TITLE:  PflowIndustries, Inc.ï¿½, B-290073;B-290073.2, May 20, 2002ï¿½
BNUMBER:  B-290073;B-290073.2
DATE:  May 20, 2002ï¿½
**********************************************************************
Decision

Matter of:   PflowIndustries, Inc.

File:            B-289970

Date:              May 20, 2002

TomArchie for the protester.
WilliamJ. Spriggs, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for ACRA, Inc., an
intervenor.
CraigD. Haughtelin, Esq., Naval Supply Systems Command, for the agency.
PaulE. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO,participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest challenging technical evaluation of proposals is deniedwhere
agency reasonably found awardee's proposal entitled to higher ratingsthan
protester's based on level of detail found in the proposals.

2.  Pastperformance evaluation rating of satisfactory was reasonable, and
did notrequire discussions, where it reasonably reflected agency's
experience withprotester's work on prior projects.

DECISION

Pflow Industries, Inc.protests the award of a contract to ACRA, Inc. under
request for quotations(RFQ) No. N00406-01-T-1181, issued by the Naval Supply
Systems Command (NAVSUP)for design and installation of a vertical
reciprocating conveyor (VRC) at thePuget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS),
Bremerton, Washington.  Pflow challenges the agency's evaluation ofits and
ACRA's proposals.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ sought proposals to design, fabricate, install,and test an
8,000-pound capacity VRC for dry dock No. 2 at PSNS.  The VRC is used to
transport material andequipment to and from the bottom of the dry dock in
support of repair andoverhaul of naval warships.  The VRC wasto be a
commercially available system, modified to fit its intendedenvironment, and
was to be designed such that it could be disassembled andstored/attached to
a nearby building. The RFQ contemplated award of a fixed-price contract.

Proposals were evaluated on the basis of threefactors:  technical, past
performance,and price.  The technical and pastperformance factors were of
approximately equal importance, and price slightlyless important.  Under the
technicalfactor, the RFQ called for proposals to include information on 11
areas,including design/engineering/production capabilities, safety and
environmentalprotection, and subcontractors.  RFQat 39-41.  With regard to
pastperformance, proposals were to include information on up to five of
thecontractor's (three of any subcontractor's) most recently completed
federal,state, or local government, or commercial contracts.  Id. at 42.
Awardwas to be made to the firm whose offer provided the best value to
thegovernment.

Pflow and ACRA submitted the only proposals.  The technical evaluators found
ACRA'sproposal sufficient as submitted, but that Pflow's required
discussions toobtain additional information.  Asrevised following
discussions, both proposals were rated overall satisfactoryunder the
technical and past performance factors.  ACRA's price ($951,669), was
slightly higher than Pflow's($948,810).

In making the award decision, the contracting officerconsidered that,
although the proposals received the same overall satisfactoryrating, ACRA's
was superior to Pflow's, given ACRA's outstanding ratings underthe
design/engineering/production capabilities and subcontractor
subfactors(compared to Pflow's satisfactory ratings), and Pflow's marginal
rating underthe environmental subfactor (compared to ACRA's satisfactory
rating).  The contracting officer concluded thatACRA's proposal overall was
technically superior to, and represented a lowerrisk than, Pflow's, and made
award to ACRA despite its higher price.  Agency Report (AR), Tab I, at 6.
After receiving notice of the award and adebriefing, Pflow filed this
protest.

Pflow challenges the technical and past performanceevaluations on numerous
grounds.  Inreviewing a protest against a procuring agency's proposal
evaluation, our roleis limited to ensuring that the evaluation was
reasonable and consistent withthe terms of the solicitation and applicable
statutes and regulations.  Nat'l Toxicology Labs., Inc.,B-281074.2, Jan. 11,
1999, 99-1 CPD para. 5 at 3. We have reviewed all of Pflow's arguments and find
that none hasmerit.  We discuss the central argumentsbelow.

PFLOW'S PROPOSAL

Pflow argues that the agency unreasonably rated itsproposal marginal under
the safety/environmental protection subfactor.  In this regard, the RFQ
required adescription of an offeror's ?experience with on-site environmental
protectionprograms in compliance with state and federal regulations related
toenvironmental awareness, hazardous material and hazardous waste
management,spill prevention, and water and air pollution control.?  RFP
at 41, para. E.  The record shows that the agency downgradedPflow's proposal in
this area because it failed to include any informationregarding
environmental compliance, even after the agency requested
additionalinformation for this subfactor during discussions.  AR at 6.  We
havereviewed Pflow's proposal, and find that the agency correctly found
therequired information lacking.  Pflowargues that its proposal was not
lacking in this area, because the RFQ onlyrequired submission of a waste
management plan (WMP) 10 days after award(RFQ sect. 17.1.2), and Pflow told the
agency that it planned to submit theWMP from a prior VRC contract.  Asnoted,
however, the RFQ in fact required other specific descriptiveinformation,
apart from the WMP required after award.  Since Pflow failed to provide
thisinformation, the agency reasonably assigned its proposal a marginal
rating forthis subfactor.  An offeror isresponsible for submitting an
adequately written proposal, and runs the riskthat its proposal will be
evaluated unfavorably where it fails to do so.  Carlson Wagonlit Travel,
B?287016,Mar. 6, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 49 at 3.

Pflow asserts that the agency erred in evaluating its pastperformance as
only satisfactory.  Pflowbelieves its experience at PSNS supported a higher
rating, and cites in supportof this belief the agency's own comment that
Pflow provided ?two good-workingmachines? under its prior contracts at
PSNS. AR, Tab H-3.  Pflow claims theagency downgraded its proposal based on
legitimate contract claims under itsprior PSNS contracts.

The evaluation in this area was reasonable.  The agency denies basing its
evaluation onany contract claims and there is no evidence to the contrary in
therecord.  Rather, the agency explainsthat the evaluation reflected Pflow's
less than perfect performance of its twoprior PSNS contracts, the only past
performance record submitted by theprotester.  While the agencyacknowledges
that it found Pflow's prior VRCs to be ?good-working,? it statesthat the
evaluation also took into account relevance and extent of priorcontracts,
quality and conformance to specifications, and customersatisfaction.
Supplemental Report at 2;RFQ at 43.  With regard torelevance, the design
aspects of the project were repeatedly referenced in thetechnical and past
performance evaluation criteria, and the agency consideredthe fact that
there are significant design differences between Pflow's priorinstalled VRCs
and those required here.[1]  Further, the agency found only moderatecustomer
satisfaction with the prior installations due to the need for theagency to
perform additional work to correct design problems.  AR, Tab H-4, para. C; Decl.
of Evaluator B,para.para. 3?5.

Pflow disputes the agency's view of its contractperformance and the
necessity for additional work, but Pflow acknowledged inits own proposal
that it experienced ?problems? on both installations, PflowProposal at 5,
and the record bears this out. With regard to Pflow's first installation,
the agency accepted the VRC, butdetermined that there were certain design
problems that would require anengineering analysis and additional work to
correct.  While Pflow's contract apparently did not require the firm
toperform an engineering analysis or to pay for the additional required
work(Decl. of Evaluator B, para. 2), we see nothing improper in the
agency'sconsidering the need for this additional work in assessing the
quality of theVRC as delivered, and Pflow's overall performance.

With regard to the second VRC installation, Pflow had tocorrect its
engineering analysis to identify and correct the same designproblem
encountered on the first installation. The agency also had to perform
additional welding that Pflow declined toperform, even though it found that
the welding was indicated on Pflow'ssubmitted drawings, and determined that
it was required in order to conform toAmerican Welding Society
standards. Decl. of Evaluator B, para.para. 3?5.  Although Pflow denies that it
refused to perform this work, andstates that its analysis showed that the
additional welds were not required,Supplemental Comments at 3, we note that
Pflow itself submitted two changeorders to that contract showing that it
accepted price reductions to offset theadditional work performed by the
agency. Id., exhs. A, B. In any case, an agency's past performance
evaluation may be based on areasonable perception of inadequate prior
performance, even where the protesterdisputes the agency's interpretation of
the underlying facts.  Parmatic Filter Corp., B?285288,B-285288.2, Aug. 14,
2000, 2000 CPD para. 185 at 7, n.4, citing QualityFabricators, Inc.,
B-271431,B-271431.3, June 25, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 22 at 7.  Thus, while Pflow
attempts to provide a morefavorable picture of its performance history than
drawn by the agency, thisdoes not alter the fact that there was sufficient
evidence for the agency toconclude that the firm's proposal warranted a
satisfactory past performancerating.[2]

ACRA'S PROPOSAL

Pflow asserts that ACRA's proposal was improperlyevaluated as outstanding
under the design/engineering/product capabilitysubfactor, and the related
subcontractors subfactor (under whichsubcontractors'
design/engineering/production capability was assessed).  Pflow asserts that
ACRA's outstanding ratingunder the first subfactor is unjustified because,
unlike Pflow, ACRA lacks ?aproven track record of success in designing and
manufacturing virtuallyidentical equipment.?  Amended Protestat 2-3.  With
regard to the secondsubfactor, Pflow argues that ACRA's proposal to use
multiple subcontractorsshould not have been evaluated as outstanding,
because multiple subcontractorsincrease risk and decrease contractor
accountability.

This argument is without merit.  The RFQ required offerors to submit an
overview/highlights of thecompany's and major subcontractors' capabilities
in the areas of:  engineering, computer modeling, etc.;directly related past
projects; fabrication and assembly of industrialequipment including
production facilities; and installation and testing.  RFQ, at 40-41,
para.para. C, F.  ACRA's outstanding ratings were based on itseight-page submission
detailing its and its primary subcontractors'capabilities in these areas,
including resumes of three key personnel, with acomprehensive list of their
education, experience, and credentials.  It also identified a wide range of
equipmentand software, including parametric modeling computer design, to be
used by ACRAand its primary subcontractor.  ACRAProposal at 18?24, 28.
Thecontracting officer observed that ACRA's proposal provided detailed,
specificinformation on their design, engineering and production personnel;
companycapabilities and past projects, particularly concerning seismic
zonerequirements; outlines of engineering design tools to be used; and
providedinformation addressing design capabilities on past projects closely
related toVRC designs and systems applications. AR, Tab I, at 3-4.  Based on
theextensive experience detailed in the proposal, the contracting
officerconcluded that ACRA's design submittals would be thorough and exceed
thedesired performance requirements.  Id.at 3.  Similarly, he found that
thebackground and previous associated work information on ACRA's
subcontractorsincreased the assurance that they would meet and exceed
expectations.  Id. at 4.  He therefore concluded that an outstanding rating
for thesesubfactors was warranted.

In contrast, Pflow's initial proposal simply identifiedits project manager
and its installation subcontractor, and providedapproximately 1/3 page of
text describing its production capabilities.  Pflow Initial Proposal at
3-4.  In response to discussion questions, Pflowprovided experience and
education information for its project manager, chiefengineer, and design
manager, and one page regarding its productioncapabilities.  Pflow Revised
Proposal at1-4.  The contracting officer observedthat Pflow's provision of
general information demonstrated that it had adequatedesign/engineering and
production capability to meet the contract requirements.  AR, Tab I, at 2.
However, he also noted that, apart fromidentifying the installation
subcontractor and its experience in installing theprior VRCs at PSNS,
Pflow's proposal provided very little additionalinformation regarding the
subcontractor's previous projects.  Due to the lack of detailed
information,Pflow's proposal was rated satisfactory for the subfactors.  Id.

Based on the clearly more detailed and extensive proposalfrom ACRA, the
agency reasonably found it superior to Pflow's under these
twosubfactors.[3]  While Pflow disagrees with theagency's evaluation
judgment, it provides no basis for finding the agency'sevaluation
unreasonable under either subfactor.  Oceaneering Int'l, Inc., B?278126,
B?278126.2,Dec. 31, 1997, 98-1 CPD para. 133 at 6-7. Pflow's assertion that
multiple subcontractors represent increased riskis not based on anything in
ACRA's proposal, but only on Pflow's own view ofthe risks involved which, by
itself, does not provide a basis for sustainingthe protest.[4]  Symvionics,
Inc., B?281199.2,Mar. 4, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 48 at 8.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

-------------------------

[1] Theseincluded the sloping sides of the dry dock, different building
attachment, andgreater capacity storage system. Declaration (Decl.) of
Evaluator R, para. 2.
[2] Pflow alsoasserts that the agency was required to bring any perceived
past performanceproblems to its attention through discussions. We disagree.
Agencies are notrequired to point out every element of acceptable proposals
that receive lessthan the maximum evaluation rating.  ITTFed. Servs. Int'l
Corp., B-283307, B?283307.2, Nov. 3, 1999, 99-2 CPDpara. 76 at 15-16.  Here,
Pflow's pastperformance was evaluated as satisfactory, with no identified
weaknesses ordeficiencies which would warrant discussions. In any case, the
record shows that Pflow was fully aware of thecircumstances surrounding its
performance under its prior contracts.
[3] Pflowasserts that the agency ignored its submissions for this
subfactor.  This allegation is without merit; theevaluation documents
plainly reference both Pflow's initial proposal and itsrevised submissions.
AR, Tab H3.
[4] In itssupplemental comments, Pflow for the first time asserts that the
evaluation wasflawed because ACRA's VRC subcontractor lacks adequate
experience.  Supplemental Comments at 5.  This argument is untimely and will
not beconsidered.  Our Bid Protest Regulationsdo not contemplate the
unwarranted piecemeal presentation of protestissues.  QualMed,
Inc.,B-257184.2, Jan. 27, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 94 at 12-13.  A protester may not
delay raising additionalprotest grounds where, as here, the protester should
have been aware of thosegrounds at the time of filing its protest.