TITLE:  Mathews Associates, Inc., B-295764; B-295764.2, April 20, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-295764; B-295764.2
DATE:  April 20, 2005
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of: Mathews Associates, Inc.

   File: B-295764; B-295764.2

   Date: April 20, 2005

   William M. Weisberg, Esq., Sullivan & Worcester LLP, for the protester.

   Vera Meza, Esq., and John J. Reynolds, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command,
for the agency.

   Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging elimination of proposal from competitive range is
denied where record shows agency reasonably found proposal technically
unacceptable based on evaluation consistent with terms of solicitation.

   DECISION

   Mathews Associates, Inc. (MAI) protests the elimination of its proposal
from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No.
W15P7T-04-R-C005, issued by the Department of the Army to acquire lithium
manganese dioxide batteries.  MAI argues that the agency misevaluated its
proposal.

   We deny the protest.

   The solicitation contemplated the award, on a "best value" basis, of up to
two indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for a base year,
with four 1-year options, to furnish five different lithium manganese
dioxide batteries.  Offerors were advised that the agency intended to
split the total projected requirement, with 60 percent of the requirement
limited to domestic sources and the remaining 40 percent open to all
prospective sources.  The RFP further advised that the agency would
evaluate proposals giving consideration to price and two non-price
criteria--a technical factor and a performance risk factor, with the
former being significantly more important than the latter, and the latter
being slightly more important than price.  Within the technical factor
there were four subfactors:  battery performance, battery safety (these
two subfactors were equal in importance and significantly more important
than the third subfactor), production (this subfactor was significantly
more important than the fourth), and small business participation. 
Proposals had to receive at least an acceptable rating under each of the
technical subfactors in order to be considered for award.[1] 

   The agency received and evaluated numerous proposals, including MAI's. 
The agency rated MAI's proposal unacceptable under each of the four
technical subfactors, and also assigned it a moderate performance risk
rating.  Based on these evaluation results, MAI's proposal was eliminated
from the competitive range.  During a subsequent debriefing, the agency
advised MAI that its proposal was evaluated as containing 17 deficiencies
or weaknesses. 

   MAI alleges generally that the agency was largely incorrect in its
evaluation conclusions; MAI maintains that its proposal in fact included
all necessary information and that the agency either did not read the
proposal or otherwise failed to glean the information presented.  In
support of its protest, MAI furnished a "compliance matrix" that lists
each of the deficiencies or weaknesses identified by the agency, and
presents corresponding narratives and references to its proposal that it
maintains demonstrate that the agency's evaluation conclusions are
incorrect.

   In its agency report, the Army provided a detailed, point-by-point
response that it maintains establishes that its evaluation conclusions
were reasonable and supported by the record; the principle theme of the
agency's response is that MAI failed to include adequate information in
its proposal to demonstrate its understanding of the agency's
requirements.

   In its comments responding to the agency's detailed report, MAI merely
reiterates (and incorporates by reference) the position stated in its
initial protest, namely, that the agency failed to correctly understand
the firm's proposal for the reasons outlined in the "compliance matrix." 

   We have reviewed the record with respect to each of MAI's allegations and
find no basis for questioning either the agency's evaluation conclusions
or its detailed explanation of its findings.  Where, as here, a protester
advances arguments to which the agency responds in detail, and the
protester offers no rebuttal, there generally is no basis for our Office
to question the agency's evaluation findings.  Industrial Property Mgmt.,
B-291336.2, Oct. 17, 2003, 2003 CPD P 205 at 5.  We discuss two
illustrative examples below.

   The record shows that the agency evaluators found MAI's proposal deficient
for failing to include any discussion of the design and operation of the
battery's state of charge indicator (SOCI); this led, in large measure, to
the proposal's unacceptable rating under the battery performance
subfactor.  The RFP required, in this regard, that proposals include the
following information:

   For the design proposed for the BA-X590 [battery] the offeror shall
discuss the key design parameters as they pertain to the battery's ability
to meet the following requirements as defined [in an attached military
specification] and any exceptions included in this solicitation:

   b. The proposed design and operation of the State of Charge Indicator for
the BA-X590.

   RFP, attach. 19, at 4.  The RFP further provided as follows in describing
the evaluation factors:

   The proposed SOCI design for the BA-X590 will be evaluated for its
accuracy and ease of operation/interpretation.

   The thoroughness and completeness of the methodology presented which was
used to develop the proposed design shall also be considered, as well as
the procedures used to validate the conclusions.

   RFP, attach. 20, at 4. 

   MAI's proposal, in its entirety with respect to the SOCI, states only that
"[deleted]."  Agency Report (AR), exh. 7, at I-4.  The proposal then
[deleted].  The evaluators found this aspect of the MAI proposal
inadequate and assigned it a deficiency, stating:

   The proposal does not discuss the design and operation of the SOCI as
required in Section L [of the RFP].  Other than stating that the SOCI uses
Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) to display the capacity and the number of
capacity ranges, there is no other SOCI design information that would
allow the evaluators to review the proposal as specified in Section M [of
the RFP].

   AR, exh. 8, at 3.  In the agency's report responding to the protest, the
source selection evaluation board chairman expanded on the findings of the
evaluators, noting that the MAI proposal did not include any information
relating to the key design parameters or the operation of MAI's proposed
SOCI; included no information that would allow the agency to evaluate the
accuracy or ease of the SOCI's operation; and contained no information
that would allow the evaluators to determine even the basic design of the
SOCI.  AR, exh. 2, at 3.

   MAI has presented no rebuttal to the agency's position on this aspect of
the evaluation, and we find no basis to conclude that the evaluation was
unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation.  We note
that, even in its initial protest, MAI did not claim that its proposal
included the necessary information, stating instead that it did not
provide detailed information on its proposed SOCI's circuit design because
[deleted].  We conclude that this aspect of the evaluation was
unobjectionable.  See Industrial Property Mgmt., supra, at 5.

   Also under the battery performance subfactor, the evaluators assigned
MAI's proposal a significant weakness for failing to include data relating
to battery capacity.  In this regard, the RFP required proposals to
include the following information:

   Discuss the key design parameters as they pertain to the battery's ability
to meet the following requirements as defined [in an attached military
specification] and any exceptions included in this solicitation:

   a. The proposed capacity of "L," "H" and "I" capacity tests as defined [in
an attached military specification].  The offeror shall also describe the
methodology used to determine and validate the proposed design's ability
to meet these requirements.

   RFP, attach. 19, at 4.  As with the lack of discussion in MAI's proposal
relating to the firm's proposed SOCI, the evaluators found as follows with
regard to capacity:

   The cell, as the source of energy, is the key battery component with a
critical impact on the battery's ability to meet the I, L and H capacity
requirements.  The proposal failed to discuss the cell design and how the
proposed design relates to the capacity requirements . . . .

   AR, exh. 8, at 3.  MAI does not rebut this evaluation conclusion and, in
fact, conceded in its original protest letter that:

   We received sample cells from the cell manufacturer . . . with just enough
time to build sample batteries and ship them to the [agency] for
evaluation.  We did not have time to conduct our own I, L and H capacity
tests prior to submission.  The samples were to demonstrate our ability to
design and build the batteries as well as provide [the agency] the
opportunity to determine actual battery capacity . . . .

   Accordingly, again, we have no basis to question the agency's evaluation
conclusions.  Industrial Property Mgmt., supra, at 5.  Since the protester
similarly has not rebutted the agency's detailed response to the
protester's remaining evaluation challenges, we conclude that the agency
reasonably found MAI's proposal technically unacceptable and, it follows,
reasonably eliminated the proposal from the competitive range.[2] 

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The agency used a color-coded/adjectival rating system, assigning
proposals ratings of blue/outstanding, green/good, yellow/acceptable,
pink/susceptible of being made acceptable, or red/unacceptable.  In
evaluating performance risk, the agency assigned color-coded/adjectival
ratings of blue/low risk, yellow/moderate risk, red/high risk, or
pink/unknown risk. 

   [2] In its comments responding to the agency report, MAI raised a
supplemental basis for protest to which the agency responded in a
supplemental agency report.  MAI did not comment on the agency's response;
we therefore dismiss this aspect of the protest.  4 C.F.R. S 21.3(i)
(2005).