BNUMBER:  B-275928; B-275928.2; B-275928.3 
DATE:  April 21, 1997
TITLE: Advanced Designs Corporation, B-275928; B-275928.2; B-
275928.3, April 21, 1997
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Advanced Designs Corporation

File:     B-275928; B-275928.2; B-275928.3

Date:April 21, 1997

Kevin C. Golden, Esq., Bayh & Connaughton, for the protester.
Ronald S. Perlman, Esq., Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, for 
Enterprise Electronics
Corporation, an intervenor.
Robert Peterson, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency properly rejected protester's proposal where the proposal 
was not
submitted in the format called for by the solicitation, failed to 
satisfy material
technical solicitation requirements, and did not provide an 
unequivocal offer to
perform at a firm, fixed price as required by the solicitation.

2.  Protester whose proposal was properly rejected as technically 
unacceptable is
not an interested party to challenge acceptability of awardee's 
proposal where there
was another proposal besides the awardee's which was also determined 
to be
eligible for award.  

DECISION

Advanced Designs Corporation protests the rejection of its offer and 
the award of a
contract to Enterprise Electronics Corporation (EEC) under request for 
proposals
(RFP) No. N65236-96-R-0015, issued by the Department of the Navy for a
supplemental weather radar (SWR) system in both fixed-site and 
transportable
configurations.  Advanced Designs contends that the Navy failed to 
properly
evaluate its proposal.  The protester also alleges that EEC's proposal 
failed to
satisfy the requirements of the solicitation and that the agency 
improperly held
discussions with EEC.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on June 26, 1996, solicited offers for a firm, 
fixed-price contract for
a base year (lot I) and four 1-year options (lots II through IX) to 
produce, install
and provide support for an SWR system, including fixed-site Doppler 
weather radar
systems and transportable Doppler weather radar systems.  Each lot 
included
contract line items and, in some instances, subline items for which 
the offeror was
required to provide a unit price and an extended price.  

Offerors were required to submit proposals organized in three separate 
volumes,
including a business and price volume, an "other factors" technical 
volume, and a
volume containing the "Level of Confidence Assessment Rating " 
(LOCAR),
concerning the offeror's qualifications and experience.  The RFP, at 
paragraph     
L-630, "Instructions for Submitting Proposals," provided that:

     "[t]he contractor shall submit a single proposal which shall 
include an
     offer for a single radar system configuration for the 
[f]ixed-[s]ite
     application and a single radar system configuration for the
     [t]ransportable application.  Separate [p]roposals may be 
submitted
     for additional [f]ixed-[s]ite/[t]ransportable radar configuration
     [offers.]"
 
Section M of the RFP stated that technical proposals would be 
evaluated as
"outstanding," "very good," "acceptable" or "not acceptable" on six 
evaluation listed
factors.  Each factor listed 1 to 4 subfactors.  Section M required 
that proposals be
submitted in the form prescribed by the solicitation.

The solicitation provided that award would be made to the responsible 
offeror
whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and represents the best 
overall
expected value to the government, based on the technical evaluation, 
the LOCAR
ratings and price.  The RFP stated that in making the best value 
determination, the
agency was more concerned with obtaining superior technical features 
than with
making an award at the lowest overall cost and that the agency may 
elect to pay a
price premium to select a technically superior offeror.  The RFP also 
stated that the
contract would be awarded on the basis of initial proposals, without 
discussions
(although it reserved the agency's right to conduct discussions if 
necessary).  

Three offerors, including Advanced Designs, EEC and [deleted], 
submitted
proposals by the August 9 closing date.  A seven-person technical 
evaluation board
(TEB) evaluated and scored the technical proposals.  Each TEB member
individually scored the proposals and these scores were reported to a 
contract
award review panel (CARP), which reviewed the proposals and the 
scoring and had
access to pricing information.  While the TEB reviewed Advanced 
Designs'
proposal, the members concluded that they could not score the 
proposal, that the
proposal was unacceptable as submitted, and that it would require 
major revision to
make the proposal acceptable.  In particular, the evaluators found 
that Advanced
Designs did not offer the required single radar system configuration 
for the
fixed-site and for the transportable system.  Rather, Advanced Designs 
offered
possible systems for each configuration which included three antenna 
options,
resulting in the proposal of at least six possible system 
configurations.[1]  In addition,
Advanced Designs took numerous exceptions to solicitation requirements 
in its
technical proposal and failed to provide firm, fixed prices in its 
business proposal. 
Based on these shortcomings, the agency determined that the Advanced 
Designs
proposal was unacceptable and not for further consideration.

The agency awarded EEC's proposal a "very good" rating with a point 
score of
88.7 (out of a possible 100) and awarded [deleted] proposal an 
"acceptable" rating
with a point score of 54.2.  EEC's total evaluated price was 
$32,528,240; [deleted]
total evaluated price was [deleted].  Award was made to EEC on the 
basis of
initial proposals on December 30, 1996, and this protest followed.

Advanced Designs complains that there was nothing improper with its 
proposal
format.  The protester argues that it proposed a single radar system 
for the fixed
and transportable sites and three alternative antenna systems "as 
options from
which the government could choose."  The protester argues that the RFP
encouraged "alternate" proposals, citing clause C-520, which states, 
in relevant part,
that offerors are encouraged to "identify and propose alternatives to 
specifications
and standards cited in this contract," and Clause L-411, "Criteria for 
Alternate
Proposals," which states, in relevant part, that "[p]roposals 
submitted in response to
this solicitation are not limited to the suggested approaches of the 
acquisition data
furnished" and that offerors are "encouraged to submit alternate 
proposals
containing new ideas, unique approaches or other significant 
beneficial program
improvements."  The protester contends that its proposed system with 
the [deleted]
antenna option met all of the solicitation requirements and argues 
that the Navy
should have conducted discussions to allow it "the opportunity to cure 
what can
only be characterized as minor concerns of the government."  Advanced 
Designs
contends that its offer was improperly rejected merely because it 
consolidated
permitted alternatives into a single document.  As to its pricing, the 
protester
argues that it "substantially complied with the RFP's requirements by 
providing
adequate pricing information from which the government could determine 
the total
price per [l]ot for all of the options presented. . . ."

The evaluation of technical proposals and the resulting determination 
as to whether
an offeror is technically acceptable are matters within the discretion 
of the
procuring agency; our review of an allegedly improper evaluation is 
limited to
determining whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with 
the stated
evaluation criteria.  Amstar Communications, B-255179, B-255179.2, 
Feb. 7, 1994,  
94-1 CPD  para.  77 at 4; Quarles Janitorial Servs., Inc., B-251095, 
B-251095.2, Mar. 3,
1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  197 at 3.  Mere disagreement with the agency's 
evaluation does
not render the evaluation unreasonable.  Amstar Communications, supra 
at 5;
Quarles Janitorial Servs., Inc., supra at 3.  Where a proposal is 
technically
unacceptable as submitted and would require major revisions to become 
technically
acceptable, the agency has no obligation to conduct discussions.  Sun 
Enters.,      
B-221438.2, Apr. 18, 1986, 86-1 CPD  para.  384 at 2.    

From our review of the record, we find nothing improper with the 
agency's
determination not to point score Advanced Designs' proposal or its 
conclusion that
the proposal was technically unacceptable.  As noted above, the RFP 
clearly
instructed offerors to submit an offer for a single radar system 
configuration for the
fixed-site and transportable applications.  Advanced Designs simply 
disregarded this
instruction and offered instead an array of options from which the 
agency was
asked to configure a selection.  Simply stated, Advanced Designs' 
proposal was not
in conformity with the clear requirements of the RFP.  Clauses C-520 
and L-411
upon which the protester relies call for the proposal of new and 
unique approaches
to meeting the specification, not for the listing of an array of 
options from which
the agency is expected to construct a proposal for the offeror.

In addition, the protester took numerous exceptions to the RFP 
requirements.  For
example, in its cover letter to its proposal, Advanced Designs advised 
that its
"response complies to the above solicitation ONLY TO THE EXTENT 
SPECIFIED IN
[ADVANCED DESIGNS'] RESPONSE AND IS BASED ON [ADVANCED DESIGNS']
BEST COMMERCIAL PRACTICES ONLY."  The letter states that the 
solicitation is
"riddled with [military-standard/specification] MIL-STD/SPEC 
requirements" and that
"[i]f [Advanced Designs] had to meet all the MIL-STD/SPEC, [Data Item 
Description]
DID, [Contract Data Requirements List] CDRL, [Engineering Data for 
Provisioning]
EDFP, [Provisioning Technical Documentation] PTD . . . requirements, 
it could
[deleted] the cost of its proposed response with no added benefit. . . 
."  Regarding
several requirements, the letter advised that the protester's proposal 
"may or may
not comply."  For example, Advanced Designs stated that it would 
provide its
standard off-the-shelf commercial drawings and documentation per its 
best
commercial practices and that this "[m]ay or may not comply with 
[section] Sec.
3.7, Sec. 3.9.4, EDFP as requested in Sec. 3.6.3 and Contracts Data 
Requirements
List Form 1423, and Data Item Description (DD) 1664."  As to 
Provisioning
Technical Documentation (PTD), Advanced Designs stated, again, that it 
would
provide its standard off-the-shelf commercial spare parts list per its 
best
commercial practices and that this "may or may not comply with PTD as 
requested
in Sec. 3.6.2, EDFP as requested in Sec. 3.6.3, MIL-STD-1388-1A, 
MIL-STD-1388-2B,
Task 401.2.8, Task 401.2.11, Appendix A, paragraph 40.4.2.7b . . . , 
Contract Data
Requirements List Form 1423, Attachment 2 and 3, and Data Item 
Description,    
DD Form 1664."

Advanced Designs also failed to propose firm, fixed prices as 
required.  Rather than
completing the price form provided with the solicitation, for each 
price requested
Advanced Designs asked that the agency see an attached "note" which 
provided a
description of the item or service to be provided or options the 
protester could
provide and prices.  In these "notes," the protester advised that it 
may bill the
agency for certain costs which were not included in Advanced Designs' 
quoted
prices.  For example, as to fiber optics interface, the protester 
provided a price for
the fiber optics "receiver/transmitter control and data bus and on/off 
to be used
with [deleted]."  The protester stated that it could run the fiber up 
to 1 mile but that its price "[d]oes not include installation of the 
fiber."  As to required site surveys and installation, Advanced 
Designs specified that its prices are based on its representative 
being on site for 3 working days, and included travel time, airfare, 
hotel and per diem.  Advanced Designs stated that:

     "[a]ny pre or post preparation time (other than the 3 working 
days
     on-site) is additional and will be billed at the rate of 
[deleted] hour. 
     Any additional travel time (other than as noted below) will also 
be
     billed at the rate of [deleted]."

As to installation, Advanced Designs stated that:

     "[t]he price quoted includes an installation crew consisting of 
[deleted] men
     on-site for [deleted] days (8 hours/day), travel time, plus 
airfare, lodging, per
     diem and transportation.  If installation is not completed by the 
end of
     the [deleted] period (or if there are delays), an additional 
amount of
     [deleted] crew day will be charged plus lodging, per diem and
     transportation expenses for the crew."

As a final example, Advanced Designs reserved the right to adjust 
"prices quoted in
case of abnormal inflationary condition occurring during the first 
through fourth
option years (years 2, 3, 4, and 5) of the contract."  

In a negotiated procurement, a proposal which fails to conform to one 
or more of
an RFP's material terms or conditions is technically unacceptable and 
cannot form
the basis for an award.  Marine Pollution Control Corp., B-270172, 
Feb. 13, 1996, 
96-1 CPD  para.  73 at 2.  The requirement for fixed prices is a material 
term of an RFP
requiring such pricing, and a proposal that does not offer fixed 
prices cannot be
accepted for award.  Id. at 2.  By imposing the price conditions noted 
above, as well
as others not recited here, Advanced Designs did not commit itself to 
providing all
services at proposed firm, fixed prices--a fact which Advanced Designs 
has not
disputed during the course of this protest.[2]

Advanced Designs also challenges the evaluation of EEC's proposal, 
arguing that the
awardee failed to satisfy a [deleted] for the transportable radar 
system, did
not include acceptable [deleted] in its proposal, and failed to
provide prices for two contract line items.  The protester also 
alleges that the
agency engaged in improper discussions with the awardee regarding its
subcontracting plan.

Since Advanced Designs's proposal was properly rejected as technically
unacceptable and there is another proposal besides the awardee's that 
the agency
determined to be technically acceptable, Advanced Designs is not an 
interested
party to challenge the award.  A Travel Passport, Inc.; Global Express 
Travel Servs.,
Inc., B-255383.2  et al., Mar. 3, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  171 at 7; Quarles 
Janitorial Servs.,
Inc., supra, at 6.  This is so because, if we were to sustain the 
protest with respect
to EEC and that firm were eliminated from the competition, the agency 
would
award the contract to [deleted], the other technically acceptable 
offeror.  Where the
protester would not be in line for an award, even if we were to 
resolve the
protested issues in its favor, the firm generally lacks standing as an 
interested party. A Travel Passport, Inc.; Global Express Travel 
Servs., Inc., supra, at 7; Quarles
Janitorial Servs., Inc. supra, at 5.  Therefore, these protest grounds 
are not for
consideration on the merits.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. According to the agency, the protester also offered options 
concerning the mean radial velocity requirement, resulting in up to 
[deleted] possible configurations.

2. Advanced Designs argues that its failure to submit separate 
proposals was the "sole
basis" on which the agency eliminated its proposal from award 
consideration and,
therefore, the "litany of substantive criticism" the agency levels 
against its proposal
in the agency report are ad hoc rationalizations that the agency used 
to divert our
attention from the issue of whether the Navy improperly excluded its 
proposal
based on form alone.  The protester argues that these criticisms "are 
not properly
before the GAO."  In fact, the protester's failure to comply with the 
technical and
pricing requirements are part of the procurement record and were 
referenced in the
December 30 award notification sent to the protester.  Contrary to the 
protester's
assertions, these shortcomings were well documented by the agency 
before award
and were considered by the agency in making its determination to 
eliminate the
protester's proposal from award consideration.