TITLE:  Mathews Associates, Inc., B-296094, May 26, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-296094
DATE:  May 26, 2005
**********************************************************************
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

   The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

   Decision

   Matter of: Mathews Associates, Inc.

   File: B-296094

   Date: May 26, 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.

   Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where
agency report demonstrates that evaluation was reasonable, and protester
has not rebutted agency's position.

   DECISION

   Mathews Associates, Inc. (MAI) protests the award of contracts to
Ultralife Batteries, Inc. and Bren-Tronics, Inc. under request for
proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-05-R-C001, issued by the Department of the Army
for BA-5347/U lithium manganese dioxide batteries.  MAI challenges the
evaluation of its proposal, and also asserts that the award was improper
because the batteries submitted by the awardees failed a required capacity
test.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP contemplated the award, on a "best value" basis, of up to two
contracts, and advised offerors that the evaluation would be based on
price and two non-price criteria--a technical and a performance risk
factor.  The technical factor was significantly more important than the
performance risk factor, which in turn was slightly more important than
price.  There were three technical subfactors:  battery performance,
battery safety and production.  Offerors were required to submit battery
samples, which were to be subjected to three capacity tests, the results
of which were to be considered under the battery performance subfactor. 
Only proposals receiving at least an acceptable rating under each of the
technical subfactors would be considered for award. 

   Six offerors, including MAI, Ultralife and Bren-Tronics, responded to the
RFP.  MAI's proposal was evaluated as susceptible of being made acceptable
under the battery performance factor, unacceptable under the battery
safety and production factors, and moderate for performance risk.  While
each of the awardees failed one of the battery capacity tests, Ultralife's
proposal was rated outstanding for battery performance and production,
good for battery safety, and low for performance risk, and Bren-Tronics's
was rated good for each factor and moderate for performance risk.  The
agency awarded contracts to Ultralife and Bren-Tronics. 

   MAI asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal under the
non-price evaluation factors.  In response, in its agency report, the Army
provided a detailed, point-by-point response, which it believes
demonstrates that its evaluation conclusions were supported by the record
and reasonable.  In its comments responding to the agency's detailed
report, MAI merely incorporates its arguments from the protest as
submitted, and requests that we decide the protest on the basis of those
arguments, without providing any specific rebuttal of the agency's
position.

   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 explanation of its findings.  For example, under the safety factor,
the agency found MAI's proposal deficient for failing to describe the
methodology used to validate MAI's ability to meet safety requirements. 
MAI complains that this downgrading was unreasonable because its proposal
did include cell-level test data for its battery.  The agency explains in
its report, however, that it is not soliciting sources for cells, but for
a complete battery design; the agency downgraded MAI's proposal because
its cell-level test data did not address the issue of battery safety, and
its proposal was otherwise silent on this point.  This explanation appears
reasonable on its face, and since MAI does not rebut the agency's
position, we have no basis to question the evaluation.  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 Prop.
Mgmt., B-291336.2, Oct. 17, 2003, 2003 CPD paragraph 205 at 5.  Since the
protester similarly has not rebutted the agency's detailed responses to
the remaining evaluation challenges--and the agency's position appears
reasonable--we conclude that there likewise is no basis for questioning
those areas of the evaluation. 

   As for MAI's argument concerning Ultralife's and Bren-Tronics's sample
batteries' failure of one of the battery capacity tests, the agency has
agreed to require offerors to submit new battery samples, which it will
re-test.  Based on the results, the agency will reevaluate the proposals. 
This action renders this basis of protest academic.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel