TITLE:  T-L-C Systems, B-287452, June 18, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-287452
DATE:  June 18, 2001
**********************************************************************
T-L-C Systems, B-287452, June 18, 2001

Decision

Matter of: T-L-C Systems

File: B-287452

Date: June 18, 2001

Sidney Earley for the protester.

Maj. Robert W. Clark, Department of the Army, for the agency.

Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably rejected proposal that failed to show that it complied
with the statement of work requirements, as was required by the
solicitation.

DECISION

T-L-C Systems protests the award of a contract to Monaco Enterprises, Inc.
under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHA13-01-R-0001, issued by the
Department of the Army, Iowa Army National Guard, for the delivery and
installation of a radio frequency fire alarm communication system. T-L-C
contends that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal and failed to
provide it with meaningful discussions.

We deny the protest.

The RFP was issued under the streamlined commercial acquisition procedures
pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6, using a
combined synopsis/solicitation posted on the Commerce Business Daily (CBD)
Internet site on
January 5, 2001. The synopsis/solicitation provided that "this announcement
constitutes the only solicitation," and included a "brief description" of
the system
to be procured. Agency Report, Tab 38, CBD Notice/Solicitation. Prospective
offerors were instructed to contact the agency to receive the complete
statement
of work (SOW) and maps for the system. Id. at 2.

Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to
offer the government the best value, considering the following factors:
technical ability of the system proposed, technical support, and past
performance.
The solicitation/synopsis included the following instructions:

The offeror shall submit a written proposal addressing all the technical
factors outlined above. The proposal shall provide documentation, which
addresses their ability to meet or exceed the requirements of each paragraph
in the statement of work or provides an explanation of the
variations/deficiencies in their proposal.

Id. Proposals were limited to 35 pages in length and offerors were cautioned
that the failure to address any item may be cause for proposal rejection.
Id.

On February 5, the agency received four proposals in response to the
synopsis/solicitation. T-L-C's submission included its product literature;
however, it failed to address the technical factors and how its proposed
system met each of the SOW requirements. Agency Report, Tab 31, T-L-C
Proposal. During discussions T-L-C was notified that it had failed to
provide a proposal that addressed the technical factors and each of the
requirements in the SOW as required by the solicitation, and offered T-L-C
the opportunity to make its proposal responsive to the solicitation. Agency
Report, Tab 25, Agency Discussion Letter to T-L-C.

The protester then filed an agency-level protest on March 5. [1] In this
protest, T-L-C referenced the agency's previous attempt to purchase this
fire alarm communication system from a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)
contract. Since T-L-C's proposed system had been determined acceptable
during that competion, it questioned how the agency could determine its
proposal here for the identical system was unacceptable. Agency Report, Tab
18, T-L-C's Agency Level Protest.

The agency responded, by letter dated March 9, informing T-L-C that its
submission lacked a "paragraph by paragraph summary" of how its system
complied with the SOW requirements, as required in the solicitation, and
asked the protester to either state that they wanted the agency to review
the proposal as submitted, or to submit the requested information. The
letter went on to state that T-L-C's failure to submit any information would
result in the rejection of its proposal. Agency Report, Tab 15, Army's
Response to T-L-C's Agency-Level Protest. [2]

On March 10, the protester withdrew its agency-level protest ("predicated
upon [the Army's] approval of [T-L-C's] proposal as submitted"), and did not
submit any additional information. Agency Report, Tab 14, T-L-C's Withdrawal
of Agency Level Protest.

The agency evaluated the proposals and found that it could not determine
whether T-L-C's proposal met all of the SOW requirements. The agency also
determined that Monaco's acceptable proposal represented the best value to
the government. Agency Report, Tab 12, Selection Board's Minutes. This
protest followed.

The protester argues that the agency had found its proposal for the same
product technically acceptable in a previous procurement, and that the
agency had in essence "pre-approved" its system. T-L-C argues that there was
nothing in the solicitation that would require a paragraph by paragraph
response, and that in any case, it took no exceptions to the provisions in
the SOW. T-L-C's Comments, Tab 12, at 1; T-L-C's Additional Comments, May 1,
2001, at 2.

Our Office will not question an agency's evaluation of proposals unless the
agency deviated from the solicitation evaluation criteria or the evaluation
was otherwise unreasonable. Shilog Ltd., Inc., B-261412.4, Nov. 8, 1995,
95-2 CPD para. 260 at 9.
The offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal and
proposal revisions for the agency to evaluate, and an offeror's disagreement
with the agency's judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency
acted unreasonably. Applied Co., B-279811, July 24, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 52 at
5.

First, we note that T-L-C is mistaken in its belief that its fire alarm
communication system was somehow "pre-approved" during the previous
procurement, in which the agency found T-L-C's system was acceptable. The
solicitation at issue here contained a SOW that was far more detailed than
that used for the previous acquisition. In any event, each procurement
action is a separate transaction and the action taken under one is not
relevant to the propriety of the action taken under another procurement for
purposes of a bid protest. R&B Equip. Co., B-271194, May 22, 1996, 96-1 CPD

para. 250 at 5.

Moreover, contrary to T-L-C's assertions, the solicitation/synopsis
explicitly requested a proposal that showed that the offeror's system
complied with "each paragraph of the statement of work." Agency Report, Tab
38, CBD Notice/Solicitation, at 2. T-L-C declined to respond to this
requirement, even though this matter was twice brought to its attention, but
submitted only its product literature. Nevertheless, in evaluating T-L-C's
system the agency itself attempted to determine whether T-L-C's system, as
described in its product literature, met the SOW requirements, but was
unable to do so for all requirements. For example, the agency could not
determine from the protester's submission whether it complied with the
specifications applicable to the display module or with regard to the
personal computer in the "logging mode." The protester has not contradicted
this determination, but rather insists that its blanket statement that it
will comply with the terms of the solicitation should demonstrate its intent
to comply with the terms of the RFP. However, responses that are essentially
blanket offers of compliance are not adequate substitutes for the detailed
and complete technical information necessary to establish that what the
offeror proposes will meet the agency's needs, especially where the
solicitation specifically calls for a description of how an offeror proposes
to meet solicitation requirements. M. C. Dean Elec. Contracting, Inc.,
B-246193, Feb. 24, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 219 at 4. Thus, the record does not
evidence that the evaluation of T-L-C's proposal was unreasonable or
inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation.

T-L-C contends that its proposal problems, if any, were the result of the
agency's failure to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm.
Specifically, T-L-C argues that "[i]f the agency had requested specific
information to be clarified, TLC Systems would have responded." T-L-C's
Comments Summary at 2. We find the agency more than satisfied its duty to
conduct meaningful discussions when it twice advised the protester that it
had failed to provide documentation showing that its proposed system meets
the requirements of each paragraph of the statement of work and that a
failure to satisfy this solicitation requirement would result in the
rejection of its proposal. See LaBarge Elecs., B-266210, Feb. 9, 1996, 96-1
CPD para. 58 at 6.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. We sustained T-L-C's protest of the previous attempt to acquire this
system in T-L-C Sys., B-285687.2, Sept. 29, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 166, because
the acquisition included certain items that were not contained in the
awardee's FSS contract, yet were included in the FSS order.

2. T-L-C was also initially told in discussions that its proposal exceeded
the 35-page limit established in the CBD notice/solicitation. T-L-C was
later notified that this was not the case. Agency Report, Tab 15, Army
Response to T-L-C's Agency-Level Protest, at 1.