TITLE: B-298757, Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems, December 8, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298757
DATE: December 8, 2006
*************************************************************
B-298757, Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems, December 8, 2006

   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: Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems

   File: B-298757

   Date: December 8, 2006

   Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., Esq., Michael D. Newman, Esq., Brian M. Russ,
   Esq., Thomas A. Kruza, III, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester.

   Maj. John G. Terra, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office
   of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the
   decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range
   where proposal contained multiple informational deficiencies pertaining to
   required elements of design even after protester had been given the
   opportunity to address the deficiencies during discussions.

   DECISION

   Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems (HS) protests the exclusion of its
   proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   FA8518-05-R-75369, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the
   production of large aircraft start system (LASS) units. The protester
   contends that the agency unreasonably determined its proposal to be
   technically unacceptable.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The LASS is a four-wheeled, multi-system towable vehicle used to start
   engines on a variety of Air Force aircraft. LASS units deliver compressed
   air to start an aircraft's jet turbine engines and provide pneumatic power
   for the aircraft's various electrical and mechanical systems. The units
   are used when maintenance and testing functions are conducted on aircraft
   in hangars and other enclosed areas since they are capable of delivering
   the required power to the aircraft without posing the danger to personnel
   and facilities that self-ignition of the jet turbine engines would
   engender. The units consist of an enclosure assembly, turbine engine
   assembly, fuel system, electrical system, lubrication system, frame and
   running gear, and air delivery system.

   The RFP, which was issued on July 22, 2005, contemplated the award of a
   fixed-price requirements contract for a 2-year base period and three
   1-year option periods. The RFP contained a detailed purchase description
   (PD) of the units sought and instructed offerors that their proposals
   should "provide a narrative description supported by detailed drawings,
   pictures, sketches, calculations or other items as required to provide
   evidence that the offered product will meet the technical and performance
   requirements called for within [the PD]." RFP, Rev. 1, at 26. The
   solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose technically
   acceptable proposal represented the best value to the government, taking
   into consideration proposal risk, past and present performance, and price.
   With regard to the relative weights of the latter three factors, the RFP
   instructed that proposal risk and past/present performance were of equal
   importance, and, when combined, were significantly more important than
   price.

   The solicitation explained that to be determined technically acceptable, a
   proposal needed to demonstrate compliance with solicitation requirements
   pertaining to design of the enclosure assembly, design and operation of
   the air flow system, and mobility of the unit.[1] With regard to the
   enclosure specifically, the RFP explained that for an offeror's design to
   be determined technically acceptable, its proposal needed to demonstrate
   "a sound and feasible methodology of how the proposed configuration
   complies with the requirements of paragraph 3.3 and section 3.4 [of the
   PD];"[2] in addition, the proposal needed to include "an acceptable
   narrative description of the chassis design and elevation layouts with
   major components identified." Id. at 29. Along the same lines, the RFP
   provided that for an offeror's air flow system design to be determined
   technically acceptable, the offeror needed to demonstrate "in acceptable
   and detailed methodology how the proposed configuration complies with the
   requirements of paragraphs 3.6.1, 3.6.9, and 3.7.11 [of the PD]," and to
   furnish "an acceptable flow diagram, with the significant components
   identified, and a comprehensive and accurate description of operational
   and safety controls."[3] Id. To be determined technically acceptable with
   regard to mobility, the solicitation required offerors to demonstrate
   compliance with paragraphs 3.5, 3.6.14, 3.6.15, and 3.13 of the PD and to
   provide an acceptable flow diagram with controls and significant
   components identified and a description of operational and safety
   controls.[4]

   Five offerors submitted proposals by the December 14, 2005 closing date.
   Discussions were opened with all offerors on February 17, 2006 through the
   issuance of evaluation notices. After reviewing offeror responses to
   multiple rounds of evaluation notices, the technical evaluation team
   determined the proposals of HS and one of the other five offerors to be
   technically unacceptable. The source selection authority (SSA)
   subsequently determined that the two proposals should be excluded from the
   competitive range. By letter of July 11, the Air Force notified HS that
   its proposal would not be considered further.

   The agency explained in its July 11 letter that HS's proposal had been
   determined technically unacceptable for failing to demonstrate compliance
   with solicitation requirements pertaining to the enclosure, the air flow
   system, and mobility. With regard to the enclosure, the letter noted that
   HS had failed to provide an acceptable design, and, indeed, had responded
   to an evaluation notice informing it of this deficiency by stating, "As
   this is a new design LASS, there is as yet no detailed design." Agency
   Report (AR), Tab 5, Memorandum from Air Force to HS, July 11, 2006, at 2.
   The letter further explained that HS's proposal had failed to furnish
   detailed information regarding the size and weight of the LASS and the
   accessibility of the control panel for maintenance adjustments; in
   addition, it had failed to identify the material of the chassis, the
   location/integration of the fuel tank, the type of wheel and brakes, and
   the location of the identification plate, operating instructions, and
   control panel. The letter noted that HS's air flow system design had been
   determined technically unacceptable for failing to demonstrate compliance
   with the requirement of paragraph 3.6.9 of the PD that the air hose
   incorporate a quick disconnect feature and a lanyard chain. The letter
   went on to note that HS's proposal had failed to demonstrate compliance
   with the requirements of paragraphs 3.5 (pertaining to mobility), 3.6.14
   (wheels), and 3.6.15 (cargo tie downs and hoisting provisions) and that
   the protester had failed to furnish the required flow diagram identifying
   controls and significant components of the mobility system. With regard to
   paragraph 3.5, the proposal had failed to demonstrate compliance with the
   requirements concerning towable speed, openings at tie down points, and
   time limits for disassembly and reassembly. With regard to paragraph
   3.6.14, the proposal had failed to demonstrate compliance with the
   requirements that the wheels absorb vibration while the LASS is
   transported and that the units include a hand/foot operated braking system
   capable of holding the LASS on a slope of 15 degrees. With regard to
   paragraph 3.6.15, the proposal had failed to provide detailed information
   to demonstrate that the LASS would be air, land, and sea transportable,
   and that the cargo tie downs would each have a minimum operating load
   capacity of twice the weight of the LASS.

   Upon receipt of the agency's letter, HS filed an agency-level protest. On
   August 25, the agency denied HS's protest. HS protested to our Office on
   September 1.[5]

   DISCUSSION

   HS protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range,
   arguing that it was unreasonable for the Air Force to determine the
   proposal technically unacceptable based on minor informational
   deficiencies pertaining to a relatively unimportant element of the LASS,
   i.e., the enclosure and trailer. The protester notes in this regard that
   only six percent of the RFP's technical requirements pertain to the
   enclosure/trailer assembly and that it is far less complex technically
   than the turbine and power systems, with regard to which the Air Force
   found no deficiencies in its proposal. The protester further contends that
   in many instances, the RFP specifications described the components to be
   furnished in such detail that its stated intent to comply should have been
   recognized as sufficient, and that the RFP clearly anticipated that
   certain elements of the design would not be finalized until after award.
   The protester also argues that in many cases, the information that the Air
   Force alleges to have been missing from its proposal was not in fact
   missing.

   At the outset, we point out that, contrary to the protester's assertion,
   not all of the informational deficiencies identified by the agency pertain
   to the enclosure and trailer; the failure to demonstrate compliance with
   the requirement that the air hose incorporate a quick disconnect feature
   and a lanyard chain pertains instead to the air flow system, for example.
   Further, even assuming that the enclosure/trailer assembly is less complex
   technically than other parts of the unit, this does not mean that it is a
   relatively unimportant part of the LASS. It is clear from the many
   sections of the PD pertaining to the enclosure and trailer with which the
   RFP required a demonstration of compliance that the agency regarded the
   enclosure and trailer as a significant element of the design.[6] Moreover,
   contrary to the protester's assertion that the solicitation did not
   anticipate completion of certain elements of the design until after award,
   the sections of the RFP noted above made abundantly clear that proposals
   would not be determined technically acceptable unless they demonstrated
   compliance with the enumerated requirements.

   With regard to the protester's complaint that the informational
   deficiencies in its proposal did not provide a reasonable basis for
   determining the proposal technically unacceptable and excluding it from
   the competitive range, in reviewing protests challenging the evaluation of
   proposals and exclusion of proposals from a competitive range, we do not
   conduct a new evaluation or substitute our judgment for that of the
   agency. Rather, we examine the record to determine whether the agency's
   judgment was reasonable and in accord with the solicitation evaluation
   criteria. Information Sys. Tech. Corp., B-291747, Mar. 17, 2003, 2003 CPD
   para. 72 at 2.

   Contracting agencies are not required to retain a proposal in a
   competitive range where the proposal is not among the most highly rated or
   where the agency otherwise reasonably concludes that the proposal has no
   realistic prospect of award. Federal Acquisition Regulation sect.
   15.306(c)(1); Wahkontah Servs., Inc., B-292768, Nov. 18, 2003, 2003 CPD
   para. 214 at 4. Where a proposal is technically unacceptable as submitted
   and would require major revisions to become acceptable, exclusion from the
   competitive range is generally permissible. CMC & Maint., Inc., B-290152,
   June 24, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 107 at 2. Proposals with significant
   informational deficiencies may be excluded, whether the deficiencies are
   attributable to omitted or merely inadequate information addressing
   fundamental factors. Americom Gov't Servs., Inc., B-292242, Aug. 1, 2003,
   2003 CPD para. 163 at 4. That is, it is the obligation of the offeror to
   include sufficient information in its proposal for the agency to determine
   whether the proposal will meet its needs, Wahkontah Servs., Inc., supra,
   at 6, and offerors who fail to do so risk rejection of their proposals.
   ADC, Ltd., B-297061, Oct. 14, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 178 at 5.

   Based on our review of the record here, we think that the agency
   reasonably determined HS's proposal to be technically unacceptable for
   failing to demonstrate compliance with solicitation requirements
   pertaining to the LASS enclosure and air flow and mobility systems. As
   explained in greater detail below, not only did the proposal as initially
   submitted contain informational deficiencies, but further, many of the
   informational deficiencies remained even after the protester had been
   given the opportunity to respond to them during discussions. In multiple
   instances, the protester responded to requests from the agency for
   detailed explanations as to how its proposed unit would comply with PD
   requirements with mere assurances that it had the ability to and would
   come up with a compliant design, while in several other instances, it
   simply did not respond to the agency's requests for verification of
   compliance. Given the protester's failure to furnish the agency with the
   information requested, even after repeated requests, we think that it was
   reasonable for the agency not to consider the protester's proposal
   further.

   For example, as previously noted, to be determined technically acceptable,
   the RFP required offerors to demonstrate compliance with the requirements
   of paragraphs 3.5, 3.6.14, and 3.6.15 and to furnish a flow diagram
   identifying the controls and significant components of their mobility
   systems. In its proposal, HS responded to the requirements of paragraph
   3.5 by [deleted].

   In its first round of evaluation notices, the Air Force advised HS that
   its proposal had failed to demonstrate compliance with the above
   requirements; the agency noted in this connection that [deleted]. AR, Tab
   5, Evaluation Notice No. T-HS-2. The evaluation notice further advised
   that HS had failed to provide the required flow diagram identifying
   controls and significant components of the mobility system.

   HS responded to the notice with the following comments:

     [deleted]

   Id. The protester [deleted].

   The Air Force followed up with another evaluation notice, informing the
   protester that its response to the initial notice had not provided
   sufficient detail regarding compliance with the requirements of paragraphs
   3.5, 3.6.14, and 3.6.15. The notice reiterated that the protester's
   response [deleted], but that it should "provide a narrative as to how [HS]
   will comply with each aspect of the PD paragraph in accordance with the
   instructions in the RFP provisions referenced above." AR, Tab 5,
   Evaluation Notice No. T-HS-14. The notice further observed that [deleted].

   HS responded to the second evaluation notice pertaining to the mobility
   system with the following comments:

     [deleted]

   Id.

   We think that the Air Force reasonably viewed the information furnished by
   HS in its proposal, together with its responses to the evaluation notices,
   as inadequate to demonstrate compliance with the above requirements
   pertaining to mobility of the unit. Rather than demonstrating that its
   proposed unit meets the PD requirement that the unit be towable at speeds
   up to 15 mph, with a 20-foot maximum safe turning radius, for example, the
   protester [deleted]. Similarly, rather than demonstrating compliance with
   the PD requirement for a hand/foot operated braking system capable of
   preventing movement of the LASS on a slope of 15 degrees, the protester
   [deleted]. Along the same lines, the protester responded to the
   requirement that [deleted]. AR, Tab 5, Evaluation Notice No. T-HS-2.

   As a second example, the RFP required offerors to furnish "an acceptable
   narrative description of the chassis design." RFP, Rev. 1, at 29. In
   Evaluation Notice No. T-HS-11, the Air Force notified HS that it had
   failed to comply with this requirement; in response, the protester
   [deleted]. AR, Tab 5. While HS [deleted].

   As a final example, the solicitation required that the weight of the unit
   be evenly distributed "to allow ease of movement on a flat surface by one
   person." RFP, Rev. 1, PD at 5. In Evaluation Notice No. T-HS-1, the agency
   asked [deleted]. AR, Tab 5. The Air Force brought up the matter again in
   Evaluation Notice No. T-HS-12, [deleted]. Id. In short, the record
   provides a reasonable basis for the agency's determination to exclude HS's
   proposal from the competitive range.

   The protester further argues that even assuming that its proposal did
   contain informational deficiencies, the agency treated it unequally in
   eliminating it from the competitive range because proposals that were
   retained in the competitive range also contained informational
   deficiencies.

   While, as previously noted, agencies may properly exclude from the
   competitive range proposals that are deemed to have no realistic prospect
   for award, SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD
   para. 59 at 5, judgments regarding which proposals are included in a
   competitive range must be made in a relatively equal manner. Columbia
   Research Corp., B-284157, Feb. 28, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 158 at 4.
   Accordingly, an agency cannot reasonably exclude a proposal from the
   competitive range where the strengths and weaknesses found in that
   proposal are similar to those found in proposals in the competitive range.
   Nations, Inc., B-280048, Aug. 24, 1998, 99-2 CPD para. 94 at 4-5. This
   means that an agency may not reasonably exclude a proposal from the
   competitive range on the basis of informational deficiencies where
   proposals included in the competitive range contained informational
   deficiencies similar in magnitude.

   It does not mean, however, that an agency may not reasonably exclude a
   proposal that contains significant informational deficiencies from a
   competitive range, while retaining in the competitive range proposals with
   informational deficiencies of lesser magnitude. In this connection, since
   inclusion in or exclusion from the competitive range is based on
   evaluation of the overall proposal and not on a single deficiency, the
   fact that other offerors' proposals may have deficiencies similar to the
   protester's, but were not excluded from the competitive range, does not,
   in and of itself, demonstrate unequal treatment. NCLN20, Inc., B-287692,
   July 25, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 136 at 5 n.4. Here, while the protester
   asserts that the proposals of [deleted] contained informational
   deficiencies, it has not demonstrated that the alleged informational
   deficiencies were comparable in overall significance to the informational
   deficiencies in its own proposal.[7]

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] While the RFP also contained detailed guidance regarding the
   evaluation of proposal risk, past performance, and price, such guidance is
   irrelevant to the issues raised in this protest and, accordingly, is not
   addressed in this decision.

   [2] Paragraph 3.3 set forth a number of requirements pertaining to design
   of the enclosure; of relevance to this protest, they included a
   requirement for an identification plate securely attached to the LASS in a
   readily accessible location (3.3.1); a requirement for a control panel
   accessible to users for the purpose of making maintenance adjustments
   (3.3.2); and a requirement for operating instructions mounted in a
   location where they would be easily viewable by the operator (3.3.3).
   Paragraph 3.4 set forth requirements pertaining to weight, i.e., that the
   weight of the unit be evenly distributed from left to right, to allow ease
   of movement on a flat surface by one person, and that the maximum gross
   weight without fuel be as low as possible.

   [3] Paragraph 3.6.1 set forth requirements not of relevance to this
   protest pertaining to the regulation of air flow. Paragraph 3.6.9 set
   forth requirements pertaining to the air hose used to deliver compressed
   air from the LASS to the aircraft; of relevance to this protest, one of
   the requirements was that "[t]he hose shall be the standard bleed air hose
   30 ft. (100 ft. availability) long with quick disconnect and lanyard
   chain." RFP, Rev. 1, PD at 7. Paragraph 3.6.11 set forth requirements
   pertaining to the LASS engine not of relevance to this protest.

   [4] Paragraphs 3.5, 3.6.14, and 3.6.15, all of which are relevant to this
   protest, provided as follows:

     3.5 Mobility. The LASS shall comply with the mobility requirements
     specified in AS8090 for Type 1, Class 2 equipment ground mobility,
     except that it shall be towable at speeds up to 15 mph, with a 20-foot
     maximum safe turning radius. Also, each tie down point will have a
     minimum clear opening of 1-1/2 inches. The unit shall be capable of
     being configured for air shipment in less than 10 minutes. The user
     shall be able to reassemble to towing configuration in less than
     5 minutes. . . .

     3.6.14 Wheels. Wheels shall be of the pneumatic type that will absorb
     vibration while the LASS are transported. The wheels will need to be
     able to transport the LASS while it is in operational and transport
     mode. The LASS shall have a braking system that shall be hand/foot
     operated which shall not allow the LASS to move on a slope of
     15 degrees.

     3.6.15 Cargo Tie Down and Hoisting Provisions. The LASS shall be
     designed to be air, land, and sea transportable with four cargo tie
     downs for LASS retention. Each cargo tie down shall have a minimum
     operating load capability of twice the weight of the LASS. . . .

   RFP, Rev. 1, PD at 6, 8. Paragraph 3.13, pertaining to airlift capability,
   is not relevant to this protest.

   [5] The agency proceeded with evaluation of the proposals remaining in the
   competitive range, and, on August 24, the SSA selected Science and
   Engineering Services, Inc. (SESI) for award. A contract was awarded to
   SESI on August 28.

   [6] In responding to HS's protest, the contracting officer explained that
   the reason that the Air Force regards design of the enclosure as important
   is that it plays a significant role in the overall footprint and ease of
   use of the unit, and that it affects the weight and durability of the
   unit. Contracting Officer's Statement at 5.

   [7] Significantly, the protester [deleted].