TITLE:  Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc., B-293925.3, May 16, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-293925.3
DATE:  May 16, 2005
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc.

   File:            B-293925.3

   Date:              May 16, 2005

   Ron Ward for the protester.

   James B. Howarth, Esq., and Eric Kattner, Department of the Air Force, for
the agency.

   Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging agency's award of a contract is denied where agency
reasonably evaluated awardee's technical proposal to provide a product
that complies with solicitation requirements.  Protester's interpretation
of the solicitation as prohibiting awardee's proposed product does not
appear reasonable; at most, the protester's interpretation suggests a
patent ambiguity in the solicitation which cannot be protested after
award.

   DECISION

   Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc. protests the award of a contract to U.S.
Technology Corporation (UST) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
F42650-03-R-A111, issued by the Department of the Air Force for leasing
and recycling of abrasive blast media.  Poly-Pacific argues that the
agency improperly determined that UST's proposal was technically
acceptable.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP was issued on March 3, 2004, as a total small business set-aside,
and anticipated the award of a fixed-price,
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for an 8-month base
period followed by up to four 1-year option periods.  The RFP sought
proposals to lease "blast media," such as plastic, aluminum oxide, glass,
garnet, and other media blends, to Hill Air Force Base, Utah, for use as
an abrasive in the removal of organic and other coatings from aircraft,
components, and equipment.  RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), at 1.  After the
material is used as an abrasive and is no longer usable for that purpose,
it is deemed "spent blast media" (SBM) and the contractor is responsible
for removing it.  Id. at 2.  The RFP required offerors to propose a means
of removing and recycling the SBM that meets Environmental Protection
Agency regulations that exclude such recycled products from the definition
of "solid waste."  RFP at 37.  During the course of the contract the
contractor retains legal title to the blast media, as well as liability
for its handling and disposal.  Id.

   Prior to award, Poly-Pacific's proposal was eliminated from award
consideration based on the agency's determination that its proposal was
technically unacceptable.  Poly-Pacific subsequently filed a protest
challenging the elimination of its proposal.  Poly-Pacific Techs., Inc.,
B-293925.2, Dec. 20, 2004, 2004 CPD P 250.  We denied the protest,
concluding that the agency reasonably evaluated Poly-Pacific's proposal. 
Id.  At the time of our decision, the agency had not yet made the award to
UST.  The agency subsequently awarded the contract to UST on March 16,
2005, and Poly-Pacific's protest of the award to UST followed.

   DISCUSSION

   Poly-Pacific primarily contends that the agency unfairly evaluated the
offerors' proposals because the agency determined that Poly-Pacific's
proposal was technically unacceptable based on its alleged failure to meet
one of the RFP requirements for recycled materials made from SBM, whereas
UST's proposal was found to comply with the requirement.[1]  The RFP
stated that offerors' proposals must demonstrate that the recycled SBM
product would not be "applied to the land," which was explained in the RFP
as follows: 

   The products of the recycling process shall be completely described and
documented.  They shall meet the criteria at 40 CFR 261.2(e)(2) as
follows.  (i) Recycled products shall not be "Applied to the Land." 
Specifically, Hill AFB interprets "applied to the land" to mean without
limitation such items as fence posts, blocks or concrete block like
products or other items that are used underground and/or that are used in
contact with the earth.  The offeror shall accept this interpretation and
shall not propose or use recycling processes that produce such items.

   RFP at 37, P j.

   UST proposed to produce a "SEALTECH Block," which is a "Split Face Block,"
made from "SBM having a toxic."  Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, UST Proposal,
at 135.  UST stated that its products "are not used in foundation walls or
retaining walls due to their higher cost and open face that cannot be
sealed."  Id.  UST also explained that "[b]lock packaging and literature
further describe that they are not 'Applied against the land in a manner
constituting disposal.'  The International Masonry Institute (IMI)
training program, certification of which is required to validate SEALTECH
product guarantee, teaches installers approved use in above ground
application and insured that block are not installed in contact with the
earth."  Id.  The agency determined that UST's proposed product was
acceptable.  AR, Tab 9, Initial Technical Evaluation, at 4.

   Poly-Pacific argues that UST's proposal was technically unacceptable under
the "applied to the land" RFP criterion based on Poly-Pacific's
interpretation that the RFP "prohibited the SBM from being made [into]
concrete blocks or concrete block like products."  Comments at 1. 
Poly-Pacific's understanding of the RFP, however, ignores the explanatory
context of the "applied to the land" criterion:  although Poly-Pacific
argues that the criterion casts a blanket prohibition on any "fencepost,
block or concrete block like product," the RFP prohibits production of
those products only when they are "used underground and/or . . . used in
contact with the earth." 

   At most, therefore, Poly-Pacific suggests a potential ambiguity in the RFP
regarding the "applied to the land" criterion.  Solicitation
specifications must be sufficiently definite and free from ambiguity so as
to permit competition on a common basis.  An ambiguity exists if a
specification is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation
that is consistent with the solicitation, when read as a whole.  Astro
Quality Servs., Inc., B-280676, Nov. 5, 1998, 98-2 CPD P 107 at 4.  To
establish an ambiguity, the protester's interpretation need not be the
most reasonable one; the protester must show, however, that its
interpretation is reasonable.  Id.  In light of the full context of the
"applied to the land" RFP criterion discussed above, Poly-Pacific's
interpretation of the criterion does not appear reasonable.

   In any case, even if Poly-Pacific's interpretation of the RFP as
prohibiting all blocks were reasonable, any resulting ambiguity would be
patent, i.e., clear or obvious on the face of the RFP, and thus cannot
now, after award, be the basis of a timely protest.  Dix Corp., B-293964,
July 13, 2004, 2004 CPD P 143 at 3.  Where, as here, a patent ambiguity is
not challenged prior to the submission of proposals, we will dismiss as
untimely any subsequent protest assertion that is based on an alternative
interpretation.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. S 21.2(a)(1) (2005);
U.S. Facilities, Inc., B-293029, B-293029.2, Jan. 16, 2004, 2004 CPD P 17
at 10.

   Because the RFP reasonably supports an interpretation of the "applied to
the land" criterion that does not prohibit UST's proposed product, which
is a block that will be used above ground, we find no basis to challenge
the agency's evaluation of UST's proposal.[2]

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Poly-Pacific raised a number of additional challenges to the award to
UST in its protest.  We previously dismissed these additional grounds
because they amounted to challenges to UST's responsibility, and because
the Small Business Administration had addressed these concerns by issuing
a certificate of competency that found UST capable of performing the
contract.

   [2] Poly-Pacific also argues that UST's proposal could not have
demonstrated the ability to comply with the RFP prohibition on
"speculatively accumulating" SBM, as UST has only recently begun
production of its proposed product.  The RFP requires the contractor to
recycle or dispose of all SBM removed from Hill AFB as it is collected,
without accumulation.  RFP S L, P 4.2.3.j.iii.  In the prior protest, we
concluded that the agency reasonably evaluated Poly-Pacific's proposal as
failing to demonstrate compliance with this requirement because
Poly-Pacific did not provide information in response to the agency's
requests, despite multiple opportunities during discussions.  Poly-Pacific
Techs., Inc., supra, at 8.  In contrast, the record here shows that UST
provided the requested information to the agency during discussions, and
that the agency reasonably determined that UST's proposal met the RFP
requirement.  See AR, Tab 10, UST Discussions and Revised Technical
Evaluation.