BNUMBER:  B-276945 
DATE:  July 31, 1997
TITLE: Canadian Commercial Corporation/Polaris Inflatable Boats, B-
276945, July 31, 1997
**********************************************************************

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:Canadian Commercial Corporation/Polaris Inflatable Boats 
          (Canada),     Ltd.

File:     B-276945

Date:July 31, 1997

John Lukjanowicz, Esq., Oles, Morrison & Rinker, for the protester.
Lucia E. Casale, Esq., Klimek, Kolodney & Casale, for Zodiak of North 
America, Inc., an intervenor.
Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Tony K. Vollers, Esq., Department of 
the Army, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency reasonably considered protester's failure to provide 
material performance data as a basis for rating protester's proposal 
"acceptable" rather than "exceptional" where solicitation required 
submission of performance data.

2.  Agency's assessment of risk associated with protester's proposal 
was reasonably based, in part, on the fact that protester proposed to 
modify a 10-person boat and had not previously built such a 15-person 
boat.

3.  Agency reasonably considered the fact that protester's spare and 
repair parts were not currently in military inventories where 
solicitation stated that components that were interchangeable with 
existing military components would constitute an enhanced feature.

DECISION

Canadian Commercial Corporation/Polaris Inflatable Boats (Canada), 
Ltd. protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to 
Zodiac of North America, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DAAK01-97-R-0008 for 15-person inflatable assault boats.[1]  Polaris 
complains that the Army's assessment of a portion of Polaris's 
proposal as "acceptable" rather than "exceptional" was based on 
evaluation  factors not set forth in the solicitation. 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP for this procurement, issued on January 31, 1997, sought 
proposals for a 5-year requirements contract for commercially 
available, 15-person inflatable assault boats with proven marine 
performance.  The boats are to be used by Army special operation 
forces, Army engineers, and engineer divers during military dive and 
training missions.   

Section M-2 of the solicitation provided that award would be made to 
the offeror whose proposal offered the best overall value to the 
government and stated that proposals would be evaluated in four 
areas--technical, logistics, cost/price, and past performance--with 
technical denominated as the most important evaluation area.  RFP 
section M-2 also advised offerors that the technical evaluation would 
be divided into two parts--essential features, to be evaluated on a 
go/no go basis, and enhanced features, to be evaluated on the basis of 
"discriminators that will decrease mission risk, increase boat 
performance and decrease life-cycle cost."[2]  Section M-2 of the RFP 
further provided that:

     Data measurements such as top speed, planing speed, time to 
     planing speed and maneuverability are required to document 
     claimed performance.  Test data should include test conditions, 
     environmental conditions, test procedures, etc.  

     The following three elements [within the technical area] are 
     approximately equal in importance.

     Element 1:  Performance Enhancements.  The performance 
     capabilities of the boat will be assessed to determine whether 
     they increase the probability of success of the missions for 
     which the boat will be used.

                    .     .     .     .     .

     Element 3:  Lifecycle Enhancements.  The maintainability, 
     standardization, and service life of the boat will be considered 
     to determine the estimated life cycle cost of the boat.

Three proposals, including those of Polaris and Zodiac, were submitted 
by the March 12, 1997, closing date.[3]  Polaris's proposal was based 
on its modification of a 10-person boat it had previously 
manufactured.  Following the agency's evaluation of initial 
proposals,[4] discussions with each offeror were conducted.  In its 
letter opening discussions with Polaris, dated March 21, 1977, the 
agency expressed concern that Polaris's proposal did not contain 
adequate performance documentation.  Among other things, the letter 
stated: 

     At this time, the Government has serious reservations in your 
     company's ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation 
     within the time frame required.  The solicitation request is for 
     a commercial off-the-shelf boat with proven marine performance.  
     The ten person inflatable boat that your company has proposed 
     appears to require significant modifications with many 
     engineering variables yet to be determined.  Supporting 
     documentation to included test data pertaining to materials, 
     design, specifications and performance have not been provided. 

     If your company still wishes to remain as a potential offeror for 
     this solicitation, the Government requires detailed comprehensive 
     responses to the issues raised in the enclosed Offeror 
     Notification Forms (ONFs).

Thereafter, during discussions, the agency made repeated requests to 
Polaris for additional information, including requests for specific 
documentation verifying the performance capabilities of the 10-person 
boat on which Polaris's proposal was based.  Polaris acknowledges that 
it was unable to provide the requested performance documentation. 

On April 18, best and final offers (BAFOs) were submitted and, 
thereafter, were evaluated by the agency.  Zodiac's proposal was rated 
"exceptional" under each of the non-cost/price evaluation areas, and 
offered the lowest cost/price.  Polaris's proposal was rated 
"acceptable" under the technical area, "exceptional" under the other 
non-cost/price evaluation areas, and offered the highest cost/price.  

The "acceptable" rating under the technical area of Polaris's proposal 
primarily reflected the risk associated with Polaris's inability to 
document the performance capabilities of the boat on which its 
proposal was based, coupled with the fact that Polaris had not 
previously manufactured a 15-person boat.  In its final evaluation 
report, the agency stated:

     The capabilities and performance of [Polaris's] proposed IAB 
     [inflatable assault boat] were not well documented.  
     Documentation was scattered and the relationship between the 
     documentation and the proposed IAB [inflatable assault boat] was 
     unclear.  For example, a picture of a stability test is shown, 
     however, there is no description to show that the test boat is 
     the same size, shape, etc. as the proposed IAB.  Polaris promises 
     the proposed IAB's performance will meet all PD and Solicitation 
     requirements.  The lack of clear substantiating documentation 
     creates a greater risk to the Government in accepting the claimed 
     levels of performance.

     There is still confusion regarding what Polaris is offering.  For 
     example, Polaris states that the boat is based upon a 10-man boat 
     with a 20" diameter tube, the drawings for the 10-man boat has a 
     21" tube, and the drawing for a 15-man boat has a 22" main tube.  
     The PD requires nine (9) paddles, the proposal states 9 paddles, 
     but the drawing for a 15-man boat (provided with BAFO) states six 
     (6) paddles to be included.  Similar discrepancies are seen 
     throughout the proposal.  (Note:  an inadequate quantity of 
     paddles is sufficient reason to disqualify the proposal.  
     However, this appears to be an oversight.)

In addition, Polaris's proposal was evaluated as presenting a weakness 
under the technical element, lifecycle enhancements, on the basis that 
"none of the Polaris spare or repair parts are in the current DoD 
inventories."  

Based on its final evaluation of proposals, the agency concluded that 
Zodiac's proposal represented the best value to the government and 
awarded a contract to Zodiac on April 25.  This protest followed.  

DISCUSSION

Polaris protests that its proposal was evaluated on the basis of 
factors other than those stated in the solicitation and maintains that 
if the agency had properly limited its evaluation to those stated in 
the RFP, Polaris's proposal could only have been rated "exceptional" 
rather than "acceptable."  Specifically, although acknowledging that 
"[t]hroughout the technical review process, the Army called for 
detailed test procedures and test results," Polaris maintains that the 
solicitation did not "explicitly" require the performance 
documentation sought and, therefore, Polaris's failure to provide the 
requested data was not a proper evaluation consideration.

It is fundamental that offerors be advised of the bases on which their 
proposals will be evaluated.  Specifically, a solicitation must state 
all significant evaluation factors and subfactors, along with their 
relative importance, and a procuring agency may evaluate proposals 
only on the basis of those factors identified.  Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.605(d)(1), 15.608(a).  

Contrary to Polaris's assertion that the RFP did not "explicitly" 
require the performance data repeatedly requested by the agency, RFP 
section M-2 expressly stated:  "Data measurements . . . are required 
to document claimed performance.  Test data should include test 
conditions, environmental conditions, test/procedures, etc."  Polaris 
acknowledges that it failed to provide the data sought, specifically 
stating that the data was "unavailable to Polaris" and that only 
"samples" of technical data were provided.[5]   

In short, the RFP specifically advised Polaris that it would be 
required to provide data measurements and test data documenting the 
claimed capabilities of the boat on which its proposal was based, and 
the agency repeatedly requested such data during discussions.  Polaris 
acknowledges that the requested data was "unavailable."  On this 
record, we find without merit both Polaris's assertion that 
consideration of its failure to provide the requested documentation 
constituted the application of an unstated evaluation factor, and its 
complaint that it was improper for the agency to rely on Polaris's 
submission of only limited data as a basis for rating the technical 
area of its proposal as "acceptable," rather than "exceptional."

Polaris also complains that it was improper for the agency to consider 
the fact that Polaris had never previously built a 15-person 
inflatable boat in rating its proposal "acceptable."  Polaris 
maintains that, "[t]he solicitation never required that the boat 
offered had to have been built before. . . .  There is no commercial 
demand of any substance for a 15-person inflatable boat. . . .  
Consequently, only one or two inflatable boat manufacturers worldwide 
have ever built a 15-person inflatable."  

The record shows that, in assessing the claimed technical capabilities 
of Polaris's proposed boat, the agency evaluators noted that Polaris 
was proposing to modify a 10-person boat, and had not previously 
manufactured the proposed 15-person boat.  As noted above, during 
discussions the agency questioned the capability of Polaris to 
successfully achieve the significant engineering modifications that 
would be required.[6]  Similar to Polaris's failure to document the 
performance of its 10-person boat, the agency viewed the fact that 
Polaris was proposing to modify that boat, and had not previously 
built the proposed 15-person boat, as a basis for assessing  
additional risk to the agency.  

While a solicitation must state all evaluation factors and subfactors, 
FAR  sec.  15.605(d)(1), 15.608(a), it need not identify each individual 
element to be considered where the element is intrinsic to the stated 
factors or subfactors.  Marine Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, 
July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  16 at 6-8.  

Here, RFP section M-2(a) generally advised offerors that the agency 
would consider whether an offeror's proposal "would result in a lower 
risk to the Government in terms of the likelihood that an offeror will 
timely deliver a quality product conforming to the requirements of the 
solicitation."  More specifically, with regard to evaluation of 
enhanced features, section M-2 stated that proposals would be 
evaluated "on the basis of discriminators that will decrease mission 
risk. . . ."

The agency did not disqualify Polaris's proposal based on either its 
failure to provide the performance data sought or the fact that it had 
not previously built a 15-person boat.  Rather, the agency considered 
these facts as bases for rating Polaris's proposal "acceptable," 
rather than "exceptional."  The fact that Polaris had not previously 
built a 15-person boat, along with its inability to provide accurate 
and complete documentation, reasonably must be understood as related 
and relevant to the agency's assessment of the risk of whether Polaris 
would successfully deliver a quality product conforming to the 
solicitation requirements.  Accordingly, we find without merit 
Polaris's assertion that the agency's consideration of the fact that 
Polaris had not previously built the 15-man boat it proposed 
constituted the application of an unstated evaluation factor.  

Finally, Polaris complains that it was improper for the agency to 
consider the fact that "none of the Polaris spare or repair parts are 
in the current DoD inventories."  Again, Polaris maintains that this 
constituted the application of an unstated evaluation factor.  

As noted above, the plain language of the RFP advised offerors that 
this aspect of proposals would be considered.  Under the heading 
"enhanced features," 
section L-19 of the RFP listed various features to be considered, 
including whether "components are interchangeable with existing 
military components."  Consistent with section L-19 of the RFP, 
section M-2 advised offerors that, in evaluating proposals under the 
technical element, lifecycle enhancements, the agency would consider 
"[t]he maintainability, standardization, and service life of the 
boat."  

The provision in section M advising offerors that proposals would be 
evaluated on the basis of maintainability and standardization, along 
with the provision in section L-19 stating that proposed components 
which are interchangeable with existing military components would 
constitute an enhanced feature, clearly provided a reasonable basis 
for the agency's consideration of the fact that Polaris's spare or 
repair parts were not currently within DOD inventories.  Polaris's 
protest to the contrary is simply without merit.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. Polaris is a Canadian corporation and, pursuant to applicable 
regulations, the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) is the actual 
offeror.   If CCC were awarded a contract, it would subcontract 100 
percent of the contract to Polaris.  See Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement  sec.  225.870-3 (DAC 91-3).   The protest was filed 
on behalf of Polaris, hereafter referred to as the protester.

2. RFP section L-19 identified the specific portion of the 15-page 
purchase description (PD), attached to the RFP, which listed the 
essential requirements.  Regarding enhanced features, RFP section L-19 
listed various features for consideration, including hull design, keel 
design, additional chambers, the inflation process and transfer valve 
system, repair procedures, and whether the proposed boat's components 
were interchangeable with existing military components.  

3. The third offeror's proposal will not be discussed as it it not 
relevant to the issues raised in the protest.

4. The agency used an adjectival rating scheme consisting of 
"exceptional" (near-certain probability of success), "acceptable" 
(fair probability of success), "marginal" (questionable chance of 
success), and "unacceptable" (improbable chance of success).  

5. Alternatively, Polaris challenges the agency's need for the data 
sought, asserting: 

            [the] documents [sought by the agency] are unique to 
            military contracts. . . .  [Such] military documentation 
            is an unaffordable luxury in the commercial world--the 
            commercial marketplace simply will not pay for it.  

To the extent Polaris's protest is now challenging the provisions of 
the solicitation, the post-award protest is not timely filed.  4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1997).

6. Consistent with this concern, the agency noted that the drawing 
Polaris submitted during discussions reflected a boat with only six 
paddles rather than nine as required by the solicitation.  Although a 
boat with nine paddles was an essential feature, the agency did not 
disqualify Polaris's proposal, noting that the drawing appeared to be 
a mistake.  Nonetheless, it is clear that Polaris's inability to 
submit a drawing accurately reflecting the boat's basic requirements 
reasonably increased the agency's concern regarding Polaris's ability 
to make the necessary modifications to the smaller existing boat.