BNUMBER:  B-281645             
DATE:  February 24, 1999
TITLE: Stratus Systems, Inc., B-281645, February 24, 1999
**********************************************************************

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:Stratus Systems, Inc.

File:B-281645            
        
Date:February 24, 1999

Steven A. Becnel for the protester. 
Lawrence E. Kinker for Survival Systems Group USA, an intervenor.
Richard V. Gonzales, Esq., United States Coast Guard, for the agency. 
Andrew T. Pogany, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Contracting agency properly did not give evaluation credit for 
undated and general past performance information contained in 
protester's technical approach, where request for proposals (RFP) 
stated that past performance would be  separately evaluated using 
detailed past performance criteria for the past 24-month period.

2.  Contracting agency's written discussion questions reasonably 
apprised protester of the areas of its proposal that the agency 
considered deficient, such that the protester should have known and 
understood the agency's concerns.

DECISION

Stratus Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Survival 
Systems Group USA under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DTCG38-98-R-J00002, issued by the United States Coast Guard for 42 
emergency egress lighting systems for the HH60J helicopter.[1]  
Stratus principally argues that the agency misevaluated technical and 
price proposals.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued March 5, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price 
commercial item supply contract to the responsible offeror whose offer 
conforming to the solicitation would be most advantageous to the 
government, price and other factors considered.  Agency Report (AR), 
Tab E, RFP at 6.  The RFP stated that a single award would be made 
based on the evaluation factors of technical approach (the most 
important factor), past performance and price.  Id.  Technical 
approach (with five subfactors)[2] and past performance each were more 
important than price; the RFP stated, however, that price was an 
important factor and its importance would increase as the degree of 
equality of the proposals increased.  Id.

The agency received four offers; following evaluation, one offer was 
determined to be yellow/marginally satisfactory from a technical 
standpoint and excluded from the competitive range.[3]  The evaluators 
found that Survival Systems proposed a complete system, which appeared 
easy to install and maintain.  It took 2-1/2 hours to install the 
system, which was designed for easy changing of components, had an 
excellent range of visibility, and was powered by relatively 
inexpensive battery packs of "C" cell alkaline batteries.  Testing of 
the system could include actually illuminating the exit lights.  This 
proposal was rated green/acceptable.  Stratus also offered a complete 
system, which could be installed within 3-1/2 hours.  Its system used 
lithium batteries, which are more expensive than normal alkaline 
batteries.  The evaluators found that testing of Stratus's system 
would check the battery, sensor and circuit condition, but would not 
illuminate the actual emergency lights; if the lights were illuminated 
during testing, they would have to be replaced, at a cost of 
approximately [deleted].[4]  This proposal nevertheless also was rated 
green/acceptable.  Following discussions, best and final offers (BAFO) 
were received and evaluated.

In its BAFO, Survival Systems was found to have improved the design of 
its mounting brackets and backing plates to reduce or eliminate a 
potential snag hazard; as a result, its rating was upgraded to 
blue/outstanding.  Stratus's BAFO offered to provide a de-coupling 
module to reduce the risk of maintenance personnel accidentally 
activating the inversion sensor.  However, because the lights still 
would have to be replaced when used (accidently or due to training 
needs), and in view of the associated costs, its rating remained 
green/acceptable.  Survival System offered a price of $275,100; the 
protester offered a price of [deleted].  The agency's tradeoff 
analysis stated as follows:

     The difference in price between the two systems is [deleted].  If 
     we were to install the Stratus product, the accidental or 
     intentional illumination of a system more than 56 times over the 
     life of the airframe would cost more in replacement parts than we 
     would save in initial acquisition.  Assuming a 20 year life, that 
     would be less than 3 times per year.  With 42 aircraft at eight 
     different air stations, the potential for activation of the 
     system is far greater than 3 times per year.  Other 
     considerations that favor the [Survival System] product are the 
     ease of maintenance, the durability of the system, the additional 
     range of visibility, and the ability of the aircrew to actually 
     see the system illuminated during testing.

AR, Tab M, Trade-off Analysis at 1.  The agency thus awarded the 
contract to Survival System; this protest followed.

The protester raises several arguments concerning the evaluation and 
award decision, all of which we find to be without merit.  We discuss 
Stratus's key arguments below.  

The protester first argues that the agency failed to adhere to the 
evaluation criteria because it did not give adequate credit to the 
protester in the area of past performance.  The protester states that, 
in addition to information about contracts performed within the last 
24 months, as required by the solicitation, its proposal included past 
performance information in its technical approach.  Specifically, the 
protester states, this information related to a "host of other 
products that Stratus personnel have developed [in more than] 20 
years," including products in the general areas of fluid engineering, 
chemical engineering, electronic engineering and others.  Protester's 
Comments at 4.  The protester concludes that it should have received a 
blue/outstanding rating for past performance.  

The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the 
contracting agency; our Office will question the agency's evaluation 
only where it lacks a reasonable basis or conflicts with the stated 
evaluation criteria for award.  Sytel, Inc., B-277849.2, B-277849.3, 
Jan. 8, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  21 at 7.  

We find no basis for concluding that the evaluation was unreasonable 
or conflicted with the stated evaluation criteria.  The RFP indicated 
that only relevant experience during the past 24 months was required 
and would be evaluated.  The proposal did not indicate, and the 
protester does not assert, that the cited additional past performance 
items fall within the 24-month period.  

Stratus argues that the agency did not adequately apprise the firm of 
its concerns about the Stratus product's life cycle costs during 
written discussions.  Specifically, Stratus complains that when the 
agency asked it to provide replacement costs for the lighting system, 
Stratus believed the agency was asking about kit replacement, not 
individual location replacement; since there are three units in a kit, 
according to Stratus, the true replacement cost was [deleted], not 
[deleted].

Written discussion questions generated by a contracting agency should 
reasonably apprise offerors of the areas that the agency considers 
deficient such that the offerors will understand the agency's 
concerns.  See IT Facilities Servs., B-279585, June 29, 1998, 98-2 CPD  para.  
16 at 5-7.  We have reviewed the questions asked of Stratus by the 
agency and find them to be clear.  The questions were:  "What 
components will require replacement in case of accidental activation?  
What will the cost of components be?"  Stratus's answer was that the 
control module, inversion and crash sensor and the light tube would 
need replacement at a cost of [deleted].  We think both the agency's 
questions and the protester's reply were clear.  There was no mention 
whatsoever in the protester's response that its answer related to kits 
rather than individual location replacement.  If the protester meant 
something other than what it told the agency in simple and clear 
terms, the miscommunication was its own fault and did not reflect a 
failure by the agency to provide adequate discussions.

Finally, Stratus argues that the agency is purchasing an inferior and 
inadequate technology (LED), which is not capable of the illumination 
and range of visibility that its superior solution is capable of 
achieving; specifically, Stratus asserts that the agency "has elected 
to go with an unproven solution that [it] know[s] has inferior 
illumination."[5]  Protester's Comments, at 6.  The protester insists 
that no other system can match its technology, and that the agency 
thus should purchase only its product in order to ensure the safety of 
its personnel.

We generally will not consider allegations such as this that, 
essentially, the government's interest is not adequately protected by 
purchasing the product solicited.  Assurance that sufficiently 
rigorous specifications are used in an RFP is ordinarily of primary 
concern to procurement personnel and user activities, since it is they 
who must suffer any difficulties resulting from inadequate equipment.  
We therefore do not resolve such issues pursuant to our bid protest 
function--since use of broadened or less rigorous specifications is 
consistent with the requirement for full and open competition--absent 
evidence of possible fraud or willful misconduct by procurement or 
user personnel acting other than in good faith, neither of which is 
alleged by the protester.  See Miltope Corp.--Recon., B-188342, June 
9, 1977, 77-1 CPD  para.  417 at 2, aff'd, Miltope Corp.--Recon. (Second), 
B-188342, July 1, 1977, 77-2 CPD  para.  3 at 1.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States
      
1. An emergency egress lighting system, in simple terms, is a system 
of lights which mark doors and window openings through which the crew 
could exit the helicopter in an emergency situation.

2. The subfactors were ease of installation on aircraft, 
maintainability of lighting system, light intensity and angle of view, 
environmental impact, and life cycle cost.

3. The agency rated proposals with color/adjectival ratings of 
blue/outstanding, green/acceptable, yellow/marginally satisfactory, 
and red/unacceptable.

4. Stratus offered a "chemiluminescent" type light source.  An 
illumination is produced by a non-toxic biodegradable chemical 
reaction.  The control module contains proprietary chemicals which are 
combined and then injected in the light tube.  The primary drawback of 
this type of light source is that it can only be used once and then 
has to be replaced.  The other offerors proposed light emitting diodes 
(LED) which did not have to be replaced after being illuminated during 
testing.

5. In its protest, Stratus contended that it understood from the 
agency's debriefing and award notification letter that the award was 
for an item that was going to be custom made; the protester argued 
that this was inappropriate in a procurement governed by Part 12 of 
the FAR for commerical items.  Protest at 7-8.  In its report, the 
agency explained that, at the debriefing and award notification 
letter, it may have misused the term "custom made" with reference to 
the awardee's system; the agency advised that, while the awardee's 
system contains developmental items, these are small in number and 
minor in nature (brackets and mounting hardware), and the system thus 
met the definition of a commercial item, since it was primarily 
non-developmental and was an adaptation of a system commercially 
available to the general public.  Contracting Officer's Statement at 
4.   See FAR  sec.  2.101.  In its comments on the agency report, Stratus 
conceded that this protest ground was based on the agency's earlier 
information, now corrected, and Stratus provided no other basis for 
challenging the awardee's item as a commercial item.  Protester's 
Comments at 8.  We therefore view the issue as abandoned.