BNUMBER:  B-278112 
DATE:  December 10, 1997
TITLE: Imaging Systems Technology, B-278112, December 10, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Imaging Systems Technology

File:     B-278112

Date:December 10, 1997

Carol Ann Wedding for the protester.
J. Randolph MacPherson, Esq., Sullivan & Worcester LLP, for The GM 
Cope-LAU Joint Venture, an intervenor.
Linda Oliver, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that proposal was improperly downgraded based on results of 
equipment demonstration is denied where solicitation stated that 
demonstration was part of initial proposal and required offerors to 
show compliance with statement of work requirements at the 
demonstration, and protester failed to demonstrate that its equipment 
met two of the requirements at the demonstration.

DECISION

Imaging Systems Technology (IST) protests the award of a contract to 
The GM
Cope-LAU Joint Venture under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
N00019-97-R-0043,
issued by the Department of the Navy for 38 Video Mapper Replacement 
Units, 250 Remote Control Units, system software, 4 Installation 
Checkout Kits, training, and associated data.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price contract under Federal 
Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, and 
contained a
statement of work (SOW) which outlined the government's requirements.  
Award
was to be made on a best value basis, considering price and the 
following technical
factors:  (1) technical aspects of the item offered to meet the 
government's
requirements, including warranty (most important factor); (2) ability 
to meet the
delivery schedule; and (3) past performance.  In addition to a written 
description of
the manufacturer's product specifications, ability to meet the 
delivery schedule and 
the data items proposed and how they meet the government's 
requirements,
offerors were required to conduct a technical demonstration of their 
system, during which compliance with all requirements had to be 
demonstrated.  

Three offers were received (only IST's and GM Cope's are relevant 
here). 
Following the demonstrations, the agency rated IST's proposal as 
follows: 
unsatisfactory/high risk (technical), marginal/medium risk (delivery), 
and
satisfactory/low risk (past performance).  IST's unsatisfactory/high 
risk rating for 
the technical factor was based largely on IST's failure to show 
compliance with all
technical requirements during the demonstration.  Specifically, the 
remote control
unit (RCU) demonstrated was found to be too small, and one map failure 
caused
five maps to fail.  In contrast, GM Cope's proposal was rated highly 
satisfactory/low
risk under all factors.  The agency concluded that GM Cope's 
proposal's technical
superiority and offered 2-year hardware/software warranty (compared to 
IST's 2-year hardware and 1-year software warranty) offset IST's 
significant cost advantage and made award to GM Cope without 
discussions.  

IST argues that its proposed equipment in fact meets all technical 
requirements, and
that it thus should have received the award based on its low price.  
As for its
failure to verify compliance during the demonstration, IST asserts 
that (1) it
demonstrated an RCU smaller than required because no dimensions for 
the RCU
were included in the RFP--its RCU in fact can be delivered in any 
configuration; and
(2) there was not a map failure at its demonstration, since the 
failure was caused
by operator error--due to the agency's failure to provide a necessary 
radar
frequency--not a system failure.

This argument is without merit.  As indicated above, the RFP required 
each offeror
to provide, as "part of the offeror's initial proposal," a technical 
demonstration 
which "shall demonstrate that the offeror's products meet all 
technical
considerations detailed in the [SOW]."  The SOW stated that "[t]he 
[RCU] shall be
form/fit and shall use the existing locations of the FA-8970 remote 
map selector
switches," and that "[a]ny map failure shall not cause more than one 
map channel to
fail."  As indicated above, IST's RCU was found noncompliant with the 
form/fit requirement based on improper (too small) dimensions, and 
during the demonstration one map failure caused five maps to fail.  
IST's assertion, essentially, that the demonstration did not show that 
its equipment fails to satisfy the SOW requirements ignores the plain 
language of the RFP--offerors were to affirmatively demonstrate 
compliance with the requirements at the demonstration.  Thus, while 
IST claims that it can, in fact, furnish a compliant RCU, and that 
there was no map failure--that any "failure" was due to operator 
error--the fact remains that IST was unable to demonstrate compliance 
with these two SOW requirements at the demonstration.  This being the 
case, it was reasonable for the agency to downgrade the firm's 
proposal under the most important evaluation factor.  

To the extent IST attributes its failure in this regard to the 
agency's improper failure to provide necessary information (i.e., RCU 
dimensions and a required radar frequency), the protest is untimely, 
since it was clear from the RFP that the allegedly necessary 
information had been omitted; protests of such alleged

solicitation defects must be filed prior to the closing time for 
receipt of proposals. 
4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1997).[1]  IST also argues that the RFP 
requirements were specifically written based upon GM Cope's equipment, 
and that the RFP failed to advise offerors of the weight of the 
technical demonstration in the evaluation.  These arguments also 
concern alleged solicitation defects, and therefore also are untimely 
because they were not raised prior to the closing date.  In any event, 
absent an allegation that the features required by a solicitation 
exceed the agency's needs, not asserted here, the mere assertion that 
a specification is "written around" design features of a particular 
product is not a valid basis for protest.  Nidek, Inc., B-272255, 
Sept. 11, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  112 at 4.  Further, while the solicitation 
did not specify a proportional weight for the demonstration, it 
devoted one-half page to discussion of the demonstration, clearly 
stating both that it would be deemed part of the proposal and (twice) 
that all SOW requirements were to be addressed.  We think this was 
sufficient to indicate the importance of the demonstration in the 
evaluation; it was clear that the agency intended to evaluate not just 
offerors' asserted compliance with the solicitation requirements, but 
also their ability to physically demonstrate actual compliance.

IST protests that its evaluation improperly was based only on the 
1-hour demonstration, apparently without regard for its written 
proposal, and complains that it has not been furnished any written 
information regarding the evaluation of its proposal.  IST has not 
been furnished the evaluation documents because the agency has 
designated them source selection sensitive; as such, the documents are 
only available to a protester's legal counsel, through our protective 
order process.     See 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.4.  Since IST is pursuing its 
protest pro se, without counsel, it is not entitled to review the 
evaluation documents.  However, our in camera review indicates that 
the agency did in fact evaluate IST's written proposal, and the fact 
that the perceived deficiencies occurred only during the 
demonstration, and that the demonstration results therefore ultimately 
led to the significant downgrading of the proposal, in no way suggests 
otherwise.  Again, since the RFP provided for evaluation of the 
demonstration as part of the proposal, it was proper to downgrade 
IST's proposal based on the demonstration, notwithstanding that the 
written proposal did not reflect the deficiencies; indeed, the 
demonstration presumably was intended as a means of detecting 
deficiencies that would not be apparent from a narrative proposal.

IST maintains that GM Cope "has aggressively and unfairly used prior 
bid protests  
. . . to discourage federal agencies from keeping contracts with [IST] 
so as to obtain
an unfair competitive advantage over US suppliers of [video mapping] 
products." 
This is not a valid basis of protest; there is nothing improper in a 
firm's using the
bid protest process to challenge contract awards.

IST maintains that GM Cope is ineligible for award because it is an 
"American shell
for a Danish corporation which has been sanctioned against doing 
business in the
United States."  However, IST has not identified the alleged 
sanctioning body or
provided any other supporting details regarding this allegation, and 
the agency
reports that GM Cope was not included on the list of 
suspended/debarred firms at
the time of award (and is not now).  Thus, this is not a valid protest 
basis.[2]

IST asserts that GM Cope demonstrated its equipment for the agency 
prior to the
issuing of the solicitation, and thereby learned the Navy radar system 
frequencies,
which enabled it to pre-set its video mapping frequencies prior to the 
official
demonstration, and hence gain competitive advantage.  Any competitive 
advantage
gained by GM Cope was unobjectionable.  The Navy explains that all 
video mapping
vendors, including GM Cope and IST, were invited to demonstrate their 
equipment
during a market survey preceding the procurement, and that GM Cope 
participated,
while IST did not.  While material information may have been imparted 
to
participating firms (GM Cope actually denies it received the radar 
frequency,
explaining that it was not required for its system demonstration), 
this was
foreseeable at the time of the invitation.  While IST was free to 
decline the invitation, there was nothing improper in this market 
survey approach, and no basis to object to the other firms' obtaining 
useful information during their demonstrations.  (Again, if IST 
believed it should be provided the necessary frequency, it should have 
so protested prior to the closing date.)

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In an October 14 submission, IST challenges the rejection of its 
RCU on a new basis--that an amendment to the RFP essentially negated 
the form/fit requirement.  However, allegations such as this must be 
raised no later than 10 days after the protest basis was known.  4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2).  IST was aware of this protest ground at the time 
of its September 17 debriefing, when it was informed that it had 
failed to meet the form/fit requirement.  The argument therefore is 
untimely and will not be considered.

2. In its October 14 submission, IST expands on its argument 
concerning GM Cope's relationship with a foreign corporation and the 
alleged sanctions.  This detailed argument is untimely.  Our 
Regulations do not contemplate the unwarranted piecemeal development 
of protest issues, Innovative Refrigeration Concepts, B-272370, Sept. 
30, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  127 at 5, and presenting a broadly stated general 
allegation in an initial protest does not permit the protester later 
to present specific, and otherwise untimely, arguments having some 
relevance to the initial general allegation.  GE Gov't Servs., 
B-235101, Aug. 11, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  128 at 4.