TITLE: PflowIndustries, Inc.�, B-290073;B-290073.2, May 20, 2002� BNUMBER: B-290073;B-290073.2 DATE: May 20, 2002� ********************************************************************** 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.