TITLE:  LaBarge Products, Inc., B-287841; B-287841.2, August 20, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-287841; B-287841.2
DATE:  August 20, 2001
**********************************************************************
LaBarge Products, Inc., B-287841; B-287841.2, August 20, 2001

Decision

Matter of: LaBarge Products, Inc.

File: B-287841; B-287841.2

Date: August 20, 2001

William H. Gammon, Esq., Moore & Van Allen, for the protester.

Vera Meza, Esq., and Elizabeth Burt, Esq., U. S. Army Materiel Command, for
the agency.

David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of General Counsel,
GAO, participated in preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably excluded from the competitive range as unacceptable
proposal with significant informational deficiencies.

DECISION

LaBarge Products, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as
unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE07-00-R-T056, issued
by the U. S. Army Materiel Command (AMC), U. S. Army Tank-Automotive and
Armaments Command, for acquisition of the Advanced Aviation Forward Area
Refueling System (AAFARS).

We deny the protest.

The RFP provided for award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
(ID/IQ) contract to continue production of the current AAFARS system, based
on a revised performance-based purchase description, and furnish up to 375
AAFARS systems (and associated logistics support and training) over a period
of 8 years. The AAFARS refueling system consists of a pumping system,
filtration system, nozzles, hoses, couplings and ground rods; the system
draws fuel from four 500-gallon fuel drums and provides filtered fuel at a
rate of 55 gallons per minute (gpm) simultaneously to four nozzles located
100 feet apart. The AAFARS is used to refuel up to four helicopters in
tactical locations when the refueling site is inaccessible to ground
vehicles or urgency requires rapid air deployment.

Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best
value to the government. The solicitation provided for proposals to be
evaluated under three evaluation areas: (1) capability, including evaluation
elements for ability to meet requirements and experience; (2) cost/price,
including evaluation elements for evaluated price and cost realism for the
logistics requirements; and (3) past performance/small business
participation. Capability was more important than cost/price and past
performance/small business participation combined. For each of the
evaluation areas, the RFP required offerors to submit detailed, extensive
discussions of their proposed approach and qualifications.

[DELETED] offerors submitted proposals, [DELETED] of which--[DELETED]--were
included in the competitive range. LaBarge's proposal was rejected on the
basis that it "lacks support and elaboration which was required in Section L
of the . . . RFP to permit us to evaluate it." AMC Letter to LaBarge, Mar.
26, 2001, at 1. Upon learning of the rejection of its proposal, LaBarge
filed an agency-level protest; after that protest was denied, it filed this
protest with our Office.

LaBarge acknowledges that it "did not submit the most elaborately formatted
proposal," but points to language in solicitation section L.3.1 advising
offerors that "[e]laborate format is not desired." Protester Comments,
July 17, 2001, at 2. LaBarge generally asserts that it is "essentially
offering the same item as [DELETED]." LaBarge Comments, July 5, 2001, at 4.
LaBarge concludes that it was unreasonable for the agency to reject its
proposal, which offered the low cost to the government, without first
conducting discussions with the firm.

An offeror must submit an initial proposal that is adequately written and
that establishes its merits, or run the risk of having its proposal rejected
as technically unacceptable. Agencies may exclude proposals with significant
informational deficiencies from further consideration whether the
deficiencies are attributable to omitted or merely inadequate information
addressing fundamental factors. Generally, offers that are technically
unacceptable as submitted and would require major revisions to become
acceptable are not required to be included in the competitive range for
discussion purposes. Essex Electro Engineers, Inc., B-284149, B-284149.2,
Feb. 28, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 72 at 6; Global Eng'g & Constr., Joint Venture,
B-275999.4, B-275999.5, Oct. 6, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 125 at 3. The determination
of whether a proposal is in the competitive range is principally a matter
within the discretion of the procuring agency. Dismas Charities, Inc.,
B-284754, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 84 at 3. Our Office will review an
agency's evaluation of proposals and determination to exclude a proposal
from the competitive range for reasonableness and consistency with the
criteria and language of the solicitation. SOS Interpreting, Ltd., B-287505,
June 12, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 104 at 7.

The exclusion of LaBarge's proposal from the competitive range was
reasonable. As noted, the RFP required offerors to submit detailed,
extensive discussions of their proposed approach and qualifications.
Although RFP section L.3.1, cited by the protester, indicated that
"[e]laborate format is not desired," that same section also provided as
follows:

The Capability Area part should be specific, detailed, and complete to
clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding
of all the technical requirements of the effort. The Capability Area part
should show how the offeror proposes to comply with the applicable
requirements, identify the risk areas involved, and describe proposed
solutions . . . . Clarity and completeness are essential. All data required
for evaluation of the Capability Area should be included in the part.

Furthermore, with respect to the ability to meet the performance
requirements element of the capability area, the RFP specifically required
offerors to

provide a system description containing a narrative describing physical
attributes, a list of major components with specifications (such as the
manufacturer, model number, size, materials of construction, power
requirements, performance ratings, and any other pertinent information),
sketches, electrical diagrams (if applicable), instrumentation, location of
components for operation, and any other information demonstrating the
proposed system's operation and ability to achieve system performance
requirements. Offerors should provide detailed information demonstrating the
proposed system's flowrate, weight, and setup requirements, and how they
achieve the AAFARS performance requirements.

RFP sect. L.3.1.1.2.

AMC determined that LaBarge's proposal failed to comply with these
solicitation requirements. According to the agency, while LaBarge listed
major components of its proposed AAFARS and specified some manufacturers'
model numbers, it did not furnish detailed information as to the performance
and other characteristics of its proposed components, and did not furnish a
true system design, such that the agency could verify LaBarge's performance
claims. [1] Specifically, with respect to flowrate, the most heavily
weighted factor under the ability to meet requirements (in the capability
area), the agency determined that LaBarge did not furnish information
sufficient to adequately demonstrate its claimed compliance with the
solicitation requirement of 55 gpm at each nozzle simultaneously. Detail
Purchase Description AAFARS, ATPD 2294 (Oct. 12, 2000), sect. 3.3(a); AMC Letter
to LaBarge, Mar. 26, 2001, attach. at 1-2. For example, AMC notes, LaBarge
did not furnish such necessary information as hose size and
configuration/layout, which is a critical factor in flowrate. Agency Report,
June 21, 2001, at 11-12; Agency Report, July 27, 2001, at 1, 5-6, 15-16,
attach. 3. Likewise, the agency found that while LaBarge generally claimed
in its proposal that its system could be set up by four personnel and ready
for operation within 20 minutes after unloading, as required by the
specifications, Detail Purchase Description AAFARS sect. 3.3.3.3, LaBarge's
support for this claim amounted to little more than its representation that
the modules in its system have been configured so that they can be assembled
by hand without tools. LaBarge failed to offer a timeline for setup of its
system or other detailed information (as required by RFP sect. L.3.1.1.2)
demonstrating compliance with the 20-minute maximum setup time. LaBarge
Technical Proposal at 8, 15; see AMC Letter to LaBarge, Mar. 26, 2001,
attach. at 3-4; Agency Report, July 27, 2001, at 17. Our review of LaBarge's
proposal confirms these informational deficiencies, and LaBarge has not
established that they were not significant. We therefore find no basis to
question AMC's determination of significant informational deficiencies in
the capability area of LaBarge's proposal.

While it may be that LaBarge was proposing essentially the same system as
[DELETED], AMC has furnished a detailed comparison of the proposals showing
that [DELETED] furnished much more extensive, detailed information
concerning their proposed systems and supporting their claims of compliance
with the solicitation performance requirements. Agency Report, July 27,
2001, at 7-18, attach. 3. LaBarge has not shown this comparison to be in
error. For example, in contrast to LaBarge's failure to demonstrate
compliance with the 20-minute setup requirement, [DELETED] described
[DELETED]. Although LaBarge correctly asserts that its proposal specified
model numbers for more components than [DELETED], the record supports AMC's
determination that [DELETED] furnished critical performance information
regarding its proposed components that LaBarge failed to provide and, again,
included in its proposal much more extensive information regarding the
characteristics and performance of its overall proposed system.

LaBarge claims that, notwithstanding the use of performance specifications
here, certain of the subassemblies in the AAFARS are de facto sole-source
items, thus apparently implying that the agency could assume there would be
little difference between its proposed system and the existing system (or
the other offerors' systems). However, LaBarge itself acknowledges that its
proposal only "implies a set-up similar to the existing AAFARS, but does not
specifically state such set-up," and only "impl[ies] connections similar to
the existing AAFARS, but do[es] not specifically describe such
connection[s]." Protest, exh. 8, Matrix of Components and Their
Specifications, at 1-2. Further, LaBarge proposed as its "preferred" power
source a different engine than proposed by [DELETED], or the one reflected
in the agency's current technical manual for the AAFARS. LaBarge Technical
Proposal at 9; [DELETED]. [2]

In any case, again, RFP sect. L.3.1.1.2 required offerors to describe their
proposed system in detail, including "physical attributes" and any other
information "demonstrating the proposed system's operation and ability to
achieve system performance requirements." We conclude that there was no
basis for LaBarge to prepare its proposal based on some expectation that AMC
would "fill in the blanks" based on assumptions about its system.

AMC also determined that LaBarge failed to furnish the required detailed
information demonstrating relevant corporate and personnel experience and
qualifications in the design and manufacturing areas. In this regard, with
respect to the experience element of the capability area, the RFP required
offerors to provide "detailed information about contracts performed for the
Government or commercial entities," and "detailed information about
individuals proposed to perform" the contract effort, demonstrating relevant
experience and background in designing, manufacturing and performing
logistics for systems similar to the proposed system. RFP sect. L.3.1.2.1.1.
LaBarge did not provide the required information with respect to design and
manufacturing experience and qualifications. While LaBarge named three key
employees in the experience area of its proposal, it included little or no
information with respect to any experience and qualifications of the key
employees. LaBarge Technical Proposal at 23-24. As for corporate experience,
although LaBarge's proposal referred to several contract efforts, including,
for example, the Forward Area Refueling Equipment (FARE) system and the
United States Marine Corps "Hose Reel System," it did not elaborate on their
relevance. LaBarge Technical Proposal at 1, 23-24. While it appears that
some of these contract efforts could be relevant, it was LaBarge's
responsibility to explain that relevance. Cf. [DELETED].

We conclude that the agency reasonably rejected LaBarge's proposal as
unacceptable and excluded it from the competitive range, notwithstanding its
lower cost/price.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. In this regard, we note that the RFP required that proposals be submitted
by means of electronic media, and LaBarge included in its proposal
hyperlinks to several manufacturers' Internet web sites. While it may be
that more information about proposed components was available at those web
sites, the RFP specifically prohibited reliance on external information to
satisfy the solicitation informational requirements. Specifically, the RFP
provided that "[Hypertext Markup Language] documents must not contain active
links to live Internet sites or pages. All linked information must be
contained within your electronic offer and be accessible offline." RFP sect.
L.18(1)(iii).

2. Although LaBarge noted in its proposal that it was also considering an
engine that the record indicates was the one proposed by [DELETED] and
specified in the technical manual, again, it identified a different engine
as its preferred one. LaBarge Technical Proposal at 9.