BNUMBER:  B-278900 
DATE:  March 18, 1998
TITLE: Higher Power Engineering, B-278900, March 18, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Higher Power Engineering

File:     B-278900

Date:March 18, 1998

Ronald Cooper for the protester.
Lis B. Young, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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's decision not to fund protester's proposal under Small 
Business Innovation Research Program procurement was proper where 
evaluation was consistent with terms of solicitation and there is no 
showing of agency bad faith or violation of regulations.

DECISION

Higher Power Engineering (HPE) protests the rejection of its proposal 
by the Department of the Navy under Small Business Innovation Research 
(SBIR) Program solicitation No. N97-142.  HPE alleges that the Navy 
improperly evaluated its proposal.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation sought phase I proposals on the topic, "Integrated 
Control of a Powered Causeway Ferry."  Offerors were to submit 
proposals for development and demonstration of a "commercially viable 
integrated, intuitive operator friendly controller that will increase 
maneuverability of causeway ferries while reducing the need for highly 
skilled operators" and will "simultaneously control from two to four . 
. . thrusters."[1]  The solicitation contained four evaluation 
criteria as follows:
(1) soundness and technical merit of the proposed approach and its 
incremental progress toward topic solution; (2) potential for 
commercial (government or private sector) application and the benefits 
expected to accrue from commercialization;
(3) adequacy of the proposed effort for the fulfillment of the 
research topic's requirements; and (4) qualifications of the 
principal/key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants, in 
terms of both their ability to perform the research and their ability 
to commercialize the results.

The agency received 12 proposals.  Based on the evaluation, the 
protester's proposal was ranked tenth, with 24 of a possible 48 
points.  The agency made award to American GNC Corporation based on 
that firm's highest-rated proposal (42 points).  Following award, HPE 
submitted an agency-level protest.  In response, the agency 
reevaluated the firm's proposal and increased its score 1 point (to 25 
points) on the basis of one evaluator's initial incorrect 
determination that the protester had proposed two thrusters instead of 
four, as required; however this did not change the relative ranking 
(tenth out of 12 proposals received) of the firm's proposal.[2]   

HPE argues that the Navy misevaluated the firm's proposal as inferior 
to the awardee's and was biased against the firm, and that the 
awardee's proposed system is not operator friendly, as required. 

Where an agency is conducting an SBIR procurement, it has the 
discretion to determine which proposals it will fund.  See Small 
Business Innovation Research Program Policy Directive, 58 Fed. Reg. 
6144, 6149 (1993); Microexpert Sys., Inc., 
B-233892, Apr. 13, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  378 at 2.  In light of this 
discretion, our review of an SBIR procurement is limited to 
determining whether the agency violated any applicable regulations or 
solicitation provisions, or acted in bad faith.  Bostan Research, 
Inc., B-274331, Dec. 3, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  209 at 2.  

There is no basis for disturbing the award here.  First, there is no 
showing of a violation of regulations.  Further, the considerations 
which led the Navy to downgrade HPE's proposal (during the original 
evaluation and the reevaluation)--primarily failure to sufficiently 
address the hydrodynamics of the ferry (technical merit factor), lack 
of apparent integrated control of multiple thrusters (adequacy of 
proposed effort factor), and lack of resume for the proposed senior 
electrical engineer and lack of marine experience with small craft 
similar to the causeway ferries here (qualifications of principal/key 
investigators, supporting staff, and consultants factor)--all were 
consistent with and encompassed by the stated criteria, and the award 
decision was based on the relative ranking of the proposals under 
these criteria.  Consequently, we conclude that the evaluation was 
consistent with the solicitation.

Although HPE's protest focuses on its disagreement with the evaluation 
conclusions, in light of the discretion afforded agencies under the 
SBIR program,  the evaluation judgments that go into award decisions 
generally are not subject to legal objection.  In any case, the 
agency's evaluation conclusions appear unobjectionable.  For example, 
under the technical merit factor, HPE's proposal was evaluated as 
deficient for failure to address hydrodynamics of the ferry, and HPE 
does not dispute the agency's determination that the firm's proposal 
did not indicate the design assumptions for its integrated control 
system regarding the forces of the water on the side of the ferry hull 
or the validity of the assumptions.

As another example, under the qualifications of principal/key 
investigators, supporting staff, and consultants factor, HPE's 
proposal was found deficient for failure to provide the resume of the 
senior electrical engineer.  The protester argues that it provided the 
resume of the principal investigator, as required by the solicitation, 
but does not rebut the agency's position that the additional resume 
was needed for the evaluation because the firm's proposal provided 
that a senior electrical engineer (in addition to the principal 
investigator) would have a significant role in the project.  In this 
regard, we note that, although the solicitation did not specifically 
require resumes for key personnel other than the principal 
investigator, it specifically requested that the offeror "[i]dentify 
key personnel who will be involved in the Phase I effort including 
information on directly related education and experience."  We see 
nothing unreasonable in the agency's downgrading the proposal for 
failing to provide required information concerning an individual who 
would play a significant role in performance of the contract.

HPE alleges that it was misled by agency personnel as to the number of 
thrusters required, and that this improperly affected the evaluation 
of its proposal.  However, the agency denies misleading HPE and, in 
any case, there is no indication that any misunderstanding as to the 
number of thrusters affected the evaluation.  As discussed above, 
while one evaluator initially downgraded HPE's proposal for proposing 
only two thrusters, this evaluation defect was corrected in the 
reevaluation.[3]   

HPE's allegation of bias also is without merit. When a protester 
alleges bias or bad faith on the part of contracting officials, it 
must provide convincing proof that the officials intended to harm the 
protester, since contracting officials are presumed to act in good 
faith.  ACS Sys. & Eng'g, Inc., B-275439.3, Mar. 31, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  
126 at 5.  HPE notes the error corrected in the reevaluation, 
reiterates its disagreement with the evaluation, and concludes, with 
no further proof, that the "incomplete review" shows bias.  This 
unsupported allegation does not constitute the proof required to 
establish agency bad faith.    

Since HPE's proposal was ranked tenth, and therefore is not in line 
for award, HPE is not an interested party eligible to challenge the 
evaluation of the awardee's proposal.  See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.0(a); 21.1(a) (1997); Virginia Accelerators Corp., 
B-271066, May 20, 1996, 97-2  para.  13 at 3 n.2.

The protest is denied.[4]

Comptroller General 
of the United States    

1. Navy causeway ferries are used to transport materiel from ships to 
shore where a  ship is unable to dock directly at a pier.  Existing 
ferries are composed of a powered unit and one or more nonpowered 
units, but are not fully capable of maneuvering alongside ships and 
piers in higher sea states.  As explained in the solicitation, this 
deficiency is considered to be the result of the fact that there 
currently are only two thrusters available to power and maneuver the 
ferry, both located in the stern of the powered unit.  (Each thruster 
has separate controls for engine rpm and nozzle direction.)  The Navy 
now is developing causeway ferries with bow thrusters (in addition to 
the stern thrusters) to provide greater maneuverability.  A ferry that 
utilizes two bow and two stern thrusters will require eight controls 
(engine rpm and nozzle direction for each thruster), and the current 
solicitation is part of an attempt to develop a simplified control 
system, in the form of an "intuitive joy stick control system."

2. In its reevaluation, the agency also acknowledged that the 
evaluated deficiency statement that the firm lacked "any marine 
background" was inaccurate and too generalized, but that it had no 
effect on the evaluation since it actually was the underlying absence 
of evidence of "marine background with experience in small craft 
similar to the causeway ferries" that led to the downgrading.

3. In any case, we note that the government is not bound by or liable 
for the erroneous advice of its employees.  A.D. Roe Co., Inc., 54 
Comp. Gen. 271, 275 (1974), 74-2 CPD  para.  194 at 6; Reach All, Inc., 
B-229772, Mar. 15, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  267 at 5. 

4. HPE requests reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing its 
protest and  proposal preparation costs.  However, there is no legal 
basis for allowing an unsuccessful protester to recover such costs.  
See 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(d).  The protester also seeks recovery of lost 
profits.  There is no legal basis for allowing recovery of lost 
profits under any circumstances in connection with a bid protest.  CFM 
Equip. Co.--Recon., B-251344.2, Aug. 30, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  134 at 5.