BNUMBER:  B-280803             
DATE:  November 19, 1998
TITLE: Intellectual Properties, Inc., B-280803, November 19, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Intellectual Properties, Inc.

File:B-280803            
        
Date:November 19, 1998

John C. McIntosh and Robert G. McIntosh for the protester. 
William S. Zanca, Esq., Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, for 
the agency. 
John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest of agency's determination not to award the protester phase 
II funding for a project the protester proposed under the Department 
of Defense Small Business Innovation Research program is sustained 
where the agency's determination was primarily based upon the 
protester's lack of private sector funding for its phase II proposal, 
which was inconsistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the 
solicitation.

2.  Agency's post-award reevaluation of the protester's proposal and 
determination that the proposal could have been rejected for a 
completely different reason than originally asserted by the agency 
does not establish that the protester was not prejudiced by the 
agency's initial evaluation, which was inconsistent with the 
solicitation's evaluation criteria, because the reevaluation was 
prepared in the heat of an adversarial process and may not represent 
the fair and considered judgment of the agency.

DECISION

Intellectual Properties, Inc. (IPI) protests the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization's (BMDO) determination not to award it phase II 
funding for a project IPI proposed under the Department of Defense 
(DOD) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program.  IPI contends 
that its proposal to perform research on "Passive Multistatic 
Hitchhiking Array for Search and Track" would have been funded if BMDO 
had evaluated IPI's proposal in a reasonable manner consistent with 
the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation.

We sustain the protest.

The SBIR program is conducted pursuant to the Small Business 
Innovation Development Act, 15 U.S.C.  sec.  638 (1994 & Supp. II 1996), 
which requires certain federal agencies to reserve a portion of their 
research and development funds for awards to small businesses.  The 
program is made up of three phases.  

The program description set forth in the solicitation provided that 
"[p]hase I is to determine, insofar as possible, the scientific, 
technical, and commercial merit and feasibility of ideas submitted 
under the SBIR program."  DOD Fiscal Year 1997 SBIR Program 
Solicitation 97.1 at 1.  The solicitation added with regard to phase I 
that "[p]roposals should concentrate on that research or research and 
development which will significantly contribute to proving the 
scientific, technical, and commercial feasibility of the proposed 
effort, the successful completion of which is a prerequisite for 
further DoD support in Phase II."  Id.  

Firms that receive phase I awards may submit proposals for further 
development work under phase II of the SBIR program.  The 
solicitation's program description provided that "[s]ubsequent Phase 
II awards will be made to firms on the basis of results of their Phase 
I effort and the scientific, technical, and commercial merit of the 
Phase II proposal."  Id.

Phase III contemplates, unlike phases I and II, that non-SBIR funds 
will be used to pursue commercial applications of research and 
development.  Microexpert Sys., Inc., B-233892, Apr. 13, 1989, 89-1 
CPD  para.  378 at 1.  Specifically, the program description on page 1 of 
the solicitation stated with regard to phase III that "[u]nder Phase 
III, the small business is expected to use non-federal capital to 
pursue private sector applications of the research or development."[1]

Section 4.3 of the solicitation set forth the following evaluation 
criteria for phase II proposals:

     a. The soundness and technical merit of the proposed approach and 
        its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution.
     b. The potential for commercial (government or private sector) 
        application and the benefits expected to accrue from this 
        commercialization.
     c. The adequacy of the proposed effort for the fulfillment of 
        requirements of the research topic.
     d. The qualifications of the proposed principal/key investigators 
        supporting staff and consultants.  Qualifications include not 
        only the ability to perform the research and development but 
        also the ability to commercialize the results.

With regard to the term "commercialization," section 2.7 of the 
solicitation specifically defined it as:

     The process of developing markets and producing and delivering 
     products for sale (whether by the originating party or by 
     others); as used here, commercialization includes both government 
     and private sector markets.

Section 4.4 of the solicitation provided:

     A Phase I or Phase II proposal's commercial potential can be 
     evidenced by:

     (1)the small business concern's record of commercializing SBIR or 
        other research,
     (2)the existence of second phase funding commitments from private 
        sector or non-SBIR funding sources,
     (3)the existence of third phase follow-on commitments for the 
        subject of the research, or
     (4)the presence of other indicators of commercial potential of 
        the idea.

In addition, section 1.3 of the solicitation noted that "[w]hen 
several Phase II proposals receive evaluations being of approximately 
equal merit, proposals that demonstrate such a commitment for 
follow-on funding will receive extra consideration during the 
evaluation process."

As indicated, IPI received a phase I award, and subsequently submitted 
a proposal seeking phase II funding.  IPI's phase II proposal 
included, among other things, a letter from a private firm stating 
that it has "teamed with [IPI] in their Phase II effort" and is 
prepared to "contribute intellectual capital and other resources" in 
support of IPI's phase II effort.  Agency Report, Tab 2.   

The record of the agency's contemporaneous evaluation of IPI's phase 
II proposal consists of two completed evaluation forms.  Agency 
Report, Tab 3.  These forms include a number of questions, and provide 
spaces for the evaluator to respond to the questions as well as spaces 
for the evaluator to recommend the acceptance or rejection of the 
proposal.  The questions set forth on the forms are as follows:

     (1)How does the technology support BMDO?
     (2)What (and how much) is the novelty?
     (3)Did Phase 1 succeed?
     (4)  What technology will BMDO programs be able to leverage             
     during/after Phase 2?
     (5)What is the future market potential and the firm's market 
        attitude?[2]

One of the evaluations, which is hand-written, one page in length, and 
cursory in approach, recommended the rejection of IPI's phase II 
proposal.  Agency Report, Tab 3.  This evaluator answered the question 
as to whether phase I succeeded by stating only that "I no longer have 
the Phase 1 proposal, but it seems as if it did succeed, although the 
company also discovered all the difficulties now facing them."  With 
regard to the question concerning "future market potential and the 
firm's market attitude," the evaluator provided only that "I'm not 
sure how this technique improves on current market technology for the 
applications it proposes."

The other evaluation, which is typewritten and approximately 1 1/2 
pages in length, contained significantly more detail and ultimately 
recommended that IPI's phase II proposal be accepted.  Id.  In 
responding to the question asking whether Phase I succeeded, the 
evaluation provided a relatively detailed explanation regarding the 
tasks successfully completed by IPI during phase I and certain 
experiments that were conducted and their results.  The evaluation 
stated here that "[t]he phase I effort exceeded its requirements."  
The evaluation's response to the question concerning future market 
potential and IPI's market attitude was similarly detailed, stating 
that "[t]his technology has some commercial market potential, but has 
a greater military potential."  The evaluation briefly described how 
the technology could be used by military and private sector interests, 
and concluded that "[t]hese private sector applications have a good 
market potential."

The protester was informed by letter from the cognizant BMDO Program 
Manager that its phase II proposal had not been approved for funding.  
Agency Report, Tab 1A.  IPI requested a debriefing.  Agency Report, 
Tab 1B.  The Program Manager responded by letter, Agency Report, Tab 
1C, as follows:

        This effort was not funded because your Phase II did not 
        exhibit a commercialization potential consistent with the 
        implementation of the BMDO SBIR Program.  Although [a private 
        firm] provided a Letter of Support, which indicated that they 
        would contribute "intellectual capital and other resources," 
        the degree and value of that support could not be clearly 
        defined within the context of the proposal.  Furthermore, 
        there was no indication that your company would have any 
        viable commercial product at the conclusion of the effort that 
        would have an impact in the marketplace.  

The record does not contain any other contemporaneous documentation as 
to why the agency chose not to fund IPI's phase II proposal.

IPI argues that the agency did not properly apply the evaluation 
criteria stated in the SBIR program solicitation in determining not to 
fund IPI's phase II proposal.  Specifically, IPI argues that the 
letter it received from the BMDO Program Manager in response to its 
debriefing request indicates that BMDO's decision not to fund IPI's 
proposal was based solely on IPI's lack of private sector funding for 
its phase II proposal, rather than a reasoned evaluation of IPI's 
proposal under the criteria set forth in the SBIR program 
solicitation.

Agencies have broad discretion to determine which proposals will be 
funded under the SBIR program.  Deborah Bass Assocs., B-257958, Nov. 
9, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  180 at 3; Microexpert Sys., Inc., supra, at 2.  
Our Office will review such determinations to see whether they were 
made consistent with the terms of the solicitation and any applicable 
statutes or regulations, or whether the agency acted fraudulently or 
in bad faith.  Microexpert Sys., Inc., supra.

The agency, in its report, essentially concedes that IPI's lack of 
private sector funding was the primary reason for the agency's 
determination not to fund IPI's phase II proposal.  For example, the 
agency refers to the letter submitted by IPI from the private firm 
described above and argues that "this letter did not fulfill the SBIR 
[solicitation] and BMDO requirements that 'commercialization 
potential' be demonstrated."  Agency Report at 7.  The agency points 
out that the letter's "language did not commit [the firm] in any 
manner to any capital infusion or anything firm enough to even 
remotely suggest a financial commitment had been undertaken," and that 
because of this, the agency determined that "IPI had not provided 
adequate evidence that IPI met the Phase II requirement for 'potential 
for commercial (government or private sector) application' as stated 
in paragraph 4.3 and re-iterated throughout the [solicitation] and its 
implementing guidance."  Id.  

The agency argues that its determination not to fund IPI's phase II 
proposal because of IPI's lack of private sector funding was 
appropriate.  In this regard, the agency first points to the 
"potential for commercial (government or private sector) application 
and the benefits expected to accrue from this commercialization" 
evaluation criterion, and asserts that this criterion requires that 
the commercial potential of an offeror's proposal be assessed during 
the evaluation process.  The agency next points to section 4.4 of the 
solicitation, which, as quoted above, addresses the assessment of the 
commercial potential of proposals, and provides at section 4.4(2) that 
a proposal's commercial potential can be evidenced by "the existence 
of second phase funding commitments from private sector or non-SBIR 
funding sources."  The agency thus concludes that because the 
solicitation provided for the evaluation of commercial potential, and 
stated that commercial potential could be demonstrated by the 
existence of private sector funding, its evaluation of IPI's phase II 
proposal and determination not to fund it because it lacked private 
sector funding were consistent with the terms of the solicitation.  

We agree with the agency that, as the result of the above two 
sections, the SBIR Program solicitation, while not a model of clarity, 
can reasonably be read as providing for an agency's consideration of a 
firm's private sector funding commitments (or lack thereof) for its 
phase II proposal in determining whether it should award the firm 
phase II funding.  However, while such a consideration appears 
permissible, the solicitation does not, by its terms, allow for an 
offeror's lack of private sector funding to be the only consideration 
in determining the "commercial potential" of an offeror's phase II 
proposal.  That is, section 4.4 provides that a phase II (or I) 
proposal's commercial potential may also be demonstrated by, among 
other things, "the presence of other indicators of commercial 
potential of the idea."  There is no indication that the agency, in 
determining not to fund IPI's phase II proposal ever considered 
whether there were "other indicators of commercial potential of 
[IPI's] idea."  

In sum, we agree with the agency that consideration of IPI's lack of 
private sector funding for its phase II proposal was appropriate.  
However, the agency's reliance on this consideration as the primary 
basis for its determination not to fund IPI's proposal, without 
consideration of whether there were other indicators of commercial 
potential for IPI's idea, was inconsistent with the terms of the 
solicitation.[3]

In its report, the agency argues that, in addition to IPI's lack of 
private sector funding for its phase II proposal, its proposal was 
rejected because there was no "other data in the proposal to support 
any reasonable expectation of possible government sector application."  
Agency Report at 7.  It is unclear from the record whether the 
agency's assertion here is related to its comment in the debriefing 
letter to IPI that "[f]urthermore, there was no indication that your 
company would have any viable commercial product at the conclusion of 
the effort that would have an impact in the marketplace," or 
constitutes a new reason for rejecting IPI's proposal raised for the 
first time in the agency's report.  In either case, this assertion is 
unsupported by the record, and because of this, we simply cannot 
determine whether the agency had a reasonable basis for this 
conclusion.  Matrix Int'l Logistics, Inc., B-272388.2, Dec. 9, 1996, 
97-2 CPD  para.  89 at 5.  

Specifically, IPI's phase II proposal includes a section entitled 
"Anticipated Benefits/Potential Commercial Applications of the 
Research or Development" which summarizes the potential military and 
commercial uses of its effort.[4]  Agency Report, Tab 2, IPI Phase II 
Proposal, Appendix B.  This section appears to describe indicators of 
commercial potential consistent with the definition of 
commercialization stated in the solicitation.  As mentioned 
previously, one evaluator, in responding to the evaluation question 
"What is the future market potential and firm's market attitude?" 
discussed in some detail the proposed technology's potential military 
and civilian applications.  Agency Report, Tab 1C.  

In its report, the agency submitted an additional evaluation of IPI's 
proposal prepared in response to the protest, which recommends 
"Rejection for lack of technical merit."  Agency Report, Tab 8.  The 
agency notes here that the "results of this re-evaluation are not 
being used by BMDO to justify the basis for the non-award, nor to 
justify the BMDO's position that the original decision was proper."  
Agency Report at 12.  The agency states that "the re-evaluation was 
done because of the lack of clear information on the technical 
viability of [IPI's] original Phase II proposal," and that, "even if 
it is determined that commercialization was not a proper concern, 
award would still not be recommended to IPI at this time because of 
the original technical concerns as confirmed by the supplemental 
issues raised by the second set of evaluators."  Agency Report at 
12-13.

It is apparent from the record that this post-protest evaluation was 
performed to demonstrate that the protester was not prejudiced by the 
agency's initial rejection of IPI's phase II proposal.  The agency is, 
in effect, contending that, even if it did fail to evaluate IPI's 
phase II proposal consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in 
the solicitation, this failure did not harm IPI, since the agency 
would have rejected the proposal for lack of technical merit.

We are not persuaded by the agency's argument that there was no 
reasonable possibility of prejudice.  Although our Office considers 
the entire record in determining the reasonableness of an agency's 
evaluation and award decision, including statements and arguments made 
in response to a protest, we accord greater weight to contemporaneous 
materials rather than judgments made in response to protest 
contentions, such as the agency's reevaluation here.  Boeing Sikorsky 
Aircraft Support, B-277263.2, B-277263.3, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  
91 at 15.  

As pointed out above, the agency does not believe that it erred in its 
initial evaluation and rejection of IPI's phase II proposal.  Rather, 
the agency is attempting to defend, in the face of a bid protest, its 
prior rejection of IPI's phase II proposal through the submission of a 
new evaluation that, according to the agency, justifies the rejection 
of IPI's proposal on an entirely different basis (lack of technical 
merit) from that previously asserted (inadequate commercialization 
potential because of lack of private sector funding).  The lesser 
weight we accord the agency's post-protest reevaluation reflects the 
concern that, because it was prepared in the heat of an adversarial 
process, it may not represent the fair and considered judgment of the 
agency, which is a prerequisite of a rational evaluation and source 
selection process.[5]  Id.  Here, not only has the protester responded 
in detail to the agency's after-the-fact technical evaluation, but 
that post-protest evaluation also conflicts with the initial, 
relatively detailed evaluation of IPI's proposal.  

Accordingly, we sustain the protest.  We recommend that the agency 
reevaluate IPI's phase II proposal in a reasonable manner consistent 
with the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation, and 
reconsider whether IPI's phase II proposal should be funded.  We also 
recommend that IPI be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its 
protest.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(d) (1998).  IPI's 
certified claim for such costs, detailing the time and costs incurred, 
should be submitted within 60 days after receipt of this decision.  4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Comptroller General
of the United States   

1. There is also provision, in section 4.5 of the solicitation, for 
"fast-track" awards for companies that obtain funding commitments from 
other sources during Phase I.  This protest does not involve an award 
under the fast-track program. 

2. We note that the evaluation form questions do not appear to 
encompass all of the evaluation criteria set forth in the SBIR Program 
solicitation.  For example, the forms do not provide for any 
consideration of the solicitation's "qualifications of the proposed 
principal/key investigators supporting staff and consultants" 
evaluation criterion.

3. While, as noted above, the solicitation also provided that private 
sector funding would be a tie-breaker to decide among approximately 
equal phase II proposals, there is no indication that the provision 
played this role here.

4. Our discussion here is deliberately vague regarding the actual 
contents of IPI's phase II proposal because of its proprietary nature.  
We also note that the protest pleadings point to a number of potential 
military and civilian applications for IPI's proposed technology.

5. The agency also attempts to support its initial rejection of IPI's 
phase II proposal by asserting in a supplemental report that "[w]hile 
the Program Manager may have ended up with a consideration of the 
public or private financing, that issue alone was not determinative of 
the decision.  The decision was about commercial potential."  
Supplemental Report at 3.  The agency's arguments here are made by 
agency counsel without supporting documentation from either the 
Program Manager or any agency evaluators, and like the reevaluation 
discussed above appear to constitute new analysis in an effort to 
defend the agency's prior decision.  As such, these assertions do not 
render the agency's prior determinations reasonable.