dividers would not 
hang outside of the cart in violation of the 6-inch clearance 
requirement.  Specifically, the protester contends that its proposed 
sash chain is not welded to the retainer bar, but instead "the sash 
chain is welded to a washer that is [placed] around the retaining bar 
in such a manner as to allow the washer to slide the full length of 
the bar and hence the shelf."  The protester maintains that its BAFO 
reflects this and "[w]hen not in use, [the dividers] could easily be 
slid to the end of the shelf or laid down on the shelf," and thereby 
would be compliant with the requirement to be removable from the shelf 
but not the cart and still meet the
6-inch clearance requirement.  

In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we consider whether it 
was reasonable and in accord with the evaluation criteria listed in 
the solicitation.  Information Sys. & Networks Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 
284 (1990), 90-1 CPD  para.  203.  In a negotiated procurement, an offeror 
must affirmatively demonstrate that its proposal will meet the 
government's needs where required by the solicitation.  
Discount Mach. & Equip., Inc., B-253094, Aug. 2, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  68.  
Where, as here, a solicitation requires offerors to furnish 
information necessary to establish compliance with the specifications, 
an agency may reasonably find a proposal that fails to include such 
information technically unacceptable. Id.  

The evaluation of CHI's divider system as technically noncompliant was 
reasonable.  The protester's assertion to the contrary 
notwithstanding, its proposal does not explain the functioning of its 
sash chain approach adequately to establish that the dividers would 
not hang below the required 6-inch ground clearance.  Neither the 
initial proposal nor BAFO drawings clearly depict CHI's approach; as 
discussed, they show only a sash chain attached to a divider, an 
unlabeled black dot, and an unlabeled bar, with no indication of a 
washer.  While the BAFO narrative mentions that the shelf dividers are 
attached to a bar "by way of welding a chain and washer," it does not 
discuss how the washer would function in connection with the divider, 
sash chain, and retaining bar.  Consequently, based on this limited 
information, the agency reasonably concluded that one end of each 
6-inch sash chain would be connected to a divider and the other to the 
shelf retaining bar, that the dividers would have to hang outside the 
cart when not in use, and that the dividers hanging off of the bottom 
shelf would violate the clearance requirement and create a potentially 
hazardous condition.  Offerors bear the responsibility for the 
rejection of their proposal where they fail to provide sufficient 
information to establish compliance with solicitation requirements.  
See Herndon Science and Software, Inc., B-245505, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 
CPD  para.  46.[2]

In any case, the agency states that it has considered CHI's post-BAFO 
explanation of its washer and chain configuration and determined that 
it would not meet the solicitation's requirements for several reasons.  
For example, the agency notes that laying the unused dividers on the 
shelf or moving them to the end of the shelf would reduce the 
available shelf width below the required 35.5 inches.  Further, if the 
shelf were filled with material when the user wanted to remove the 
divider, the divider could not be moved to the end or laid flat when 
not in use; the dividers presumably would have to hang outside the 
cart under this scenario.  

CHI also challenges the evaluation of General Scientific's proposal.  
However, under our Bid Protest Regulations, a protester is not an 
interested party to challenge an award where it would not be in line 
for award if the challenge were sustained.       Sections 21.0(a) and 
21.1(a), 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39042, 39043 (1996) (to be codified at 4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.0(a) and 21.1(a)).  Since the agency properly found CHI's 
proposal technically unacceptable, and there was another acceptable 
proposal (in addition to General Scientific's) in the competitive 
range, the protester is not an interested party for purposes of 
challenging the award to General Scientific.  Dick Young Prod., Ltd., 
B-246837, Apr. 1, 1992, 92-1  para.  336.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States
   
1. The evaluators also determined that the sash chain presented a 
further hazard in that the dividers hanging outside of the cart could 
swing and strike personnel and walls.

2. The protester further argues that its proposal was improperly 
rejected on the basis of an unstated requirement, i.e., that its 
drawings show the dividers when not in use.  However, as indicated 
above, the solicitation required offerors to submit "all necessary 
drawings and data that will assure the functional features have been 
met."  It thus was incumbent upon offerors to indicate in their 
proposals--on their submitted drawings or otherwise--that their 
offered cart met the requirements relating to the dividers, including 
the 6-inch clearance requirement.