TITLE:  Phantom Products, Inc., B-283882, December 30, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283882
DATE:  December 30, 1999
**********************************************************************
Phantom Products, Inc., B-283882, December 30, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Phantom Products, Inc.

File: B-283882

Date: December 30, 1999

Wendy Nevett Bazil, Esq., Law Offices of John J. Fausti, for the protester.

Robert E. Korroch, 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

Protest that solicitation for buoy lanterns failed to advise offerors that
detailed technical evaluation would be conducted is denied where
solicitation contained 10 technical, management, and past performance
evaluation factors and required proposals to include sufficient information
for the agency to evaluate compliance with solicitation requirements; it
should have been clear to protester that some amount of detailed information
addressing the characteristics of its offered item was required, and since
its failure to provide such information precluded evaluation of its
proposal, agency reasonably rejected the proposal as unacceptable.

DECISION

Phantom Products, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as technically
unacceptable, and the award of contracts to Zeni Lite Buoy Company, Limited
and Vega Industries Limited, under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DTCG23-99-R-T43010, issued by the U.S. Coast Guard for medium-intensity
light emitting diode (LED) buoy lanterns.

We deny the protest.

The Coast Guard conducted this procurement under the procedures set forth in
part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), "Acquisition of
Commercial Items." The independent government cost estimate stated that the
"market review indicated that no commercial off the shelf item [met] all of
the requirements of the [solicitation, but] there [were] several lanterns
that [met or exceeded] many of the

requirements." Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Government Estimate
Medium-Intensity LED Buoy Lanterns, at 1. That document further stated that
development costs were anticipated to be relatively minor, as compared to
typical costs to design and develop new optics. Id. at 1.

On June 30, 1999, the agency issued the RFP as a combined
synopsis/solicitation in a Commerce Business Daily announcement. AR, Tab 9.
The announcement stated that it would constitute the only solicitation, that
proposals were being requested, and that a written solicitation would not be
issued. The RFP stated that the government may make multiple awards and that
any award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to
the solicitation was the most advantageous to the government, price and
other factors considered. AR, Tab 9, Solicitation, at 2. The following
technical evaluation criteria were identified: Technical Approach (optical
performance, power performance, control system performance, service life and
maintenance performance, and mechanical performance); Management Approach
(corporate experience, quality assurance, and production facilities); Past
Performance (design and manufacture of marine aids to navigation lighting
hardware or experience in LED technology, and experience on comparable
projects within the past 3 years); and Price. Id. at 2-3. The RFP
incorporated FAR sect. 52.212-1, "Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items,"
which stated that offers must show, among other things, "[a] technical
description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate
compliance with the requirements of the solicitation." Id. at 2.

The technical specification included in the RFP set forth the minimum
optical performance requirements of the system, stating that:

(1) the lanterns must provide a peak intensity of 60 candela and an
effective intensity, with a 0.3 second flash duration, of 36 candela;
(2) the light output must be uniform around the horizontal (focal) plane;
(3) the light signal must have a minimum vertical divergence, between the 50
[percent] intensity points . . . of 8 degrees, and (4) signal colors must
conform to the recommendations for signal colors issued by the International
Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA).

AR, Tab 9, Solicitation, at 1-2. On July 1, the protester requested and was
furnished the Coast Guard Ocean Engineering Division's Statement of Work for
the buoy lanterns. The protester also received the Coast Guard's detailed
specification G-SEC 498 for the buoys, which was technical in nature with,
for example, provisions about vertical divergence, power requirements,
optical performance and the control system.

Eleven proposals were received on July 30, 1999. The evaluators found
Phantom's proposal to be technically unacceptable due to serious
informational deficiencies. The agency, in a letter to Phantom dated
September 29, stated as follows:

The proposal provides a claim that the product ". . . will fully comply with
the required Coast Guard specification . . ." but does not provide any
details on the size and mass of the proposed product. The proposal does not
provide sufficient information to ensure that selection of materials and
finishes will meet the requirements of the specification. It does not
address how the light signal characteristic control function will be
incorporated into the proposed product. The proposal does not provide
sufficient information on key personnel. The proposal does not specifically
address the requirement for a separable, external power lead, or the
requirement to maintain watertight integrity. The proposal does not address
the technical approach to meet the requirement for low-voltage disconnect.
The proposal does not address the technical approach to ensure proper
operation at nominal and extreme input voltages. [1]

AR, Tab 18, Notification of Award, at 1. Awards were made to Zeni and Vega
on September 30 based on initial proposals, without discussions. AR, Tab 17,
Award Memorandum, at 8; AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer's Statement (COS), at
3. This protest followed.

The crux of Phantom's protest is that the agency, in rejecting Phantom's
proposal for detailed technical reasons, required a higher degree of
specificity and design analysis for technical information in the proposals
than a reasonable offeror would have believed was required from the terms of
this commercial item RFP. According to Phantom, had the RFP properly
identified the need for detailed technical information, Phantom would have
provided the specificity required by the agency. [2]

An agency reasonably may reject a proposal for informational deficiencies
that are so material that the agency is unable to evaluate the technical
acceptability of the proposal. Advanced Am. Diving Serv., Inc., B-274766,
Jan. 2, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 1 at 3-7. In reviewing whether a proposal was
properly rejected as technically unacceptable for informational
deficiencies, we examine the record to determine, among other things,
whether the RFP called for detailed information and the nature of the
informational deficiencies, for example, whether they tended to show that
the offeror did not understand what it would be required to do under the
contract. American Body Armor & Equip., Inc., B-241517.2, Apr. 30, 1991,
91-1 CPD para. 423. We will not reevaluate a proposal but, rather, will consider
only whether the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the
evaluation scheme in the RFP. Id. at 2-3.

While the RFP here certainly could have been more explicit as to the extent
of detailed technical information required to be included in the proposals,
the RFP placed offerors on adequate notice that detailed technical
information concerning the offered item was required. The RFP announced that
proposals would be evaluated under 10 technical, management and past
performance factors--among them optical performance, power performance and
control system performance--and required the submission of two volumes
encompassing the technical approach, the management approach and past
performance areas. Further, as noted, FAR
sect. 52.212-1 required a description of the items being offered in sufficient
detail to evaluate compliance with requirements. We think it should have
been clear to Phantom and other offerors from the informational
requirements, together with the agency's intention to conduct a technical
evaluation, that some amount of detailed technical information about their
proposed product would have to be provided in order that the agency could
assess the merits of the product.

Our review of the protester's proposal shows that Phantom submitted
virtually no technical information showing compliance of its product with
the requirements. For example, in response to the technical evaluation
factor, optical performance, the protester stated only as follows:

Phantom already has two optical systems which it has tested and which have
been found to comply with the intensity and the beam pattern required in the
Coast Guard specification.

This one sentence was the sum and substance of Phantom's proposal with
respect to the optical performance factor. As another example, under the
power performance factor, Phantom only stated as follows:

Both of the above mentioned optical systems fall within the 9 watt maximum
power requirement of the current specification.

Again, this one sentence was Phantom's entire response to the power
performance factor. As a final example, with respect to the mechanical
performance factor, Phantom stated as follows:

Compliance with the shock and vibration tests required in the Coast Guard
specification can be achieved using the optical systems already designed by
Phantom Products. The entire lantern would be reviewed for compliance with
these tests.

This is all that Phantom provided for evaluation under the mechanical
performance factor. In our view, this is nothing more than a blanket offer
of compliance. Certainly, this information was not sufficient to enable the
agency to understand the characteristics of Phantom's product, or to
determine how the product compared to the other offerors' products. A
blanket offer of compliance to specifications is not sufficient to comply
with a solicitation requirement for more detailed technical information
necessary for evaluation purposes. JEOL USA, Inc., B-277160, July 2, 1997,
97-2 CPD para. 3 at 2-3. [3]

In its comments on the agency report, Phantom argues that the agency reduced
the number of deficiencies that resulted in the rejection of its proposal to
three, and improperly applied an undisclosed key personnel factor in
evaluating its proposal. Protester's Comments at 2, 5. There is no support
in the record for this contention--the agency stands on all informational
deficiencies found, even though it devoted more discussion to certain issues
than to others. AR, Tab 1, COS, at 3-4. In any case, as discussed above, we
find that Phantom's proposal clearly omitted material information necessary
for the evaluation, such that the agency properly rejected the proposal; any
other deficiencies, whether or not disputed, made no difference in the
rejection of the proposal.

We conclude that Phantom failed to provide the information required by the
RFP to evaluate its proposal. Accordingly, the agency reasonably rejected
the proposal as unacceptable. [4]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. The agency evaluators also found other informational deficiencies in
Phantom's proposal, in addition to those detailed in the contracting
officer's letter to Phantom. For example, they found that Phantom's proposal
did not provide sufficient information to ensure that the requirements for
minimum vertical divergence and beam positioning would be met, and did not
address the processes that would be used in the development and manufacture
of the product.

2. In its written comments on the agency report, the protester discusses
what it believes to be a misapplication of the agency's internal proposal
evaluation plan. Specifically, Phantom asserts that the plan contained a
"minimum requirements checklist" based on factors not specified in the
solicitation, and that the agency improperly applied these undisclosed
requirements in evaluating the proposals. This argument is without merit.
The plan's checklist did not specify "minimum requirements"; rather, it had
spaces for a comparative color rating of proposals (green/acceptable,
yellow/marginal and red/unacceptable) under items that corresponded to the
evaluation factors contained in the solicitation. For example, the checklist
had a listing for the optical performance factor with subfactors of meeting
or exceeding the minimum requirements of peak and effective intensity,
technical approach to meeting uniformity of peak output in the focal plane,
technical approach to meeting the vertical divergence and beam positioning,
and technical approach to fulfilling the requirements for signal colors.
Since these evaluation items were directly related to the optical
performance requirements set forth in the solicitation, the agency properly
considered them in the evaluation. See MCA Research Corp., B-278268.2, Apr.
10, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 129 at 8.

3. In contrast to the generalities in Phantom's proposal, Zeni's stated, for
example, as follows with respect to the electrical power lead:

Each lantern will be supplied with a separable and jacketed power lead.
Total power lead length will be 1 metre. The power lead will have two
conductors of stranded wire, equal conductor equal to 12 AWG. The conductors
will be colour-coded black for positive [+] and white for negative[-].
Voltage rating 600 Volt.

4. In its comments, the protester argues that the agency failed to give
proper weight to price in comparison to technical matters. Since a firm
whose proposal has been found to be technically unacceptable has no chance
for award, we need not consider the agency's cost/price evaluation. Global
Eng'g & Constr. Joint Venture, B-275999.4, B-275999.5, Oct. 6, 1997, 97-2
CPD para. 125 at 13. The protester also argues that the agency had improper
contacts with the other vendors. However, the record shows only that an
agency representatives attended international trade shows in 1994 and 1998;
there is nothing improper in the agency's attendance at these trade shows.
The protester advances other miscellaneous arguments in its comments which
we do not address because they could not have had any impact on the
determination that the firm's proposal was technically unacceptable. For
example, the protester argues that by attempting to acquire "free" technical
information for future use, the agency was improperly engaging in research
and development. We fail to see how this affected the informational
deficiencies found by the agency in Phantom's proposal.