BNUMBER:  B-279811 
DATE:  July 24, 1998
TITLE: Applied Companies, B-279811, July 24, 1998
**********************************************************************

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:Applied Companies

File:     B-279811

Date:     July 24, 1998

Brian J. Donovan, Esq., Peter B. Jones, Esq., and Toni L. DeGasperin, 
Esq., Jones & Donovan, for the protester.
Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and John J. Reynolds, Esq., Department of 
the Army, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency properly excluded protester's two proposals from the 
competitive range where protester's responses to discussion questions 
(especially regarding ability to comply with system capacity 
requirements, which was identified as a proposal deficiency) lacked 
sufficient detail to satisfy agency's concerns about feasibility of 
approach and protester's understanding of requirements, and where 
record shows that, as a result, protester's proposals no longer had a 
reasonable chance for award.

2.  Contracting agencies are not obligated to afford all-encompassing 
discussions that "spoon-feed" an offeror each item that must be 
addressed to improve a proposal; agencies are only required to lead 
offerors into the areas of their proposals considered deficient and 
requiring amplification.

DECISION

Applied Companies protests the exclusion of its two proposals from the 
competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DAAB07-97-R-E341, issued by the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics 
Command (CECOM).  Applied challenges the agency's evaluation of its 
proposals and contends that the agency failed to conduct meaningful 
discussions with the firm.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, as amended, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract 
for 42 split-pack air conditioners (referred to as Environmental 
Control Units (ECU)), capable of producing a normal cooling capacity 
of 24,000 (24K) British Thermal Units per Hour (BTUH) and a normal 
heating capacity of 30,000 BTUH; these ECUs will replace current 
18,000 (18K) BTUH units used in Patriot Missile shelters.[1]  RFP,  sec.  
B, at 4.  Offerors were to submit detailed technical proposals for the 
design and development of the ECUs in accordance with the statement of 
work and purchase description specifications included in the RFP.[2]  
Section L of the RFP advised offerors that the "technical proposal 
should demonstrate a clear understanding of all the features involved 
in solving the problems and meeting the technical requirements."  RFP  sec.  
L,  para.  3.0, at 58.  Each offeror was to describe how it would meet the 
performance requirements and schedule.  The offeror was to submit 
"drawings, sketches, graphs, special analyses (e.g., model test 
results), calculation, design data, supporting narrative and/or other 
technical information outlining the proposed air conditioner design 
and performance characteristics."  RFP  sec.  L,  para.  3.1, at 59.

Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal determined 
to offer the government the best value, considering the following 
evaluation factors: technical; performance risk; and price (the 
technical factor was slightly more important than performance risk, 
which was slightly more important than price).  RFP  sec.  M-4,  para.  1.0, at 
62.  The technical factor included the following equally-weighted 
subfactors:  24K split-pack design; capabilities, plans, personnel, 
and facilities; test and evaluation; and contract master schedule.[3]  
RFP  sec.  M-4,  para.  2.0, at 62.

Offerors were advised that each technical proposal would be "evaluated 
to determine the extent to which the technical requirements have been 
addressed and understood . . . [and that mere] statements of 
compliance or repetition of the technical requirements without an 
intelligent, complete discussion and analysis are unsatisfactory."  
RFP, amend. 0008,  sec.  M-4,  para.  3.1(a), at 2.  As to the 24K split-pack 
design subfactor of the technical factor, offerors were expressly 
notified that the agency's evaluation of the "feasibility of approach" 
would involve the agency's "level of confidence" in the proposal and 
the "completeness, feasibility, soundness of approach, potential risk, 
and amount and quality of supporting technical analysis" of the 
proposal.  Id.  para.  3.1(b).

Four proposals, including two from Applied, were received by the 
closing date of October 15, 1997.  Each of Applied's proposals offered 
a different electrical power source technology--one proposed using the 
[deleted] generator, and the other proposal offered the [deleted] 
(MPI).  Both of Applied's initial proposals were found to be 
susceptible to being made acceptable, and each was rated as having a 
moderate performance risk.  One of the other two offerors' proposals 
was rated as technically acceptable, the other was considered to be 
susceptible to being made acceptable, and both were rated as having 
low performance risk.  Applied's proposals (at $[deleted] for the 
[deleted] proposal, and $[deleted] for the MPI proposal) were 
lower-priced than the others (at $[deleted] and $[deleted], 
respectively).  All four initial proposals were included in the 
competitive range.

Discussions were conducted through the issuance, on December 23, of 
written items for negotiations (IFN) for each proposal.  CECOM issued 
52 IFNs to Applied regarding its [deleted] proposal, and 41 IFNs for 
its MPI proposal.  The cover letter transmitted with the IFNs advised 
that the requested information was necessary "to more fully evaluate 
[its] proposal" and that its answers must "clearly and fully respond 
to each IFN . . . [since the failure] to rectify these deficiencies 
may result in [its] proposal being found to be unacceptable."  Each 
IFN referenced relevant RFP requirements and Applied's associated 
proposal sections; and each IFN contained one or more questions, or 
requests for additional information, related to a proposal weakness or 
deficiency.

The most significant IFN for purposes of this protest was No. C014, 
issued to Applied for its [deleted] proposal (which generally mirrored 
a separate IFN also issued to the firm for its MPI proposal).  The IFN 
included the RFP reference for the design and layout of the proposed 
technical approach (RFP  sec.  L,  para.  3.1.A.1(a)) and the relevant portion 
(volume II) of the protester's proposal, and informed Applied that its 
"[deleted].  How will the system capacity of 24,000 BTUH be met?"

Applied submitted its IFN responses by the January 7, 1998 deadline 
set for all offerors' responses; this date reflected a 1-day extension 
granted in response to Applied's request for additional time in light 
of the firm's holiday closure earlier that week.[4]  In response to 
IFN No. C014 (and a substantially similar IFN for its other proposal), 
Applied only generally stated that [deleted], and that, although 
[deleted], Applied was unable, given the time allowed, to identify the 
claimed incorrect input data.  In this regard, Applied stated in its 
response that if CECOM had been more specific in identifying the exact 
data perceived to be incorrect, it could have assessed whether it 
agreed that the data were incorrect.  Applied then stated that it had 
checked with the [deleted] that had prepared the questioned data, who 
confirmed the accuracy of the data; the [deleted] also added that if 
data report changes were necessary they "can be done in a matter of 
seconds."

The agency found that Applied's IFN responses, primarily regarding the 
[deleted] deficiency raised in IFN No. C014, failed to raise the 
agency's low level of confidence in the feasibility of the protester's 
proposed approach, and similarly failed to cure the agency's concerns 
about the offeror's apparent lack of demonstrated understanding of the 
critical system capacity requirements.  After evaluation of the IFN 
responses, the agency determined that Applied's two proposals were 
technically unacceptable under the 24K split-pack design subfactor, 
and that major revision to the proposals would be necessary to make 
them acceptable.  Since the proposals received only [deleted] (which 
ratings the protester does not challenge), both proposals were 
determined to be unacceptable overall for the technical factor.  
Technical Factor Evaluation Final Report, February 9, 1998.  
Consequently, the Applied proposals were excluded from the competitive 
range, due to the agency's determination that they no longer had a 
chance of being selected for award when compared to the two remaining 
lower-risk, higher technically rated proposals (one rated as good, and 
at only a slightly higher price than Applied's proposals, and the 
other rated acceptable).  Interim Competitive Range Memorandum, 
February 9, 1998, at 2.

The protester alleges that during its debriefing, it first learned 
that the agency's claimed [deleted] involved the protester's proposed 
system's liquid temperature at the evaporator ([deleted]), which the 
agency believed was too low to reach system capacity with the 
evaporator coil proposed.  Applied filed an agency-level protest on 
March 7, challenging the exclusion of its proposals from the 
competitive range, since the agency, according to Applied, had failed 
to conduct proper discussions with the firm.  The agency denied that 
protest by decision of April 7.  This protest followed.

Applied protests the propriety of the agency's technical evaluation of 
its ECU design proposals, and the exclusion of those proposals from 
the competitive range after discussions.[5]  The competitive range 
consists of all proposals that have a reasonable chance of being 
selected for award.  Intown Properties, Inc., B-250392, Jan. 28, 1993, 
93-1 CPD  para.  73 at 3.  In reviewing a determination to exclude a 
proposal from the competitive range, we first review the agency's 
evaluation of the proposal; we will not reevaluate the proposal, but 
will examine the record of the agency's evaluation to ensure that it 
was reasonable and in accord with stated evaluation criteria.  
Labat-Anderson Inc., B-246071.4, Oct. 9, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  244 at 6.  
The offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written 
proposal and proposal revisions for the agency to evaluate, and an 
offeror's disagreement with the agency's judgment is not sufficient to 
establish that the agency acted unreasonably.  Id.  If the agency's 
evaluation is reasonable, there is nothing improper in an agency's 
making more than one competitive range determination and dropping a 
firm from further consideration once it becomes evident that the 
offeror no longer has a reasonable chance of receiving the award.  
Este Medical Servs., Inc., B-261845.2, Sept. 29, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  240 
at 4; Johnston Communications, B-221346, Feb. 28, 1986, 86-1 CPD  para.  211 
at 4.

In its IFN response, Applied basically asserted that its ECU design 
proposals were technically acceptable because [deleted]--and Applied 
basically stated that its data were accurate because its [deleted] 
stated that they were accurate.  The RFP provided, however, that 
general statements of compliance were unacceptable; as the agency 
points out, what the protester failed to adequately do in its 
proposal, and in its IFN response to the question ("How will the 
system capacity of 24,000 BTUH be met?") was to sufficiently describe 
how the proposed overall system would accomplish the requisite cooling 
levels.  The record shows that liquid refrigerant temperature at the 
evaporator is just one factor in the proposed ECU's overall operation 
and compliance with RFP capacity requirements.  Here, it is the 
[deleted] (and related data) proposed, including the [deleted] units, 
which the agency needed the protester to more fully describe in order 
to evaluate the acceptability of the proposed approach for system 
capacity, as well as the protester's understanding of the requirement, 
but which the protester failed to sufficiently detail.

The contracting officer explains that the conclusion that Applied's 
proposed evaporator coil was undersized for system capacity was not 
based solely on the [deleted], but on Applied's [deleted] of the 
required evaporator capacity, since, for instance, the proposal failed 
to allow [deleted].  Contracting Officer Statement at 12.  The agency 
points out that the other offerors provided for these allowances by 
proposing [deleted], and presented data indicating [deleted] than 
Applied's system.

Our review of the protest record shows that Applied has not refuted 
the reasonable bases upon which the agency questioned the capacity of 
its proposed systems.  Rather, the firm continues to contend that the 
agency was wrong to downgrade and exclude its proposals, since Applied 
is an experienced contractor that could revise its proposals to 
provide for "further subcooling" to meet the agency's concerns, and 
because its [deleted] have been confirmed as sufficient by the 
[deleted] that prepared them.  Protest at 9; Protester's Comments at 
8.  These responses, however, are not persuasive, since neither the 
additional [deleted] approach nor the [deleted] post-protest 
documentation was included in Applied's proposals or IFN submission 
for proper, timely evaluation.  The time period following an offeror's 
proposal's exclusion from the competitive range, including the protest 
process, is not the time for an offeror to submit new or more detailed 
proposal information for evaluation to satisfy RFP requirements or 
attempt to demonstrate an ability to meet those requirements.[6]

The RFP, as stated above, specifically advised offerors that their 
proposals had to demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and 
advised that the proposed design would be evaluated for "completeness, 
feasibility, soundness of approach, potential risk, and amount and 
quality of supporting technical analysis."  RFP, amend. 0008,  sec.  M-4,  para.  
3.1(b), at 2.  In our view, the protester's mere general statements of 
compliance, even after discussions which included the agency's request 
for information regarding system capacity and related data, provided a 
reasonable basis for the agency's substantial downgrade of the 
proposals under the relevant design factor.  The overall low technical 
rating assigned to the proposals is further supported, we believe, by 
the fact that the protester does not challenge the numerous other 
weaknesses and disadvantages cited in its proposals which, in our 
view, reasonably support its lower technical ratings and higher 
associated risk.  Moreover, we think the agency's concerns about the 
protester's failure to convincingly detail the feasibility of its 
technical approach for the ECU units are also reasonably supported by 
the minimal allowance here, if any, for performance failure of any 
sort, given the critical role of a properly functioning ECU in the 
successful operation of the Patriot Missile systems, and the 
protection of the agency's personnel and critical missile-related 
computer operations.

In sum, based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the 
agency reasonably determined that Applied's proposals no longer had a 
reasonable chance for award.  Accordingly, there is no basis for us to 
question the propriety of the agency's determination to exclude its 
proposals from the competitive range after discussions.

Applied protests that its proposal problems, if any, were the result 
of the agency's failure to conduct meaningful discussions with the 
firm.  In particular, Applied states that the agency misled it in 
discussions by mentioning, in IFN No. C014, incorrect input data 
(without identifying exact [deleted] information being questioned), 
when the agency later explained that it was fundamentally concerned 
with whether system capacity requirements would be met.  We disagree.  
The record is clear that Applied's proposals at all times gave the 
agency substantial concern as to the firm's actual understanding of 
the critical system requirements under the RFP; in particular, the 
agency was concerned with how Applied proposed to meet system capacity 
requirements, which were paramount to successful performance.  Applied 
was specifically told that the [deleted] was considered deficient, and 
that a complete and detailed response was required from the firm 
before its technical proposals could be found acceptable.  The record 
speaks for itself--the agency directly and meaningfully discussed this 
concern by raising the IFN No. C014 bottom-line question:  "How will 
the system capacity of 24,000 BTUH be met?"  In our view, the agency's 
mention of perceived incorrect data was not misleading, since the 
clear message of the IFN involved how the offeror proposed to meet the 
system capacity requirements (in order to evaluate the proposals' 
compliance with RFP requirements and the offeror's understanding of 
those requirements).  The IFN clearly necessitated sufficient 
discussion from Applied explaining the proposed system, including 
related data, which Applied failed to provide.

While agencies generally are required to conduct meaningful 
discussions by leading offerors into the areas of their proposals 
requiring amplification, this does not mean that an agency must 
"spoon-feed" an offeror as to each and every item that must be revised 
or otherwise addressed to improve a proposal.  LaBarge Elecs., 
B-266210, Feb. 9, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  58 at 6; Estes Medical Servs., 
Inc., supra, at 5.  Given the RFP and IFN instructions for detailed 
explanations of an offeror's proposed approach to system capacity 
requirements, it is clear that IFN No. C014, calling for an 
explanation of how the system capacity requirements would be met by 
Applied, reasonably led the firm into the area of its proposals 
identified as a deficiency and in need of amplification or correction.  
The protester was reasonably on notice that its proposals in this area 
were not adequate to meet RFP requirements, and simply failed to 
respond with the specificity requested and required. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency reports that a Patriot Missile shelter's ECU is critical 
to the successful operation of the missile system, because it protects 
the soldiers operating the system, as well as the sensitive computer 
support equipment, from harsh environmental conditions including 
extreme temperatures.  The agency explains that the split-pack design 
refers to operating configurations where the ECU's evaporator and 
condenser sections are separated, compared to where they are connected 
in one horizontal unit; the 24K BTUH unit is to fit in the shelter 
space previously used by the smaller capacity 18K BTUH unit.  U.S. 
Army Materiel Command Legal Memorandum, May 18, 1998, at 2.  

2. The contracting officer explains that the refrigeration cycle for 
an ECU unit involves a compressor that pumps hot refrigerant (raising 
the pressure of the refrigerant gas) to the condenser coil where the 
vapor condenses to a liquid (releasing energy in the form of heat); 
the refrigerant (at reduced pressure) in the connecting expansion 
valve is fed through the system to the evaporator coil where the 
liquid refrigerant (at lower pressure) expands and evaporates, 
absorbing heat and lowering the temperature of the evaporator ambient 
air.  As the contracting officer points out, the "performance of the 
refrigerant cycle is dependent upon the interaction of all the 
components."  Contracting Officer Statement at 6.

3. A fifth, lower-weighted subfactor, small business and small 
disadvantaged business subcontracting plan, was not part of the 
evaluation, since all the proposals were submitted by small 
businesses.

4. On December 29, Applied requested information from the agency 
regarding the role of the IFNs in the procurement process and their 
effect on the award determination.  In that request, Applied 
acknowledged that, given the timing of the proceedings, the firm 
understood that answers to some of its questions may not be issued 
until after award.  Although Applied had not received any response 
from the agency regarding its procedural questions, the protester 
submitted its IFN responses on January 7.  Applied now contends that 
if it had known the IFN responses would be important to the evaluation 
of proposals for award, it would have submitted additional 
information.  We simply cannot see how Applied was, as it alleges, 
misled by the role of the IFN questions and responses, or how it was 
reasonably prejudiced by the agency's failure to respond to its 
questions prior to the submission of its IFN responses.  The IFN cover 
sheet clearly set forth that the IFN responses were to be used in the 
evaluation of proposals and that noted proposal deficiencies were to 
be rectified in the IFN responses.  Further, to the extent Applied 
contends that it had insufficient time to prepare more detailed IFN 
responses, the challenge is untimely.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1998).

5. In its protest of April 14, Applied also challenged the agency's 
determinations regarding some of the additional major and minor 
disadvantages found in the Applied technical proposals, as well as the 
agency's alleged failure to meaningfully discuss those problems with 
the firm.  The protester, however, failed to pursue these contentions 
in its comments in response to the agency's explanation of its 
evaluation determinations; we therefore consider them abandoned.  See 
The Big Picture Co., Inc., B-220859.2, Mar. 4, 1986, 86-1 CPD  para.  218 at 
5.

6. In any event, the agency evaluators report that this untimely 
submitted technical data also fail to relieve their concerns about the 
protester's proposed design and understanding of the overall RFP 
requirements, since the BTUH capacity claimed by the protester, unlike 
the [deleted] capacities offered by its competitors' systems, does not 
allow for additional [deleted] requirements relating to heat generated 
by the evaporator motor and other components; also, [deleted], which 
was not fully addressed by Applied, raised concerns of possible 
[deleted].  Contracting Officer Statement at 12; Draft Government 
Replies to Applied's Correspondence of Mar. 2, 4, and 5, 1998.  The 
record also refutes Applied's contention that other offerors were 
found acceptable with similar or less acceptable input data.  Those 
offerors proposed different coils, with different (higher-rated) 
capacities, and, despite the claim of less data having been presented 
by another offeror, the record reasonably shows the agency had no 
reason to question the technical acceptability of the data presented, 
since the higher temperatures and capacities offered by the offeror 
fell within expected parameters supported by the agency's experience, 
where Applied's proposal information did not.