TITLE:  Glatz Aeronautical Corporation, B-293968.2, August 10, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293968.2
DATE:  August 10, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Glatz Aeronautical Corporation

   File:            B-293968.2

   Date:              August 10, 2004

   Jeffrey D. Glatz for the protester.

   Mitzi S. Phalen, Esq., and Richard J. Huber, Esq., Department of the Navy,
for the agency.

   Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency's evaluation and selection of higher rated proposals for awards,
under the Small Business Innovation Research program, for research and
development into a lightweight crashworthy aircraft seating system is
reasonable where awardees proposed new and innovative research, which was
the expressed purpose of the solicitation, while protester essentially
proposed additional testing to validate a seat that had not proven
crash-worthy in prior testing, failed to propose specific changes to
materials or design to address the excessive forces recorded during prior
testing, and did not otherwise propose any significant new research and
development.

   DECISION

   Glatz Aeronautical Corporation protests the evaluation of proposals under
solicitation No. FY04.1, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD) for the
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program.  Glatz's proposal was
not one of the three proposals selected for award.

   We deny the protest.

   The SBIR program is conducted pursuant to the Small Business Innovation
Development Act, 15 U.S.C. SA 638 (2000), which requires certain federal
agencies to reserve a portion of their research and development funds for
awards to small businesses.  In addition to advancing the role of small
businesses and the participation of minority and disadvantaged persons in
research and development, the objectives of DOD's SBIR program include
stimulating technological innovation in DOD's critical technology area,
and increasing the commercial application of DOD-supported research and
development results.  The program has three phases:  Phase I is to
determine the scientific, technical and commercial merit of ideas;
PhaseA II is the principal research and development effort resulting in a
well-defined, deliverable prototype; and in Phase III, the small business
seeks to obtain private and public funding to develop the prototype into a
viable commercial product for sale to military and/or private sector
markets.  Solicitation SSA 1.1, 1.2.

   This solicitation sought proposals for Phase I awards to be made by a
number of participating DOD component agencies and offices, including the
Department of the Navy.  Each component agency identified technical
topics.  Phase I awards under Navy topic No. N04-008, Improved Crashworthy
Seating for Naval Helicopters, are at issue here.  As explained in the
solicitation, the objective under this topic is to develop a lightweight
crashworthy seating system capable of mitigating the high levels of
inertial forces that would otherwise be imparted to an occupant during a
crash impact.  The rapid deceleration of a helicopter in a crash can be in
excess of 50A g (gravitational constant), resulting in very high inertial
loads on the aircraft and its occupants and a resulting high potential for
inflicting serious spinal injury on unprotected occupants. 
Energya**attenuating seating systems have been developed that reduce an
occupant's exposure to the force, but the weight of current
energya**attenuating seats adversely affects the operational performance
of aircraft, which has precluded the installation of these seats on some
naval helicopter platforms.  Therefore, there is an interest in developing
crashworthy seating and other energya**attenuating systems capable of
maintaining current levels of occupant crash protection at weights that
are well below those of the conventional solutions.  Of particular
interest are concepts that take advantage of lightweight materials to
provide an increase in structural efficiency over current designs whose
main load-bearing members are comprised of conventional metals.  Navy SBIR
Proposal Submission Instructions at 16.

   The stated system requirements under this topic included a maximum weight
of 10A pounds, and the capability to meet *naval injury tolerance
standards for body regions such as the head, neck, chest, pelvis, and
lumbar spine.*  Id. at 16-17.  The stated purpose for Phase I is to
determine the feasibility of incorporating lightweight materials with
dynamic performance characteristics into crashworthy seating designs. 
Prototyping design approaches and demonstrating mature design solutions
were stated purposes of Phases II and III.  Id. at 17.

   The solicitation contemplated the award of one or more fixeda**price Phase
I contracts (or small purchase agreements) for a given topic for a 6-month
base period with a 3a**month option period.  Proposals were to be
evaluated on a competitive basis by scientists or engineers knowledgeable
in the topic area, under the following evaluation criteria:  (1)
soundness, technical merit, and innovation of the proposed approach and
its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution;
(2)A qualifications of the proposed principal/key investigators,
supporting staff and consultants; and (3) potential for commercial
application.  Where technical evaluations were essentially equal in merit,
cost to the government was to be considered in determining the successful
offeror.  Solicitation SA 4.2.  The Navy reserved the right to limit
awards to only those proposals considered to be of superior technical
quality.  Navy SBIR Proposal Submission Instructions at 1.

   The Navy received 24 proposals under the improved crashworthy seating
topic.  The agency's evaluation team evaluated each proposal, identifying
strengths and/or weaknesses and assigning adjectival ratings under each
evaluation factor.  The agency selected the top 3 proposals for award,
including those submitted by Easta**West Industries, Inc., SAFE, Inc., and
ArmorWorks, Inc.  Although the agency considered Glatz's proposal to be
satisfactory overall, each of the awardees' proposals were rated highly
satisfactory.  (The price differences between Glatz's and the awardees'
proposals were negligible.)

   Following a debriefing, Glatz filed this protest.  Glatz asserts that the
agency failed to comprehensively evaluate proposals.[1]

   Where an agency is conducting an SBIR procurement, it has the discretion
to determine which proposals it will fund.  R & D Dynamics Corp.,
B-285979.3, Dec. 11, 2000, 2000 CPD P 201 at 4.  In light of this
discretion, our review of an SBIR procurement is limited to determining
whether the agency violated any applicable regulations or solicitation
provisions, or acted in bad faith.  U S Positioning Group, LLC, B-294027,
June 21, 2004, 2004 CPD P 133 at 2; see also Intellectual Properties,
Inc., B-280803.2, May 10, 1999, 99-1 CPD P 83 atA 5a**6.  The agency's
award decisions here were unobjectionable. 

   While Glatz disputes the evaluation, it has not shown that the agency's
evaluation judgment was unreasonable.  For example, under the evaluation
factor for the soundness, technical merit and innovation of the proposed
approach, Glatz's proposal was rated as unsatisfactory by two of the
evaluators and only satisfactory by the third evaluator.  In this regard,
Glatz proposed to validate a *Light Weight Armored Troop Seat (LWATS),*
which Glatz's proposal described as *a mature engineering solution* based
on a prior version of a frameless, all-fabric troop seat (AFTS).  Glatz
Proposal at 3, 12-13, 18.  However, the Navy had funded the prior work on
the AFTS, and results from 1996 tests of that seat had shown that some
forces exerted during the testing, particularly those related to occupant
safety, exceeded the upper permissible limits.  The evaluators determined
that Glatz's proposal did not adequately discuss reasons for the prior
test failures with respect to lumbar loads, and did not include an
adequate plan to investigate different materials or methodologies with the
potential for mitigating those failures.  In contrast, the awardees, whose
proposals were rated as either outstanding or highly satisfactory under
this factor, proposed specific approaches to exploring replacing
components of crashworthy seats with lighter and stronger materials, and
investigating improvements to the energya**attenuating devices and
methodologies used in the seats.  In other words, while the awardees
proposed new and innovative research, which was the expressed purpose of
this solicitation, Glatz essentially proposed additional testing to
validate its mature engineering solution without proposing any significant
new research and development for PhaseA I and without proposing specific
changes to materials or design to address the excessive forces recorded
during the prior testing.  We find reasonable on this basis alone the
agency's determination not to fund Glatz's proposed work.         

   In any case, the evaluators determined the awardees' proposals to be
superior to Glatz's under the evaluation factor for the qualifications of
the proposed principal/key investigators, and supporting staff and
consultants, and equal to or superior to Glatz's under the evaluation
factor for potential for commercial application.  We find the evaluation
in this regard also to be unobjectionable.  For example, while Glatz's
principal investigator had significant relevant experience in crashworthy
seat testing and design, the awardees' principal investigators had at
least equally significant relevant experience, including significant
development experience on crashworthy seat technology, and some had more
years of relevant experience than identified in Glatz's proposal. 
Furthermore, all of the awardees had greater depth of experience within
their organizations and proposed teams than did Glatz.  In summary, we
find unobjectionable the agency's determination that the awardees'
proposals were superior to Glatz's proposal.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Glatz also alleges that the evaluators lacked the necessary technical
and other expertise to properly evaluate proposals.  However, the
selection of individuals to serve as proposal evaluators is a matter
within the discretion of the agency; accordingly, we will not review
allegations concerning the qualifications of evaluators or the composition
of evaluation panels absent a showing of possible fraud, conflict of
interest, or actual bias on the part of evaluation officials.  CAE USA,
Inc., Ba**293002, B-293002.2, Jan. 12, 2004, 2004 CPD P 25 at 9 n.8; Solid
Waste Integrated Sys. Corp., B-258544, Jan. 17, 1995, 95-1 CPD P 23 at 6. 
No such showing has been made here.