BNUMBER:  B-280585; B-280585.2           
DATE:  October 21, 1998
TITLE: Input/Output Technology, Inc., B-280585; B-280585.2, October
21, 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:Input/Output Technology, Inc.

File:B-280585; B-280585.2          
        
Date:October 21, 1998

Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., and James S. DelSordo, Esq., Kinosky, 
Phillips & Lieberman, for the protester.
William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer, Esq., and Wm. Craig 
Dubishar, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, for Honeywell, Inc., an 
intervenor.
Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Robert A. Russo, Esq., Army Materiel 
Command, for the agency.
David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that price evaluation was improperly based on methodology set 
out in unnumbered solicitation pages and was inconsistent with 
approach agency allegedly conveyed orally to protester, is denied 
where evaluation was consistent with approach set forth in the 
solicitation, and record shows protester was on notice of agency's 
intended evaluation approach; although pages setting forth the 
approach were unnumbered and not marked with solicitation number and 
were, apparently for that reason, overlooked by protester, the pages 
were included in copy of solicitation downloaded from the Internet and 
printed by protester.

DECISION

Input/Output Technology, Inc. protests the award of a contract by the 
Army Materiel Command, Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM), to 
Honeywell, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DAAB07-98-R-B258, for the repair and retrofit of AN/APN-209 Line 
Replaceable Units (LRU).  Input/Output raises several challenges to 
the selection process, including the evaluation of price and technical 
proposals. 

We deny the protest.

The solicitation provided for award of a 5-year indefinite-delivery, 
indefinite-quantity contract to repair and retrofit two 
receiver/transmitter LRUs in the AN/APN-209 Radar Altimeter Set, which 
is used to measure altitude in fixed-wing and rotary aircraft.  Award 
was to be made "based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal 
that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government" under 
the following three evaluation factors:  (1) technical, including 
subfactors for repair/retrofit and test plans, key personnel, quality 
assurance plan, warranty, schedule, and small business/small 
disadvantaged business utilization plan; (2) performance risk, as 
indicated by the offeror's record of past performance; and (3) price.  
RFP  sec.  M-4.  The technical factor was "slightly more important" than 
either performance risk or price; performance risk and price were of 
equal importance and combined were more important than the technical 
factor.  Id.

The Army received proposals from Input/Output and Honeywell--the 
original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for the AN/APN-209--by the 
closing time; both were included in the competitive range.  At the 
conclusion of written and oral discussions, the agency requested final 
proposal revisions.  Based on the final evaluation, the contracting 
officer determined that Honeywell had submitted the best overall 
proposal.  Both Honeywell's and Input/Output's proposals were 
evaluated as outstanding under the technical factor--both proposals 
received outstanding ratings under the two most important technical 
subfactors (repair/retrofit and test plans and key personnel), and 
Honeywell's also received an outstanding rating for its small 
business/small disadvantaged business utilization plan.  Likewise, 
both proposals were evaluated as offering low performance risk.  
However, the price of Honeywell's proposal ($[DELETED] with first 
article test (FAT) and $[DELETED] without FAT) was significantly lower 
than the price of Input/Output's ($[DELETED] with FAT and $[DELETED] 
without FAT).  Award was made to Honeywell based on price.

PRICE EVALUATION

The solicitation requested unit prices for each year of the contract 
for four stepladder quantities (1 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 200, and 
201 to 300 units) of various repair, test and retrofit processes.  
Input/Output argues that CECOM misled it during negotiations as to the 
agency's intended approach to evaluating stepladder prices.  

The solicitation included pages consecutively numbered 1 through 56, 
several attachments, and 4 pages that were unnumbered and not 
identified with the solicitation number.  Two of the unnumbered pages 
followed page 55 of the solicitation and completed section L-7, 
Proposal Submission, by setting forth the required contents of 
proposal Volume I, Technical (as they related to the last three of the 
six subfactors under that factor), Volume II, Performance Risk, and 
Volume III, Price.  (On page 55, a requirement for three proposal 
volumes was established and the required contents of Volume I as they 
related to the first three of the six subfactors under the technical 
factor were set forth.)  The other two unnumbered pages followed page 
56 of the solicitation and completed section M-4, Basis for Award, by 
describing evaluation Factor II, Performance Risk, and Factor III, 
Price.  (On page 56, offerors were advised that the agency would 
evaluate proposals using three factors--technical, performance risk 
and price--and the subfactors under the technical factor were listed.)  
The solicitation provided on these latter two unnumbered pages that 
the evaluated price was to be the sum of the line item prices, and 
that where stepladder ("range quantity") prices were requested, the 
evaluated line or subline item price was to be the product of the 
weighted average unit price--derived from the unit prices for the 
stepladder quantities--multiplied by the maximum quantity that can be 
ordered under that line or subline item.

Input/Output essentially argues that it reasonably overlooked the 
unnumbered and unidentified pages included in section M of the 
solicitation which set forth a weighted average approach to evaluating 
stepladder quantity prices because they were unnumbered and 
unidentified.  Although the record indicates that Input/Output 
downloaded and printed a complete copy of the solicitation, 
Input/Output states that its president 

     does not know what happened to these four unnumbered and unmarked 
     pages after he printed the solicitation, however, he presumes 
     they were discarded by his staff, who had no way of knowing that 
     the unnumbered and unmarked pages were related to the 
     solicitation.  Indeed, as [the president] stated, he printed the 
     solicitation on a batch printer used by several other personnel, 
     so it would have been common for other non-relevant pages to be 
     printed by the same printer.

Input/Output Comments, Sept. 10, 1998, at 2.  Further, Input/Output 
maintains, but the contract specialist denies, that in a telephone 
call inquiring as to what to enter for the total contract value on the 
solicitation's Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation 
information certificate, the specialist advised that the "[t]otal 
contract evaluated price is to be calculated by taking the highest 
quantity for each [subline item] and multiplying it by its unit cost."  
Input/Output Protest, July 13, 1998, Declaration of Input/Output's 
President, at 5; Input/Output Comments, Sept. 10, 1998, at 4; CECOM 
Comments, Sept. 10, 1998, at 2.  Input/Output claims that, because it 
understood that the evaluated price would be based on the prices for 
the highest quantities, it proposed substantially higher prices for 
the lower quantities than it would have, if it had known that they 
would be evaluated, thus raising its overall evaluated price, under 
the methodology set out in the unnumbered solicitation pages and 
actually used by the agency, by approximately $[DELETED].  
Input/Output Comments, Sept. 10, 1998, at 4-5.  The protester contends 
that it thus was misled, and that it should be given an opportunity to 
prepare its proposal based on the actual evaluation approach.  

We find that Input/Output was on notice of the intended evaluation 
approach.  Having downloaded, stored on its computer and printed the 
entire solicitation, Input/Output was in possession of the unnumbered 
pages setting forth the weighted average approach to evaluating 
stepladder prices.  Its failure to read all of the downloaded pages in 
no way translates into some impropriety on the agency's part. 
Moreover, while the agency's failure to number and identify all of the 
solicitation pages may have created some confusion in this regard, 
Input/Output should have been aware that additional pages existed.  In 
this regard, as noted above, the discussion of the evaluation factors 
on solicitation page 56, the last numbered page, was incomplete, 
ending before performance risk and price were addressed.  Indeed, 
Input/Output was aware that the solicitation, as comprised of the 
consecutively numbered pages, was incomplete.  According to the 
protester: 

     During discussions with CECOM concerning this procurement, 
     [Input/Output] realized that several pages of the Solicitation 
     appeared to be missing from its version of the document.  
     Specifically, the version of the RFP in [Input/Output's] 
     possession contained no description of the requirements for the 
     Performance Risk portion of the proposal and Section L.  Also, 
     the Section M in [Input/Output's] RFP gave no description of how 
     the offerors' price proposals were to be constructed and 
     evaluated other than the fact that award would be based on the 
     best value to the Government and that between technically equal 
     offerors, price would be the determining factor.

Input/Output Protest, July 13, 1998, Declaration of Input/Output's 
President, at 4-5.  

Further, Input/Output became aware during discussions that there were 
unnumbered pages in the RFP and was able to obtain a missing 
unnumbered page from its computer file containing the downloaded RFP.  
Specifically, in response to the contract specialist's advising that 
the protester had failed to provide the required Small and Small 
Disadvantaged Business Participation information certificate, the 
protester obtained the missing unnumbered page containing the 
certificate by printing out the section L computer file, which it 
previously had downloaded (as part of the whole RFP) from the 
Internet.  Input/Output Comments, Sept. 10, 1998, at 2-3; CECOM 
Comments, Sept. 10, 1998, at 1.  

We conclude that Input/Output was on notice of the intended evaluation 
approach--it downloaded the entire RFP, including the two unnumbered 
pages following page 56, into a computer file, and thus was in 
possession of the provisions establishing the weighted average 
approach to evaluating stepladder prices.[1]  As for its reliance on 
the alleged contrary advice of the contract specialist, such oral 
advice by representatives of the contracting officer is not binding on 
the government and a bidder relies on oral explanations of the 
solicitation at its own risk.  SAF Eng'g Assocs., Inc., B-275740, Mar. 
19, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  118 at 3 n.1; Adrian Supply Co., B-251886.2, June 
7, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  435 at 5 n.1.

FIRST ARTICLE TEST WAIVER

The solicitation's Schedule of Supplies/Services included a subline 
item (0001AA) for FAT units, but also provided that "[t]he Government 
may waive the requirement for first article approval test where 
supplies identical or similar to those called for in the schedule have 
been previously furnished by the Offeror/Contractor and have been 
accepted by the Government."  RFP  sec.  I-2(i).  CECOM waived FAT for both 
Input/Output and Honeywell.  Input/Output objects to the waiver for 
Honeywell on the ground that Honeywell had not previously satisfied 
the latest version (MIL-L-85762A, the  version applicable here) of the 
agency's standard for cockpit lighting compatibility with the 
Aviator's Night Vision Imaging System (ANVIS).

A contracting agency's responsibility for determining its actual needs 
includes determining the type and amount of testing necessary to 
ensure product compliance with specifications.  Lunn Indus., Inc., 
B-210747, Oct. 25, 1983, 83-2 CPD  para.  491 at 3.   Our review of an 
agency's decision to waive FAT for a particular offeror is limited to 
determining whether it was reasonable.  Durodyne, Inc., B-243382.3, 
Oct. 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  388 at 4; Whittaker Tech. Prods., Inc., 
B-239428, Aug. 29, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  174 at 3.

CECOM's waiver of FAT for Honeywell was unobjectionable.  Although 
Honeywell was not producing AN/APN-209s to the ANVIS compatibility 
standard applicable here, it was the OEM for the entire AN/APN-209, 
including the LRUs.[2]  Further, Honeywell was producing AN/APN-209s 
to the previous ANVIS compatibility standard, and the agency's 
engineer concluded that the changes required in upgrading to the 
applicable, more stringent standard were minor.  Honeywell Comments, 
Sept. 10, 1998, at 8; Input/Output Comments, Sept. 10, 1998, at 7; 
CECOM Comments, Sept. 10, 1998, at 3.  This conclusion--and the 
resulting decision to waive FAT--was reasonable in light of 
Honeywell's approximately 25 years experience as the OEM for the 
AN/APN-209, its current experience meeting the ANVIS compatibility 
standard under the production contract, and its evaluated outstanding 
repair/retrofit and test plans and key personnel.

GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED MATERIALS

Input/Output asserts that Honeywell's lower price reflected the 
improper use of government-furnished material (GFM)--spare parts--from 
its current production contract.  According to the protester, use of 
this GFM was inconsistent with the agency's representations during 
discussions, in response to Input/Output's questions, that the 
existing government-owned AN/APN-209 spare parts inventory from 
Honeywell's production contract would not be available to Honeywell 
for use in the repair and retrofit contract.

In its proposal, Honeywell discussed using both existing spare parts 
and existing equipment.  For example, Honeywell stated in its proposal 
that "[DELETED]."  Honeywell Proposal at I-1.  In addition, the 
proposal stated that "[DELETED]."  Honeywell Proposal at I-12.  In its 
final proposal, Honeywell acknowledged that CECOM had cautioned it 
during discussions that the agency "would not be providing 
authorization for use of Government-furnished equipment (GFE) in the 
performance of the pending APN-209 repair and retrofit (R&R) program 
with the exception of the height indicators identified in the 
solicitation."  Honeywell Final Proposal, June 8, 1998.  Honeywell 
also agreed in its final proposal that "only two indicators, furnished 
as GFE" would be available for use in the repair/retrofit contract.  
Id. 

Input/Output asserts that, because the statements in Honeywell's final 
proposal did not specifically address the matter of Honeywell's 
government-owned spare parts inventory, it appears that Honeywell was 
proposing to use those parts in performing the current contract.

There is no basis in the record for Input/Output's position that 
Honeywell was proposing to use government-owned spare parts.  
Honeywell's proposal, while referring to a "[DELETED]," did not 
indicate that it was referring to government-owned parts; CECOM 
interpreted the language as referring to Honeywell-owned parts; and 
Honeywell has submitted a declaration from its AN/APN-209 program 
manager confirming that the "[DELETED]" referred to in the proposal 
was [DELETED], and stating that all material required for performance 
of the repair/retrofit contract would be supplied from Honeywell-owned 
stock or procured by Honeywell.[3]  CECOM Comments, Oct. 2, 1998, at 
1; Honeywell Comments, Oct. 2, 1998, Declaration of Honeywell 
AN/APN-209 Program Manager, at 2-3.  Although CECOM and Honeywell 
confirm that Honeywell does maintain GFM--with a value of $[DELETED] 
as of July 17, 1998--for use in a 1997 AN/APN-209 overhaul and repair 
contract, they report that such material is maintained at a "bonded" 
storage facility, which is housed at a Honeywell site, but under the 
control and ownership of the government, and that Honeywell has 
neither requested nor been authorized to use the GFM in performing 
this contract.  CECOM Comments, Oct. 2, 1998, at 1-2; Honeywell 
Comments, Oct. 2, 1998, Declaration of Honeywell AN/APN-209 Program 
Manager at 3-5.  Further, we note that CECOM's and Honeywell's 
assertions in this regard are consistent with Honeywell's 1997 
contract (DAAB07-97-D-B008), which generally provides for the 
contractor to return government-furnished property not later than 
completion of contract deliveries or contract termination.  CECOM 
Comments, Sept. 11, 1998, at 3; Honeywell Comments, Oct. 5, 1998, 
Attachment 1. 

BURN-IN

Input/Output argues that burn-in testing of repaired and retrofitted 
units was required by the solicitation and that Honeywell's proposal 
was unacceptable because it did not provide for the burn-in of all 
units.[4]  CECOM and Honeywell deny that the solicitation required 
burn-in testing of repaired and retrofitted units.

We need not determine whether Input/Output's interpretation of the 
solicitation is reasonable, since it is clear from the record that 
Input/Output did not suffer competitive prejudice as a result of the 
alleged waiver of a burn-in requirement.  In this regard, our Office 
will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a 
reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency's actions, 
that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's 
actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the 
award.  McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  54 at 3; 
see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 
1996).  Input/Output's technical proposal was rated as equal to 
Honeywell's based in part on its being credited with a major relative 
advantage for offering burn-in for every unit; the price of 
Input/Output's proposal was approximately $[DELETED] higher than the 
price of Honeywell's; and the protester has stated that the perceived 
requirement to perform burn-in added only an additional $[DELETED] to 
its price.  Input/Output Protest, July 13, 1998, at 17.  Thus, had 
Input/Output been advised of the agency's interpretation of the 
solicitation, and as a result not offered burn-in, Input/Output's 
technical proposal rating would have been adversely affected, and its 
price still would have been approximately $[DELETED] higher than 
Honeywell's.  This argument therefore provides no basis for disturbing 
the award.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency contract specialist also reports that he faxed all four 
unnumbered pages to Input/Output during discussions.  Input/Output 
maintains that it did not receive this fax.  CECOM Comments, Sept. 10, 
1998, at 1; Input/Output Comments, Sept. 10, 1998, at 3.  

2. The AN/APN-209 Radar Altimeter Set is comprised of four components 
which are deployed in various combinations:  (1) the RT-1411 
receiver-transmitter, which receives and transmits radar signals that 
are used to determine altitude; (2) the ID-1917 remote indicator, 
which has digital and analog displays indicating the altitude to the 
pilot and also includes high/low warning lights; (3) the RT-1115, 
which combines a receiver-transmitter with an indicator; and (4) two 
antennas.  The LRUs to be repaired under the contemplated contract are 
RT-1411 and RT-1115 receiver-transmitters.  Only the RT-1115, which 
includes the display indicator, is to be retrofitted and upgraded to 
the MIL-L-85762A ANVIS compatibility standard.  CECOM Comments, Oct. 
2, 1998, at 2; Input/Output Comments, Oct. 2, 1998, at 5-7; Honeywell 
Comments, Sept. 14, 1998, at 8-9.  

3. Input/Output cites other provisions of Honeywell's proposal in 
support of its position, but none of these establishes that 
Honeywell's proposal was based on the use of government-owned spare 
parts.  For example, Input/Output cites the portion of Honeywell's 
quality program plan where Honeywell discusses its procedures for the 
control, storage, and maintenance of "customer-supplied product 
provided for incorporation into the supplies or for related 
activities."  Honeywell Proposal at I-49.  However, Honeywell explains 
that these procedures are necessary to account for any 
government-furnished property in Honeywell's control--including the 
two GFE indicators identified in the solicitation and any LRUs 
furnished for repair and retrofit--and we find no basis to question 
this explanation.

4. Burn-in, as applied to production units, is a 24-hour test designed 
to expose the AN/APN-209 unit to extremes of temperature and vibration 
during operation.  CECOM Administrative Report, Aug. 21, 1998, at 3 
n.2.