TITLE:   Chart Industries, Inc., B-288248, September 28, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-288248
DATE:  September 28, 2001
**********************************************************************
Chart Industries, Inc., B-288248, September 28, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Chart Industries, Inc.

File: B-288248

Date: September 28, 2001

Don Debelak for the protester.

James L. Weiner, Esq., and Alton E. Woods, Esq., Department of the Interior,
for the agency.

Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency's downgrading of protester's technical proposal is unobjectionable
where the record establishes that the evaluation is reasonable and
consistent with the stated evaluation criteria; protester's mere
disagreement with the agency's evaluation does not render the evaluation
unreasonable.

DECISION

Chart Industries, Inc. protests the award of a contract to NorthStar, Inc.
under request for proposals (RFP) No. N1248-01-0007, issued by the National
Park Service, Department of the Interior, for the construction of a natural
gas fueling station at Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Chart contends
that the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal was unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued March 15, 2001 and amended April 24, contemplated the award
of a fixed-price contract for the construction of a compressed natural gas
and liquefied natural gas fueling station, with four 1-year options for
maintenance. The evaluation factors were cost, worth 40 points, and
technical, worth 60 points. The technical subfactors were: implementation
and operation plan (including station design, installation, start-up,
operations, and maintenance), worth 30 points; experience of firm and key
staff, worth 15 points; and past performance on similar contracts, worth 15
points. The RFP also specified that offerors "should ensure that their
[technical] proposals are clear, concise, and fully address all of the
evaluation factors," and that the technical proposals "must fully conform to
the specifications/statement of work clearly defining an approach and
methodology." RFP sect. L.1.

Four offerors, including Chart and NorthStar, responded to the RFP by the
May 4 due date. Each member of the agency's technical panel assigned
numerical ratings for each proposal under each of the technical evaluation
factors. The total evaluated scores were then upwardly adjusted by a common
factor, so that the highest score was 60 points. The contracting officer
separately evaluated prices by assigning the 40 points available for price
to the lowest-priced proposal and proportionately lower scores to
higher-priced proposals. The following table shows the overall ranking of
Chart's and NorthStar's proposals:
                Price (Score)   Technical      Total

 Chart          $1,158,451      44.2           84.2 points
                (40)

 NorthStar      $1,431,595      60.0           92.0 points
                (32)

Agency Report, Tab 11, Memorandum of Negotiations, at 3.

The technical panel noted that while Chart's technical proposal was very
general and lacking in specifics, NorthStar's technical proposal was
thoroughly detailed and accurately responded to the particulars of the RFP.
The contracting officer awarded the contract to NorthStar based on a
determination that NorthStar's superior technical proposal outweighed the
associated price advantage of Chart's lower-rated proposal. After receiving
a debriefing from the National Park Service, Chart filed this protest with
our Office.

Chart protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal and argues that, but
for the agency's improper evaluation, its proposal would have been selected
for award. [1]

In reviewing protests challenging an agency's evaluation of proposals, we
will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency regarding the merits
of proposals; rather, we will examine the agency's evaluation and selection
decision to ensure that they are reasonable and consistent with the
solicitation's stated evaluation factors. Citywide Managing Servs. of Port
Wash., Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 6 at 10.
The protester bears the burden of proving that an evaluation was
unreasonable; mere disagreement with the agency does not render the
evaluation unreasonable. Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270354.2, Oct. 29,
1996, 97-1 CPD para. 135 at 3.

As illustrated by the following examples, we find that the agency's
evaluation was reasonable, given the evaluators' reasonable conclusions that
Chart's proposal (in contrast to that of the awardee) lacked, in many
instances, sufficient or accurate detail to justify a higher point score.
[2]

For example, as noted, one of the technical evaluation subfactors set forth
in the RFP was station design. This aspect of Chart's technical proposal
consists primarily of a general summary of major components and includes one
computerized site drawing. Chart's drawing is devoid of any labeling, fails
to illustrate the canopy feature required by the RFP, and gives no
dimensions, equipment locations, relation to the present fueling site, or
traffic flow patterns. Agency Report, Tab 5, Chart's Proposal, at 43. The
technical panel noted these shortcomings and found Chart's proposal in this
regard to be very vague. Agency Report, Tab 10, Summary of Technical
Evaluation, at 3. The protester disagrees with this evaluation and contends
that the design drawing matches the design description in the text of its
proposal, and that in any case the RFP did not require drawings. However,
since the text of Chart's station design also does not address the
aforementioned deficiencies, the agency reasonably downgraded this aspect of
Chart's proposal.

As another example, the RFP set forth the electrical connections currently
available at the proposed fueling station site. The specifications informed
offerors that there existed 120/208-volt power within 50 feet of the
proposed site. RFP sect. C.3. Chart based its technical proposal upon the stated
assumption that 480-volt electric service was available within 25 feet of
the designated site area. Agency Report, Tab 5, Chart's Proposal, at 40, 76.
The technical panel specifically noted that Chart's assumption regarding
available electrical service was incorrect and inconsistent with the
language of the RFP. Agency Report, Tab 10, Summary of Technical Evaluation,
at 3. We view this as a reasonable basis for the agency to downgrade Chart's
proposal.

As a last example, the RFP set forth the minimum training courses that
offerors were required to provide in connection with station start-up plans.
This included a 5-day course on fueling station operation and maintenance,
as well as a 4-hour course on emergency response team training. RFP sect. C.4.f.
In response to this RFP requirement, Chart's technical proposal offers a
series of 1-, 2-, and 3-hour training courses that do not individually or
collectively fulfill the RFP requirements. Agency Report, Tab 5, Chart's
Proposal, at 79. Though Chart describes its training as widely praised,
proven effective, and time tested, the protester fails to demonstrate how
its proposal complies with the solicitation. Thus, the agency reasonably
downgraded Chart's proposal. [3]

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

Notes

1. Chart makes numerous allegations of improper assessments of specific
aspects of its technical proposal, which it places in three general
categories: (1) faults in its proposal caused by alleged solicitation
ambiguities and/or missing information; (2) an evaluation that was
inconsistent with the criteria and factors set forth in the RFP; and (3) an
evaluation that was cursory in nature. To the extent that Chart is
challenging defects in the solicitation, that protest is untimely; under our
Bid Protest Regulations, a protest against alleged solicitation
improprieties must be filed prior to the closing time for receipt of initial
proposals. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2001).

2. Although we do not here specifically discuss all of Chart's complaints
about its technical evaluation, we have considered all of them and find them
without merit.

3. Chart alleges that it offered a better, alternative method by which to
accomplish fueling station training. However, unless a specification is
unduly restrictive or exceeds the agency's minimum needs, agencies have the
discretion to define their own requirements. APTUS Co., B-281289, Jan. 20,
1999, 99-1 CPD para. 40 at 4.