TITLE:  Chant Engineering Company, Inc., B-292140, May 29, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292140
DATE:  May 29, 2003
**********************************************************************
Chant Engineering Company, Inc., B-292140, May 29, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:    Chant Engineering Company, Inc.
    
File:             B-292140
    
Date:              May 29, 2003
    
Philip Chant for the protester.
Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and John E. Klecha, Esq., Department of the
Army, for the agency.
Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg,
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation
of the decision.
DIGEST
    
In a *best value* procurement conducted using simplified acquisition
procedures, protest of agency's evaluation of quotation is denied where
review of record shows evaluation was reasonable.
DECISION
    
Chant Engineering Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Link
Engineering Company under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
DAAE07-02-T-0018, issued by the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments
Command for a controller system to be used with a tire test machine. 
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The RFQ was issued on July 9, 2002 as a *combined synopsis/solicitation
for commercial services* under the simplified acquisition procedures of
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13 and Subpart 12.6.  It sought
quotations to *design, fabricate, test and deliver an updated existing
user-interface controller system* to achieve test readiness of a tire test
machine manufactured by Chant.[1] 
The tire test machine is used in durability testing of various military
vehicle tires.  The controller, which consists of hardware and software,
is an external device that controls such operations as *on/off,* load,
speed, caster, and camber.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a
fixed-price contract to the *responsible offeror whose offer will be most
advantageous to the Government (Best Value) evaluating the technical
proposal, price, delivery and past performance.*  RFQ at 1. 
    
Four vendors submitted quotations by the closing date of July 24.  The
agency evaluated the quotations, developed *Items for Discussion* (IFD)
for each vendor's quotation, and then provided the IFDs to the vendors so
that the agency *could get a better understanding of each offeror's
quotation.*  Responses to IFDs were submitted on January 24, 2003, and
were incorporated into the technical evaluation.  Contracting Officer's
Statement at 2.   
    
Link received a rating of excellent (very low risk) for its technical
proposal and quoted a price of $89,100.  Chant received a good rating (low
risk) for its technical proposal and quoted a price of $93,100.  Both
vendors received a good rating for past performance and provided for a
6-month delivery.  The agency selected Link for award because its
quotation provided an *excellent technical offer combined with the lowest
offered price.*  Agency Report (AR), Tab F, Award Decision Document, Mar.
14, 2003, at 1, 5.  This protest followed.
    
Chant generally challenges the agency's technical evaluation, primarily
arguing that its quotation was deserving of the highest technical and
lowest risk ratings because it is the manufacturer of the tire test
machine and, thus, possesses technical information that no other vendor
has; conversely, Chant argues that Link's quotation should have been
assigned a lower technical and higher risk rating because that firm does
not have this technical information.[2] 
    
As noted above, the Army conducted this acquisition using simplified
acquisition procedures.  Simplified acquisition procedures are designed
to, among other things, reduce administrative costs, promote efficiency
and economy in contracting, and avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and
contractors.  FAR S: 13.002; Sawtooth Enters., Inc., B-281218, Dec. 7,
1998, 98-2 CPD P: 139 at 3.  Our Office reviews allegations of improper
agency actions in conducting simplified acquisitions to ensure that the
procurements are conducted consistent with a concern for fair and
equitable competition and with the terms of the solicitation.  Nunez &
Assocs., B‑258666, Feb. 10, 1995, 95-1 CPD P: 62 at 2. 
    
Here, we find no basis to object to the Army's evaluation and selection of
Link's quotation as reflecting the best value to the government.  The
record shows that the Army recognized that Chant was the manufacturer of
the tire test machine and assessed this to be a strength in Chant's
quotation.[3]  AR, Tab E, Evaluation Summary at 3.  Nevertheless, the Army
also found that possession of technical data for the tire test machine was
not necessary or required for the controller.  As explained by the Army,
the tire test machine is a *simple mechanical device[] made up of a
collection of commercially available components.* [4]  Contracting
Officer's Statement at 3.  Moreover, the contractor will not be required
to repair, refurbish, or optimize the tire test machine, but only provide
the controller, which is a separate device consisting of computer hardware
and software that records data and tells the machine what to do.  Although
Chant asserts that the agency should have lowered Link's quotation rating
because that firm did not possess Chant's proprietary technical data, it
has not shown that this data is necessary.  The Army concluded that the
data was not necessary, and Chant has not shown the Army's judgment to be
unreasonable.
    
We find that the record supports the Army's selection of Link to receive
award.  The agency identified a number of technical strengths in Link's
quotation, including that its controller has been *proven stable and has
been used on over 100 test stands within the testing community*; is *fully
flexible* and can operate in either the automated or manual mode; and the
accompanying software is *customizable* and provides for a *friendly user
interface*, various display features, and links to software enhancements. 
Also, the agency found advantageous Link's business experience in making
controllers of similar design.[5]  In contrast, Chant's quotation included
controller software that was found to be *not commercial or user
friendly*, *not customizable*, and *not interoperable* with Microsoft
Excel.[6]  AR, Tab F, Award Decision Document, at 2-3.      
    
In sum, we find that the agency was reasonably justified in rating Link's
quotation superior to Chant's, and in selecting Link's higher rated and
lower priced quotation for award.[7] 
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel   
    

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

   [1] The RFQ originally sought one controller system to be used with two
different manufacturer brands of tire test machines, but due to funding
constraints, the agency later notified vendors that it would only be
purchasing a controller system for the Chant machine.
[2] Chant also contends that the agency failed to recognize as a strength
its offer to evaluate the mechanical components of the tire test machine
at no additional cost.  However, Link made a similar offer, so Chant's
quotation is not superior in this regard.
[3] The agency also noted that Chant's machine was manufactured in 1996,
is now outdated, and is not Y2K compliant.  AR, Tab F, Award Decision
Document, at 2.
[4] The agency states, and the protester does not disagree, that technical
data and specifications for the components of the Chant tire test machine
controller are readily available from the commercial component
manufacturers.
[5] In its comments to the agency report, Chant challenges, for the first
time, the agency's assessment of these strengths to Link's quotation,
arguing that they and others were also present in Chant's quotation. 
However, these strengths were made known to Chant during its debriefing,
which also disclosed that they were not included as strengths to Chant's
quotation.  Any challenge to these strengths should have been, but was
not, raised in its initial protest in order to be timely; our Office will
not consider the piecemeal presentation of these protest grounds.  4
C.F.R. S: 21.2(a)(2) (2003); JAVIS Automation & Eng'g, Inc., B-290434,
B-290434.2, Aug. 5, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 140 at 7 n.11.
[6] Chant disagrees with the agency's assessment of these weaknesses, as
well as its assessment of a weakness because Chant is not a controller
expert, but mere disagreement is not sufficient to render those
assessments unreasonable.  AudioCARE Sys., B-283985, Jan. 31, 2000, 2000
P: 24 at 4.     
[7] Chant also contends that the evaluation was biased and unfair.  We
find no evidence in the record to support this contention.