BNUMBER:  B-280250             
DATE:  August 7, 1998
TITLE: Chant Engineering Co. Inc., B-280250, August 7, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Chant Engineering Co. Inc.

File:B-280250            
        
Date:August 7, 1998 

Philip Chant for the protester. 
Maj. Richard E. Grant and Julius Rothlein, Esq., Marine Corps, for the 
agency. 
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and Jerold D. Cohen, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Where protester had previously produced items similar to type 
being solicited, while awardee had previously produced the very same 
type of item, awardee reasonably received a higher past performance 
score than the protester, even though solicitation considered 
acceptable experience producing either the same or a similar type of 
item.

2.  In evaluating proposals, the contracting agency reasonably 
assigned the minimum score to the life expectancy of the protester's 
product under the solicitation's reliability factor where the 
protester merely offered the minimum required life expectancy without 
providing a methodology that might support a longer life expectancy 
claim. 

DECISION

Chant Engineering Co. Inc. protests the evaluation of its proposal and 
the award of a contract to Bauer Howden, Inc. by the United States 
Marine Corps under request for proposals (RFP) No. M00146-98-R-0003 
for two aircraft fuel nozzle test stands.

We deny the protest.

The RFP's specification for the fuel nozzle test stand set out minimum 
requirements for design, manufacture, and delivery, and provided that 
"[t]his specification is for the express purpose of soliciting 
technical proposals and cost estimates for a nozzle test stand from an 
established contractor having experience in the design and manufacture 
of aircraft fuel components test stands."  RFP  sec.  C,  para.  1.1.  The test 
stands will be used to test the performance characteristics of 
aircraft fuel nozzles and other fuel equipment components in 
accordance with the equipment's associated technical manuals.  RFP  sec.  
C,  para.  3.2, 3.3.1.1.  The required major components of the test stand 
include a test stand enclosure and test sink, a fuel supply and 
control system, an operator console and instrumentation, and a 
patternator.[1]  RFP  sec.  C,  para.  3.2.1.

The RFP established minimum standards of reliability for the test 
stand by requiring that the item be designed for a mean time between 
failures (MTBF) of at least 500 hours and for a useful life (life 
expectancy) of 10 years (approximately 2,000 hours per year).  RFP  sec.  
C,  para.  3.3.3.  The RFP also required that an offeror furnish 
documentation that substantiates that its test stand meets the 
reliability requirements of section C, paragraph 3.3.3.  RFP  sec.  C,  para.  
4.1.1.2.  According to the RFP, "[t]hese requirements can be validated 
by the contractor by a theoretical study or by citing comparability to 
similar systems presently in use."  Id.  Reliability validation had to 
be provided for both MTBF and useful life.  Id. 

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract based on the 
following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of 
importance:

     1.  TECHNICAL FACTORS

        A.  Reliability
          1.  [MTBF], which includes evaluation of the method used to 
          determine the MTBF for the proposed test stand.
          2.  Life Expectancy, which includes evaluation of the method 
          used to determine the Life Expectancy of the proposed test 
          stand.
        B.  Warranty
        C.  Training

     2.  PRICE

     3.  PAST PERFORMANCE

RFP  sec.  M, at 43.  The RFP specified that the technical factors and past 
performance, when combined, were significantly more important than 
cost or price.  Id.

For the past performance factor, the RFP instructed offerors to 
"describe [their] experience with producing the same or similar items 
within the last three (3) years."  RFP  sec.  L, at 39.  On the same page, 
the RFP also instructed offerors how MTBF and life expectancy would be 
evaluated under the reliability factor:

     Preference shall be given to those with the higher MTBF, i.e. 
     1500 hours of MTBF will be given a higher rating than those with 
     [a] rating of 500, and the test stands with life expectancy of 15 
     years shall be given a higher rating than those with a life 
     expectancy of 10 years.  [An] MTBF of less than 500 hours shall 
     be considered unsatisfactory.  In addition, the methodology used 
     in determining the MTBF and the Life Expectancy of the proposed 
     fuel nozzle test life will be evaluated.  Proven examples that 
     can be validated shall receive a higher rating than theoretical 
     studies (see section C, paragraph 3.3.3 and 4.1.1.2).

Three offerors, including Chant and Bauer, submitted proposals in 
response to the RFP.  The agency's evaluators assigned Bauer the 
maximum score for past performance because the firm demonstrated that 
it had manufactured multiple test stands of the type being procured.  
Chant's proposal received the minimum acceptable score for past 
performance because, while Chant had designed and installed many types 
of test stands, Chant provided no evidence that it had designed a 
nozzle test stand with a patternator, the type of stand solicited 
here.  For the reliability technical factor, Chant received a high 
score for MTBF and the minimum score for life expectancy, while Bauer 
received a high score for both MTBF and life expectancy.

Because Chant and Bauer received the same scores in all other areas of 
the technical evaluation, the differences in their scores for the past 
performance and reliability factors accounted for the total point 
difference in their technical scores and for Bauer's overall higher 
score for the technical factors.  Although Chant's total price was 
$21,700 less than Bauer's, the contracting officer determined that 
Bauer's proposal represented the best value to the government, in 
light of its higher overall weighted score, and awarded the contract 
to Bauer for $452,250.[2]  Chant requested and received a debriefing, 
and then filed an agency-level protest contesting the selection 
decision.  After the agency denied the protest, Chant filed this 
protest with our Office.

Chant first contends that, because the RFP's past performance 
evaluation factor required only that an offeror furnish evidence that 
it is an established contractor having experience in the design and 
manufacture of similar items, and did not state that a preference 
would be given to an offeror who has made the same type of test stand 
before, Bauer, which has previously manufactured the same type of test 
stand, unfairly received a higher score for past performance than did 
Chant, which has made similar but not the same type of test stands.  
Chant argues that the agency's evaluators should have given Chant's 
proposal the highest past performance score--equal to that of 
Bauer--since it met all the requirements of the RFP by demonstrating 
Chant's experience with similar test stands.[3]

We disagree.  Agencies properly may take into consideration specific, 
albeit not expressly identified, experience in making qualitative 
distinctions between competing proposals, so long as the specific 
experience is logically encompassed by or related to the RFP's 
requirements and stated basis for evaluation; accordingly, it is not 
objectionable for an agency to rate a firm that has previously 
supplied the same type of item called for under the RFP higher than a 
firm with more general experience.  See Counter Tech. Inc., B-260853, 
July 20, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  39 at 4; Fidelity Techs. Corp., B-258944, 
Feb. 22, 1955, 95-1 CPD  para.  112 at 2-3.

Here, while an offeror was not required to show that it had produced 
the same type of item to be acceptable under the RFP's past 
performance factor--it merely had to have produced similar items--this 
does not mean that an offeror with experience producing similar items 
had to be scored the same as an offeror that has produced the same 
type of item.  Indeed, as noted above, the RFP was "for the express 
purpose of soliciting technical proposals and cost estimates for a 
nozzle test stand from an established contractor having experience in 
the design and manufacture of aircraft fuel components test stands."  
RFP  sec.  C,  para.  1.1.  While the record shows that Chant has experience in 
the design and manufacture of test stands, including a fuel component 
test stand, it does not show that Chant has the specific experience 
with aircraft fuel nozzle test stands that Bauer does.  Accordingly, 
we think the agency reasonably concluded that Bauer's proposal, 
reflecting more relevant successful past performance producing the 
same type of test stand solicited by the RFP, should be rated higher 
in this regard than Chant's proposal, which reflects less relevant 
past performance.  

Chant next contends that, because the evaluators assigned Chant the 
same high score as Bauer for MTBF under the reliability technical 
factor, the evaluators improperly assigned Chant the minimum score for 
life expectancy, which Chant claims is intertwined with its test 
stand's MTBF, justifying a higher score.  Specifically, Chant asserts 
that section C, paragraph 3.3.3 of the RFP equates an MTBF of 500 
hours to a life expectancy of 10 years, and argues that, since Chant 
specified an MTBF of 1,000 hours, the life expectancy of its test 
stand is at least 20 years--the same as Bauer's--and thus should have 
received the same high score as did Bauer for life expectancy.

In reviewing a protest challenging an agency's technical evaluation, 
we examine the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation was 
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.  
Stewart Title of Orange County, Inc., B-261164, Aug. 21, 1995, 95-2 
CPD  para.  75 at 3-4.  

Contrary to Chant's assertion, section C, paragraph 3.3.3 of the RFP 
did not equate the required minimum MTBF of 500 hours to a life 
expectancy of 10 years.  Rather, paragraph 3.3.3 separately specified 
the required minimum MTBF and the required minimum life expectancy for 
the test stand:

     3.3.3  Reliability.  The nozzle test stand shall be designed for 
     a mean time between failures of at least 500 hours.  The test 
     stand shall be designed for a useful life of 10 years 
     (approximately 2000 hours per year).

Indeed, information in Chant's own comments on the agency's 
administrative report responding to the protest indicates that MTBF 
and life expectancy, while correlated, are separate measures of 
reliability; this is consistent with the RFP treating MTBF and life 
expectancy as separate elements of the reliability factor, each 
requiring its own validation.[4]

In any event, Chant provided no basis in its proposal to support the 
assertion made in its protest that its test stand, which provides an 
MTBF double the minimum required, also provides--by implication--a 
life expectancy double the minimum 10 years required.  As Chant itself 
concedes, it did not state a specific 20-year life for its test stand 
in its proposal.  Rather, Chant's proposal stated that its test stand 
"will have a useful life of at least 10 years (2,000 hrs. per year)"; 
that "by using easily maintained or replaceable components, a design 
life of ten years will readily be achieved"; and that "[t]he ten year 
design life will readily be achieved providing that the equipment is 
properly maintained."  Chant Technical Proposal at 4, Appendix - MTBF 
Determination.  Accordingly, we think the agency's evaluators 
reasonably assigned Chant the minimum score for life expectancy.

Chant nonetheless argues that the evaluators should have concluded, 
based on the MTBF methodology it provided in its proposal, that the 
life expectancy of its test stand "is really open ended."  Protest at 
3.  Chant maintains that the evaluators apparently understood neither 
its MTBF methodology (and the interrelationship of MTBF with life 
expectancy) nor reliability methodology in general.  According to 
Chant, capable evaluators would have given Chant more than the minimum 
score for the life expectancy subfactor.  However, Chant did not 
provide reliability validation documentation, as required by section 
C, paragraph 4.1.1.2 of the RFP, that would support a claimed life 
expectancy of more than 10 years.  Nor was there information or a 
methodology in the proposal from which the evaluators otherwise 
reasonably should have divined a life expectancy of more than the one 
Chant specifically offered.

Chant also argues in its comments, at 4, that because the life 
expectancy of a test stand is related to the level of maintenance 
performed on the stand, it is not possible to give a finite design 
life without extensive testing and "[s]tating a long life expectancy 
is meaningless."  According to Chant, "[i]t is also known to be 
unreliable to use examples of previous products in the field since the 
MTBF and the life expectancy are totally dependent on the maintenance 
performed by the specific end user on the specific product."  Id.  In 
this regard, Chant states that the only way Bauer could have rated a 
higher score than Chant for life expectancy would be for the agency to 
have had a Bauer test stand on-site and to have tested the stand for 
more than 20 years to verify Bauer's claimed life expectancy.

We construe this aspect of Chant's protest, first raised in its 
comments, as essentially an untimely protest of the terms of the RFP.  
As described above, the RFP instructed offerors to specify the life 
expectancy of their proposed test stands and provided that test stand 
life expectancies longer than the minimum 10 years would receive 
higher scores.  To evaluate the methodology used by offerors to 
determine the MTBF and life expectancy of their test stands, the RFP, 
at 39, stated that "[p]roven examples that can be validated shall 
receive a higher rating than theoretical studies."  RFP  sec.  L, at 39.  
In this regard, section C, paragraph 4.1.1.2 of the RFP permitted 
offerors to validate their reliability claims "by citing comparability 
to similar systems presently in use," which the record shows was how 
Bauer supported its reliability claims.  If Chant objected to these 
terms of the RFP, it should have protested them before the date for 
submission of proposals, as is required to timely protest an alleged 
solicitation impropriety.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1) (1998).

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The patternator is used for testing fuel nozzle and other fuel 
equipment components "which require spray angle and patternation 
measurement."  RFP  sec.  C,  para.  3.3.2.4.

2. Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  52.212-1(g), incorporated in the 
RFP, informed offerors that the agency might award a contract without 
discussions.  RFP  sec.  I, 
at 19.  The Marine Corps did not conduct discussions with any of the 
offerors, and Chant does not contend that the agency should have done 
so regarding the past performance or life expectancy aspects of its 
proposal.

3. Chant does not contest Bauer's past performance score.  The agency 
notes that, even if Chant had received the maximum possible score for 
past performance, Chant still would not have received the highest 
overall weighted score.

4. The information presented by Chant in its comments is from the 
Department of Defense's Reliability Analysis Center.