BNUMBER: B-277160
DATE: July 2, 1997
TITLE: JEOL USA, Inc., B-277160, July 2, 1997
**********************************************************************
Matter of:JEOL USA, Inc.
File: B-277160
Date: July 2, 1997
Janice D. Sogard for the protester.
Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., and Jerald J. Kennemuth, Esq., National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the
decision.
DIGEST
Agency reasonably rejected as technically unacceptable a proposal for
an electron microscope where the solicitation required the submission
of descriptive literature to demonstrate compliance with the stated
requirements, and the information provided by the protester prior to
award did not show that its proposed microscope satisfied the working
distance requirement stated in the solicitation.
DECISION
JEOL USA, Inc. protests an award to Hitachi Scientific Instruments
under request for offers (RFO) No. RFO3-072251, issued by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Lewis Research Center,
for a field emission scanning electron microscope. JEOL protests that
the rejection of its offer as technically unacceptable was
unreasonable.
We deny the protest.[1]
The solicitation, issued on May 5, 1997, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price contract.[2] The solicitation required offerors to
provide:
"a description (including manufacturer, brand, and model no.) in
sufficient detail to show that the product or service offered
meets the Government's requirement included in the attached model
contract."
The model contract stated detailed minimum requirements for the
microscope, including:
"The resolution must be at least 2.5 [nanometers (nm)] for an
accelerating voltage of 1 [kilovolt (kV)] and 1.5 nm for an
accelerating voltage of 15 kV at a working distance of 12
[millimeters (mm)]."[3]
NASA received four offers by the May 15 due date, including those of
JEOL for $368,368 and Hitachi for $451,319.
JEOL's proposal stated that its "[o]ffer meets all of the
specifications of the request document." The descriptive literature
provided with the proposals stated the following resolution
specifications:
"1.2 nm guaranteed (at 15 kV)
2.5 nm guaranteed (at 1 kV)"
JEOL's proposal did not state the working distances for these
resolution specifications.
On May 22, NASA conducted a telephone conference with JEOL. During
this call, NASA asked about the resolution capability of the proposed
microscope. JEOL's product manager stated that the specified
resolution of JEOL's microscope was for much shorter working distances
than required under NASA's specification. He stated that the
resolution was 2.5 nm at 1 kV for a working distance of 3 mm, and 1.5
nm at 15 kV for a working distance of 6 mm.
NASA determined that JEOL's proposal was unacceptable, as were the
proposals of two other offerors. These three proposals were rejected
and award was made to Hitachi on May 23. This protest followed.
JEOL now alleges that its microscope satisfies the resolution
requirement at a working distance of 12 mm. It contends that its
proposal was technically acceptable because it stated that it would
meet all of the stated solicitation requirements.
When a solicitation in a negotiated procurement requires the
submission of descriptive literature showing technical adequacy, an
offeror must demonstrate technical sufficiency in its proposal. Power
Dynatec Corp., B-251501.3, Aug. 3, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 73 at 3. A
blanket offer of compliance with the specification is not sufficient
to comply with a solicitation requirement for detailed technical
information necessary for evaluation purposes. Id.; AEG
Aktiengesellschaft, 65 Comp. Gen. 418, 421 (1986), 86-1 CPD para. 267 at
4. The contracting agency is responsible for evaluating the data
supplied by an offeror and ascertaining if it provides sufficient
information to determine the acceptability of the offeror's item; we
will not disturb this technical determination unless it is shown to be
unreasonable. Inframetrics, Inc., B-257400, Sept. 30, 1994, 94-2 CPD para.
138 at 3.
The solicitation established the working distance requirement, and
JEOL's proposal did not supply information evidencing that its
proposed microscope satisfied that. The only information available to
the agency relating to the working distance of JEOL's microscope was
the oral statement of JEOL's product manager, who did not indicate
that JEOL's proposed microscope satisfied the working distance
requirement, but stated that the microscope's resolution was designed
for a shorter working distance and provided the resolution of JEOL's
microscope for working distances of 3 mm and 6 mm (but not for working
distances greater than 6 mm). We think that, based on this
information, the agency reasonably concluded that JEOL's proposal did
not offer the required resolution at the required working distance of
12 mm. Since the agency had no basis at the time of award to
determine that JEOL's microscope could satisfy the greater working
distance requirement, rejection of JEOL's proposal as technically
unacceptable was reasonable. See AZTEK, Inc., B-228376, Feb. 5, 1988,
88-1 CPD para. 113 at 4-5.
To the extent JEOL alleges that the agency's inquiry about the working
distance was inadequate because NASA did not specifically ask whether
JEOL's microscope complied with the 12 mm working distance
requirement, we think that the agency's inquiry about resolution and
working distance, considered together with the working distance
requirement clearly stated in the solicitation, was sufficient to
alert JEOL to the apparent deficiency in its proposal. See Renaissant
Dev. Corp., B-260947, Aug. 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 58 at 5 (discussions
need not be overly specific to be meaningful).
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. This protest was developed, and this decision is being issued,
pursuant to an accelerated schedule. 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.10(e) (1997).
2. Award was to be based on a best value evaluation plan with
technical and past performance factors combined being substantially
equal to price.
3. The 12 mm working distance is a critical requirement because the
material to be examined, irregular surfaces of fractured ceramic
composite samples, typically has protruding fibers which preclude a
closer working distance.