BNUMBER:  B-280003 
DATE:  August 12, 1998
TITLE: Madico, Inc., B-280003, August 12, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Madico, Inc.

File:     B-280003

Date:August 12, 1998

Jay Larkin for the protester.
John S. Albanese, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly selected higher-priced proposal is 
denied where the solicitation made technical considerations more 
important than price and the agency reasonably concluded that the 
technical superiority of the awardee's proposal warranted payment of 
the associated price premium.

DECISION

Madico, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Mid-Atlantic Service 
& Supply Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
MDA946-98-R-3001, issued by the Department of Defense, Washington 
Headquarters Services for the purchase and installation of security 
glass coverings at the Pentagon.  Madico objects to the agency's 
decision to award to Mid-Atlantic at a price higher than that offered 
by Madico.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued December 5, 1997, contemplated the award of a 
fixed-price contract for the purchase and installation of fragment 
retention film on windows at the Pentagon building and windows at the 
Child Care Center at the north side of the Pentagon.  The RFP provided 
that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of (in descending order 
of importance) technical capability of the item offered to meet the 
government requirement, price, and past performance, and that award 
would be made to the offeror whose proposal conforming to the 
solicitation would be most advantageous to the government.  RFP, 
Addendum No. 4,  sec.  52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items.  One of 
the RFP requirements for the fragment retention film was that it 
"shall exhibit a flame spread index not exceeding 25 and a smoke 
density index not exceeding 100 when tested in accordance with 
ASTME-84."[1]  RFP, Addendum No. 3,  sec.  08850, Fragment Retention Film 
for Glass  para.  2.2.5.  Amendment No. 0001, issued on December 5, 1997, 
stated that there were a total of 958 windows that needed treatment, 
332 of which required category II window film, 7 mils thick or 
thicker. 

Four offerors responded to the solicitation.  Madico submitted an 
offer of $42,521.67 and provided an independent test report, as 
required by the RFP,  indicating a flame spread index of 8 for its 
proposed film.  Mid-Atlantic's offer was for $52,944 and its 
independent test report indicated a flame spread index of 2.  In its 
offer, Mid-Atlantic stated that for Category II film, it was proposing 
the use of ArmorGard 7 mil single ply clear, and as an alternative at 
the same price, it proposed a product called SecureVue 400, a 4 mil 
thick (2) ply product.  The contracting officer reviewed the technical 
evaluator's assessment that Mid-Atlantic's proposal provided greater 
security protection than Madico's and determined that the proposal 
submitted by Mid-Atlantic with the SecureVue 400 was worth the 
additional cost and provided the best value to the government.  A 
contract was awarded to Mid-Atlantic on March 6, 1998.  After 
receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, Madico initially filed 
an agency-level protest that was denied by letter dated April 29.  On 
May 8, Madico filed this protest with our Office.  Because Madico did 
not file this protest with our Office within the time period requiring 
a stay of performance under the Competition in Contracting Act, 31 
U.S.C.  sec.  3553(d) (1994), a stop work was not issued and Mid-Atlantic 
has substantially completed performance of the contract.     

Madico asserts that the agency's decision to award to Mid-Atlantic at 
a higher price based on a lower flame spread rating was unreasonable.  
The agency's position is that, in accordance with the solicitation, it 
made an appropriate technical/price tradeoff and properly awarded the 
contract to Mid-Atlantic.  We see no basis to conclude that the 
agency's decision to award the contract to Mid-Atlantic was 
unreasonable.

In a negotiated procurement, the government is not required to select 
the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal unless the RFP so 
specifies.  General Servs. Eng'g Inc., B-245458, Jan. 9, l992, 92-1 
CPD  para.  44 at 9.  Agency officials have broad discretion in determining 
the manner and extent to which they will make use of technical and 
price evaluation results.  Price/technical tradeoffs may be made; the 
extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed by the 
test of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation 
factors.  Id.  Where, as here, the RFP indicates that technical 
considerations are more important than cost considerations, selection 
of a technically superior, higher-priced proposal is proper where the 
record shows that the price premium was justified in light of the 
proposal's technical superiority.  Dynamics Research Corp., B-240809, 
Dec. 10, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  471 at 2.  Here, the record supports the 
contracting officer's decision to award the contract to Mid-Atlantic 
as the technically superior offeror, even though Mid-Atlantic proposed 
a higher price than Madico.

In reaching his decision to award the contract to Mid-Atlantic, the 
contracting officer relied on the evaluators' technical evaluations 
which rated Mid-Atlantic's product superior to that of the protester 
because of Mid-Atlantic's lower (i.e., superior) flame spread index.  
While the evaluators considered Madico's product to be good, it was 
consistently rated second to Mid-Atlantic's and that of another 
offeror because of its higher flame spread index.  Further, the chief 
of the office of Safety and Occupational Health Branch (SOHB) 
recommended Mid-Atlantic's product based on its flame spread index of 
2 and smoke density index of 28, which were lower than those of the 
other proposals.  Memorandum from the SOHB Chief to the Facilities 
Contracts Office (Mar. 4, 1998).  The contracting officer states that 
because improved physical security was a paramount concern, the 
superior protection offered by Mid-Atlantic's product was determined 
to offer the best value to the government.  Contracting Officer's 
Statement at 2.

The protester maintains that flame spread should have never been a 
determining factor because all polyester products have the same flame 
spread and there is no significant difference between a flame spread 
of 2 and 8.

The determination of the relative merits of proposals is primarily a 
matter of agency discretion.  Saco Defense, Inc., B-252066, May 20, 
1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  395 at 5.  In reviewing a challenge to an agency's 
technical evaluation, we examine the record to ensure that the 
evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation 
criteria.  Id.  A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's 
judgment does not render that judgment unreasonable.  Id.

The agency points out that a flame spread rating provides an 
indication of the speed with which fire may spread across the surface 
of a material and that, while both offerors' products' flame spread 
ratings were within the acceptable range set forth in the RFP, 
Mid-Atlantic's flame spread rating of 2 is better than Madico's rating 
of 8.  The agency concluded that the lower flame spread rating of the 
proposed Mid-Atlantic film warranted payment of the associated price 
premium because of the greater security protection provided by the 
Mid-Atlantic product.  Contracting Officer's Statement at 2.

Notwithstanding the protester's disagreement, we see no basis to 
conclude that the agency's technical evaluation was unreasonable.  The 
test report provided by the protester states that "flame spread values 
are a function of the maximum flame spread reading occurring between 
one and ten minutes."  The Burns & Russel Co., Test Report, Jan. 30, 
1980, at 5.  While the protester insists that there is no significant 
difference between a flame spread index of 2 or 8, the protester does 
not explain why its product with a flame spread index of 8 should be 
considered equal to the awardee's, which has a lower index rating, 
thus indicating slower and lesser flame spread.  The agency considers 
the difference to be meaningful and important and reports that, 
because of safety concerns and the need to protect the inhabitants of 
the Pentagon, the difference in the performance of these products will 
provide greater security protection and is worth the additional cost.  
As noted above, the SOHB chief recommended Madico's product because of 
its lower flame spread index.  

We note that with regard to solicitation provisions relating to human 
safety, an agency has the discretion to set its minimum needs so as to 
achieve not just reasonable results but the highest possible 
reliability and effectiveness.  Tucson Mobilephone, Inc., B-250389, 
Jan. 29, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  79 at 5.  Here, in view of the agency's 
legitimate concern with the need for safety, we see no basis to 
question the reasonableness of the contracting officer's determination 
that because of a better flame spread rating, Mid-Atlantic's 
higher-priced product offered the best value to the government.

Madico also argues that the agency relaxed the requirement for 
category II windows for the awardee.  Specifically, Madico contends 
that the agency allowed Mid-Atlantic to substitute a category II rated 
4 mil film in lieu of the required 7 mil.  The agency points out that 
it did not relax this requirement and that the awardee is required to 
install "4 mil 2ply" material to the windows, which results in 8 mils 
of material being applied to the windows, which is in excess of the 7 
mils required in the solicitation.  Agency Comments, July 2, 1998, at 
1.  The agency's assessment is consistent with the RFP requirements, 
and to the extent that the protester is asserting that Mid-Atlantic 
will not provide category II windows that are compliant with the 
solicitation, the allegation raises a matter of contract 
administration which is not for our review.  Bid Protest Regulations, 
4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(a) (1998).[2]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States    

1. Flame spread ratings are intended as a guide in the selection and 
use of finishing materials and are obtained by measuring the extent 
and rapidity with which flames spread over their surfaces under test 
conditions.  The ratings are a method of numerical classification 
which permits comparison of a given material's flame spread 
performance with that of another.  The ASTME-84 is the standard fire 
test used to evaluate flame spread.  During the test, flame spreads 
along the surface of the test material under a controlled air flow.  
Distance of flame travel and the rate at which the flame front 
advances during a 10-minute exposure determine the calculated flame 
spread index.  Surface Burning Characteristics, www.westroc.
com/9intbrn.htm; Design for Code Acceptance (Jan. 1998 Revision) Flame 
Spread Performance of Wood Products, www.awc.org/DCA_No1/index.html.

2. In comments filed on July 29, the protester raises several 
allegations of impropriety in the conduct of this procurement based on 
information that was contained in the agency report filed with our 
Office on June 10.  These issues are untimely and not for 
consideration on the merits as they were required to be raised within 
10 days of receipt of the agency report.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2) 
(1998).