TITLE:   AdvanChip Corporation, B-282571, July 29, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-282571
DATE:  July 29, 1999
**********************************************************************
AdvanChip Corporation, B-282571, July 29, 1999

Decision

Matter of: AdvanChip Corporation

File: B-282571

Date: July 29, 1999

Alice Yue for the protester.

Bruce E. Thomason for CyberMetrix, Inc., an intervenor.

Sherry K. Kaswell, Esq., Department of Interior, for the agency.

Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency misevaluated protester's past performance is denied
where record shows information submitted by protester did not demonstrate
that protester had performed contracts with scientific instrumentation
applications, as agency concluded.

DECISION

AdvanChip Corporation protests the award of a contract to CyberMetrix, Inc.
under request for proposals No. 98CRSS1011, issued by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) for the development of a data acquisition and
manipulation software package for use on a PC-based data collection
platform, for the agency's network of magnetic observatories. AdvanChip
maintains that the agency misevaluated its proposal.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation provided that the contract would be awarded on the basis of
the best value to the government, with the non-price factors (technical
excellence, resource availability and past performance) being more important
than price. RFP sect.sect. M.4 M2320(b), M.5 M2335(a). With respect to the non-price
factors, technical excellence was worth twice as much as resource
availability and past performance, which were equal to each other. RFP sect. M.4
M2320(b). Past performance was to be evaluated based on the offeror's
successful development of similar systems, including complexity and
diversity of systems, and timeliness of performance. RFP sect. M.4 M2320(b)(3).
Toward this end, offerors were to provide information on all government
contracts they were performing or had completed within the past 3 years. RFP
sect. L.17 L2160 (d)(3).

Eight offers were received, two of which--the protester's and the
awardee's--were included in the competitive range. After holding two rounds
of discussions and receiving and evaluating final proposal revisions, the
agency determined that, although CyberMetrix's proposal was higher-cost than
AdvanChip's, it was superior technically. In this regard, CyberMetrix's
proposal was rated superior under both the technical excellence and past
performance factors (due to a stronger background in scientific and
engineering applications like those required by the solicitation).
Contracting Officer's Statement at 5-6. The agency therefore determined that
CyberMetrix's proposal represented the best value to the government and
awarded the contract to CyberMetrix. Id. at 6.

AdvanChip asserts that the agency misevaluated its proposal under the past
performance factor. [1] AdvanChip submitted information on two contracts it
had performed. AdvanChip Proposal at 21. The first, for a machinery control
message acquisition system, was described in AdvanChip's proposal as
involving the "design of a message acquisition system with 7 microsecond
message acquisition rate for a 17 bits word." Id. The second, for a
Structure Maintenance Automated Report Transmittal System (SMART), was
described as "a computerized data management system that provides
comprehensive, up-to-date bridge management information for decision-makers
to maintain structural and economic integrity of bridges." Id. AdvanChip
explained that this productivity enhancement tool "collects, stores,
retrieves and distributes all information related to bridge inspection and
maintenance," and that "[t]his information management system significantly
reduces the laborious effort and lengthy time required to collect, process
and report bridge inspection data." Id. The USGS reviewed this information
and concluded that AdvanChip's past performance was not directly related to
the USGS requirements and applications because it was in business-related
applications and database management systems, rather than in the development
of systems involving geophysical and scientific instrumentation. Memorandum
from Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) Chairman, Mar. 22, 1999.

AdvanChip maintains that the machinery control message acquisition system
under the first contract is in fact a scientific instrument for message
acquisition applications. According to AdvanChip, this contract is similar
to the USGS procurement in that both projects are for electronic information
acquisition. AdvanChip Comments, May 29, 1999, at 3. Similarly, AdvanChip
argues that the SMART project is related to the current solicitation because
it is an information technology (IT) application in database management, and
the solicitation mentioned data management capabilities and IT engineering
in the evaluation factors. Id.

We will review an agency's evaluation of proposals only to ensure that it
was conducted reasonably and in accordance with the terms of the
solicitation. SDS Int'l, Inc., B-279361 et al., June 8, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 7
at 3.

The past performance evaluation was reasonable. While there may well be
similarities between AdvanChip's prior contracts and the current
requirement, the record shows that the similarities are not in areas the
agency deemed essential for purposes of demonstrating an offeror's ability
to perform the current requirement.

With regard to the message acquisition system contract, the agency explains
that there are major technical differences in the development of software
for a data collection platform, and electronic information acquisition.
Supplemental Agency Report, June 16, 1999, at 3. In this regard, the agency
explains that the data collection platform is used at various locations in
its network of magnetic observatories. Id. at 4. The purpose of these
magnetic observatories is to provide high quality continuous measurements of
the earth's magnetic field and other geophysical parameters, including
monitoring the earth's three vector field components, the scalar component,
temperatures, and times. The system software must be able to perform complex
functions required for observatory operations, including mathematically
filtering the monitored data, and formatting the data in a special way to
send it to the Geostationary Orbiting Environmental Satellite operated by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Id. at 3-4. The agency
explains further that the required data acquisition does not merely involve
the transfer of data from one point to another. Rather, USGS's applications
require interfacing to a variety of devices that transform physical
phenomena into data. TEC Chairman Statement, June 16, 1999, at 2. This
requires an extensive knowledge of timing, pulsing, time stamping, data
rates, analog-to-digital conversion, and analog-to-digital resolution. The
agency saw nothing in AdvanChip's proposal indicating experience in these
specific areas. Rather, the proposal simply stated that AdvanChip had worked
on the design of a message acquisition system, and did not otherwise
describe that work as including the complex functions required for software
to operate successfully on a data collection platform. There thus is no
basis to question the agency's conclusion that this project did not involve
experience directly related to the current solicitation.

Further, while USGS concedes that AdvanChip's work on the SMART system may
show that AdvanChip has experience performing IT requirements, the agency
found that there was no indication in the firm's proposal that the bridge
project is similar to the scientific application required for a data
collection platform. The agency thus found nothing in this project
demonstrating that AdvanChip has experience in scientific instrumentation,
the ability to design and develop data collection platform software that is
scientific in nature, or the required knowledge of satellite communications.
Supplemental Agency Report, June 16, 1999, at 4. Again, since the
information in AdvanChip's proposal does not demonstrate that this project
involves scientific instrument applications, there is no basis to question
USGS's conclusion that AdvanChip's proposal did not demonstrate experience
directly related to the current requirement. [2] We conclude that the
evaluation of AdvanChip's past performance was unobjectionable.

AdvanChip questions whether the award to CyberMetrix was proper given that
CyberMetrix's proposed cost was 23 percent higher than AdvanChip's. As
indicated above, the solicitation provided that technical factors would be
more important than cost in the best value analysis, and USGS found that
CyberMetrix's proposal was superior to AdvanChip's under the most important
factor--technical excellence--and past performance. The agency also
concluded that, due to its limited experience, AdvanChip would require
supervision and assistance not required by CyberMetrix, which would add to
the cost of AdvanChip's performance. In light of these considerations, the
agency made a reasonable decision to award the contract to CyberMetrix. See
Precision Echo, Inc., B-276740, B-276740.2, July 23, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 114 at
7. [3]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. AdvanChip raised a number of other protest grounds (in its original
protest and in its comments on the agency report), including a lack of
meaningful discussions, misevaluation of its and CyberMetrix's technical
proposals, bias in favor of CyberMetrix, and the agency's failure to remove
its proposal--if it in fact was deficient--from the competitive range at an
earlier stage. The agency responded to each of these arguments in its report
(and its supplemental report), and AdvanChip has not rebutted the agency
responses. Accordingly, we consider these issues abandoned. Arjay Elecs.
Corp., B-243080, July 1, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 3 at 1 n.1.

2. AdvanChip argues that USGS was required to consider the relevant
experience of its key personnel when it evaluated the firm's past
performance. However, the RFP specifically provided that past performance
would be evaluated based on contracts performed by the offeror's "business
segment," RFP sect. L.17 L2160(d)(3), and the agency points out that the
experience and qualifications of proposed staff were considered under the
resource availability factor. Contracting Officer's Statement at 5. There is
nothing improper in considering experience in this manner. In any case, if
AdvanChip believed the experience of its personnel should be considered
under the past performance factor, it was required to protest on this basis
prior to the time set for the receipt of proposals. Bid Protest Regulations,
4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (1999).

3. AdvanChip also argues that in deciding to make award to CyberMetrix, the
agency gave undue weight to CyberMetrix's offered "extras" beyond the
requirements of the solicitation. The record shows that in making the award
decision the agency did consider that CyberMetrix exceeded the requirements
of the solicitation in some areas, concluding that this demonstrated how
well CyberMetrix understood the requirements, and underlined CyberMetrix's
technical excellence. Where a solicitation calls for an award on the basis
of the best value to the government, it is proper for the agency to consider
that an offer exceeds the requirements of the solicitation. See F2M-WSCI,
B-278281, Jan. 14, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 16 at 7-8.