TITLE:  Automated Cleaning Technologies, Inc., B-293599, April 16, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293599
DATE:  April 16, 2004
**********************************************************************
Automated Cleaning Technologies, Inc., B-293599, April 16, 2004

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Automated Cleaning Technologies, Inc.
    
File:            B-293599
    
Date:              April 16, 2004
    
Dave Poirier for the protester.
Capt. Preston Young, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest that issuance of purchase order was improper because awardee*s
engine bearing cleaning system failed to meet solicitation requirement for
drying capability is denied where record shows that awardee*s system in
fact included drying capability.
DECISION
    
Automated Cleaning Technologies, Inc. (ACT) protests the issuance of a
purchase order to Reid Asset Management Company d/b/a Magnus Equipment
(Magnus) under solicitation No. FE309932759100, issued by the Department
of the Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Laughlin Air Force
Base, Texas, for a high-speed engine bearing cleaning system. ACT
primarily argues that Magnus*s system did not meet all solicitation
requirements.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The Air Force issued the combined synopsis/solicitation as a small
business set-aside on November 4, 2003.  Vendors were to offer a
commercial item for a self-contained cleaning system that would remove
burnt carbon, grease and oils from high-speed engine bearings.  The
solicitation required that the system have *a precision wash, rinse and
drying capability and be able to demagnetize the bearings.*  Solicitation
at 1.  Award was to be made to *the responsible offeror whose technically
acceptable quotation, conforming to the requirements of this combined
synopsis/solicitation, offers the best value to the government.*  Id. at
2. 
    
Seven quotations were received from six vendors.  After technical review,
the agency determined that, although ACT*s quote identified the best value
system, ACT could not receive the purchase order because its $71,969 price
exceeded the funds ($71,110) available for this procurement.  Agency
Report (AR), Tab 8, Evaluation and Justification Letter, at 1-2; AR, Tab
13, Purchase Request, at 1.  The agency went on to determine that Magnus*s
alternate proposal, priced at $65,370, identified *the best value
affordable* system, AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer*s Statement, at 3, and
issued a purchase order to that firm.
    
ACT asserts that, as indicated by the purchase order, the Magnus system
does not include the required drying capability, and that, if this
capability was not needed, ACT should have been permitted to revise its
offer to reflect the relaxed specifications; ACT claims that eliminating
the drying capability from its quoted system would have lowered its price
significantly below the agency*s funding limit, and that it thus would
have been in line for the award. 
    
In reviewing a protest challenging an agency*s evaluation, we will not
reevaluate offers or quotes; rather, we will examine the record to ensure
that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the
solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations.  See Global Bus. and
Legal Servs., B-290381.2, Dec. 26, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 222 at 3; Halter
Marine, Inc., B-289303, Dec. 12, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 200 at 2.
    
The record shows that the Air Force did not waive the drying capability
requirement for Magnus.  The agency explains that *drying capability,* as
used in the solicitation, referred to removal of water from the items
being washed to prevent them from rusting.  Supplemental Report at 1.  ACT
does not dispute that *drying* refers to water removal and, in fact, in
its proposal cover letter states that *engine oil* is used *to *dewater*
or *dry* the bearings quickly.*  AR, Tab 11, ACT Proposal, at 2.  Although
the purchase order issued to Magnus does not specify drying capability,
the agency found that Magnus*s system meets this requirement by virtue of
a rust protection stage (stage 3), identified in its quote, during which
water is displaced or removed.  Supplemental Report at 1; AR, Tab 12,
Magnus Proposal, at 5.  ACT does not refute that this rust protection
stage constitutes drying, as defined by the agency.  We conclude that the
agency reasonably determined that Magnus*s quoted system met the drying
capability requirement.
    
ACT argues that Magnus*s single rust protection stage does not comply with
the agency*s own accepted procedures for drying engine bearings. 
Specifically, the protester notes that the agency states in its
supplemental report that each vendor is responsible for researching the
industry standard and the manufacturer*s specifications for maintenance of
a particular product, and cites General Electric Standard Procedure
70-22-01, Method #2, and the Pratt and Whitney SPOP216 as manufacturer
specifications for maintenance of engine bearings.  Supplemental Report at
1.  ACT asserts that these manufacturers* specifications require *two
immersions in oils, the first being dewatering oil, the second being
actual engine
oil . . . .*  Supplemental Comments at 1.  ACT claims that its system
includes this two‑step process, and that Magnus*s system is
unacceptable because it does not.  This argument is without merit.  While
the agency cites manufacturers* standard procedures in its report, the
solicitation included neither any reference to such procedures, nor any
provision requiring two immersions in oil.  The agency therefore
reasonably concluded that Magnus*s single stage drying capability was
acceptable under the terms of the solicitation. 
    
In supplemental comments filed on March 18, ACT raises several protest
issues for the first time, including, for example, an assertion that the
awardee*s system does not meet the solicitation requirement that the
cleaning system be *self contained,* to include dual rinse stages. 
Supplemental Comments at 2.  Our Bid Protest Regulations require that
protests based in other than apparent solicitation improprieties be filed
within 10 days after the protester knew or should have known the protest
basis.  4 C.F.R. S: 21.2(a)(2) (2004).  ACT was provided the agency report
on or about February 20.  While ACT received the agency*s supplemental
report sometime after March 15, it did not contain any information
regarding these allegations.  Under these circumstances, ACT*s additional
protest grounds had to be filed no later than 10 days after it received
the agency report on February 20.  Since these grounds were not raised
until March 18, they are untimely and will not be considered.

   The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel