TITLE: B-299076, Fantastic Data, February 5, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299076
DATE: February 5, 2007
******************************************
B-299076, Fantastic Data, February 5, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Fantastic Data

   File: B-299076

   Date: February 5, 2007

   Dale Pitman for the protester.

   Peter Giella, Esq., and Vera Meza, Esq., Department of the Army, for the
   agency.

   Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest against procuring agency's decision not to fund protester's Phase
   I proposal under the Department of Defense Small Business Innovative
   Research program is denied where the record shows that the agency
   reasonably evaluated the proposal.

   DECISION

   Fantastic Data protests the decision of the Department of the Army not to
   fund its phase I proposal under Department of Defense (DOD) Small Business
   Innovation Research (SBIR) program solicitation No. FY06.2.

   We deny the protest.

   The SBIR program is conducted pursuant to the Small Business Innovation
   Development Act, 15 U.S.C. sect. 638 (2000), which requires certain
   federal agencies to reserve a portion of their research and development
   funds for awards to small businesses. As part of its SBIR program, DOD
   issues an SBIR solicitation twice a year listing the research topics for
   which it will consider SBIR program admission.

   Firms first apply for a 6-month phase I award to test the scientific,
   technical, and commercial merit and feasibility of a certain concept. If
   phase I is successful, the firm may be invited to apply for a phase II
   award to further develop the concept. After the completion of phase II,
   firms are expected to obtain funding from the private sector and/or
   non-SBIR government sources to develop the concept into a product for sale
   in private sector and/or military markets. See DOD's SBIR Website,
   http://www.acq.osd.mil/sadbu/sbir/overview/index.htm.

   The solicitation included Army Topic A06-039, "Versatile Sensor
   Network/Data Fusion Optimization System." The objective of this topic is
   to "[d]evelop a versatile wireless acoustic sensor network development
   system which will allow the optimization of high performance collaborative
   data fusion within scalable distributed sensor network architectures."[1]
   Agency Report, Tab B, Topic A06-039, at 1.

   In the area of acoustic signal processing,[2] the military customarily has
   relied on low cost distributed networks using 15 to 60 randomly placed
   sensor nodes.[3] The utility of the process has been enhanced by the
   development of communication networks based upon MESH/Ad-hoc and ZigBee[4]
   which allow scaling of the network to increase the number of nodes. The
   challenge has been how to optimize "sensor algorithms and
   hardware/software solutions for high performance data fusion within
   scalable sensor networks" because most networks rely upon "small
   collaborative networks which do not optimize what can be realized with
   high performance data fusion . . . in scalable networks." Thus, the Army
   sought here to acquire an "innovative development approach and wireless
   system architecture to facilitate the optimization of data fusion for
   scalable networks." Id.

   In this connection, the topic describes a system comprised of "at least 40
   wireless acoustic sensing/processing nodes capable of communicating over
   distances of approximately 200 meters between nodes"; that the "[n]odes
   should embrace an open architecture that will enable third-party
   developers to port their software algorithms through downloadable applets
   that encode, filter, condition and classify acoustic signals"; that the
   "design of each node should allow common microphone interface and preamp,
   a processor to house the sensor processing and data fusion algorithms,
   computer interface to monitor and reprogram sensor/data fusion algorithms,
   and [the] communication system"; and that the "[n]odes should be capable
   of forwarding acoustic processed or unprocessed information over the
   wireless network to a central processing console," including being "able
   to time stamp information packets forwarded from each node with time
   precision accuracy of less than 1 millisecond." Also, the nodes had to be
   designed to "accommodate a wide range of potential sensor functionalities,
   ranging from minimal data fusion collaboration to more complex gateway
   level data fusion functionality [and] [t]he central processing console
   should be capable of performing further signal processing and system level
   data fusion using third-party algorithms as well as recording all acquired
   data within the sensor network." Id.

   With respect to phase I, the topic requires the following:

     Review existing acoustic algorithms, data fusion approaches, and network
     architecture designs. Examine commercially available ZigBee or other
     applicable COTS [commercial-off-the-shelf] communications systems.
     Develop a flexible wireless acoustics network system architecture that
     will streamline the ability to develop, test, and optimize existing and
     future battlefield acoustic data fusion algorithms and network
     architecture designs. Demonstrate essential network functionality by
     collecting and forwarding real-time acoustic signals to a central
     processor using no less than 15 acoustic sensor nodes.

   Id. at 1-2.

   For phase I, the solicitation contemplated multiple awards of fixed-priced
   contracts to those proposals offering the best-value considering three
   evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance as follows:

     a. The soundness, technical merit, and innovation of the proposed
     approach and its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution.

     b. The qualifications of the proposed principal/key investigators,
     supporting staff, and consultants. Qualifications include not only the
     ability to perform the research and development but also the ability to
     commercialize the results.

     c. The potential for commercial (Government or private sector)
     application and the benefits expected to accrue from this
     commercialization as assessed utilizing the criteria in Section 4.4.[5]

   Solicitation at 11.

   The Army received 27 proposals, including Fantastic Data's, for this
   topic. The proposals underwent a three-tier evaluation process. In tier 1,
   the proposals were evaluated by a three-member technical evaluation team,
   who possessed scientific and technical knowledge in the topic area and who
   rated proposals based upon a 100-point scale.[6] Based on this evaluation,
   the "best" proposals were forwarded for a second level of review (Tier 2).
   Here, four of the proposals, not including Fantastic Data's, were
   forwarded for Tier-2 evaluation, and ultimately only one proposal
   submitted by Information Systems Technologies, Inc. (ISTI), was selected
   for funding (Tier 3). Fantastic Data's proposal was ranked 13^th of the
   proposals received with total technical scores of 63, 46, and 56,
   respectively, from each of the evaluators.

   Fantastic Data challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal. Where
   an agency is conducting an SBIR procurement, it has substantial discretion
   to determine which proposals it will fund. RDAS Corp., B-294848, Dec. 23,
   2004, 2004 CPD para. 253 at 2. 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. Id. Based on our review of the record, we have no basis to conclude
   that the agency acted improperly in deciding not to select Fantastic
   Data's proposal for funding.

   The record shows that Fantastic Data's proposal was downgraded under the
   first factor primarily because it relied on its own previously developed
   sensor network protocol, which the evaluators regarded as innovative, but
   not necessarily flexible enough to accommodate future developments related
   to data fusion and algorithms outside of its proposed approach.[7] See
   Agency Report, Tab D, Evaluation Reports. The evaluators believed that
   Fantastic Data's proposed approach, based on its own sensor network
   protocol, did not adequately recognize the need to develop an architecture
   that provided more flexibility to account for future developments in
   sensor networks and "data fusion approaches"; the proposal's focus did not
   demonstrate maximum flexibility on how "the system will meet a wide range
   of potential data fusion solutions and sensor network architectures,"
   including node functionality within the network or algorithm
   experimentation. See id.; Supplemental Agency Report at 6-8. While the
   protester, taking various evaluators' comments out of context, asserts
   that this evaluation is unreasonable, it has not shown the agency's basic
   concerns about the potential lack of flexibility of Fantastic Data's
   approach were unjustified.

   Moreover, the record shows with regard to this factor that the proposal
   did not address certain information that the agency considered critical,
   such as data acquisition, data time synchronization, ease of porting
   algorithms to the systems and maximum flexibility of data fusion/network
   design. Although Fantastic Data's proposal focused on the sensor node,
   which was an important aspect of the network, the topic contemplated that
   the sensor node was to be just one aspect of the flexible wireless
   acoustic network system architecture, which also included such features as
   the central processing console, and gateway level data fusion
   functionality (which were addressed in greater detail in the much more
   highly rated awardee's proposal). Fantastic Data does not show that its
   proposal contains this information or that its proposal should not have
   been downgraded because it lacked this information.

   Under the second factor, for which Fantastic Data's proposal received
   evaluator scores of 23, 23, and 21 points, respectively, out of
   30 possible points, the protester focuses on some weaknesses identified by
   the evaluators which appear to be unrelated to what was supposed to be
   evaluated under this factor. However, the record shows other strengths and
   weaknesses identified by the evaluators, not challenged by the protester,
   which are germane to this factor.

   Similarly, with regard to the third factor, for which Fantastic Data's
   proposal received evaluator scores of 12, 8, and 12 points, respectively,
   out of 20 possible points, the protester again asserts that various
   weaknesses identified under the third factor were not related to that
   factor. Based on our review, we do not agree with the protester that the
   referenced weaknesses are unrelated to that factor, and note that the
   record contains other identified strengths and weaknesses identified by
   the evaluators that are clearly germane to the factor.

   Nevertheless, even if Fantastic Data's proposal received a perfect score
   from each evaluator under both the second and third factors, its total
   score would have been significantly less than the scores awarded to any of
   the four proposals forwarded for tier 2 evaluation.[8] Thus, there was no
   possibility that Fantastic Data was prejudiced, even if the agency's
   evaluation of its proposal under the second and third factors was
   unreasonable. See Shah & Assocs., B-257405, Sept. 30, 1994, 94-2 CPD para.
   123 at 6.

   Finally, Fantastic Data argues that the awardee's proposal should have
   been rejected because the awardee's key investigator did not meet the
   requirement in the solicitation that this individual be a full-time
   employee of the SBIR company. Fantastic also argues that the evaluators
   were biased in favor of the awardee, and therefore against Fantastic Data.

   Fantastic Data is not an interested party eligible to protest the
   evaluation of the ISTI's proposal. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4
   C.F.R. sect. 21.0(a) (2006), only an "interested party" may protest a
   federal procurement. That is, a protester must be an actual or prospective
   supplier whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of
   a contract or the failure to award a contract. Determining whether a party
   is interested involves consideration of a variety of factors, including
   the nature of issues raised, the benefit or relief sought by the
   protester, and the party's status in relation to the procurement. Four
   Winds Servs., Inc., B-280714, Aug. 28, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 57. A
   protester is not an interested party where it would not be in line for
   contract award were its protest to be sustained. Id. Since there has been
   no challenge to the intervening proposals, including those which were
   included in the tier 2 evaluation. These firms would precede the
   protester's in eligibility for award under this solicitation and,
   therefore, the protester lacks the direct economic interest required to
   maintain a protest of the award to ISTI.

   With regard to Fantastic Data's allegations of bias in the evaluation of
   its proposal, we note that government officials are presumed to act in
   good faith, and a protester's claim that contracting officials were
   motivated by bias of bad faith must be supported by convincing proof; our
   Office will not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to procurement
   officials on the basis of inference or supposition. Shinwa Elecs.,
   B-290606 et al., Sept. 3, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 154 at 5 n.6. Here, we find
   no evidence of bias towards Fantastic Data; to the contrary, the record
   shows, as discussed above, that Fantastic Data's proposal was not funded
   because it was not among the highest ranked proposals.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] Data fusion also known as sensor fusion is the combining of sensory
   data or data derived from sensory data from disparate sources such that
   the resulting information is in some sense better than would be possible
   when these sources were used individually. See
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor_data_fusion.

   [2] The military utilizes acoustic signal processing to accurately track
   targets, such as gunfire locations. See Agency Report, Tab B, Topic
   A06-039, at 1.

   [3] Sensor nodes are devices using sensors to monitor physical or
   environmental conditions, such as temperature, sound, vibration,
   temperature, motion or pollutants at different locations. In addition to
   one or more sensors, each node in a sensor network is typically equipped
   with a radio transceiver or other wireless communications device, a small
   microcontroller, and an energy source, usually a battery. See
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor_network. The Army uses sensors and
   information processing to obtain, among other things, quick and accurate
   information about troop location, target location, and battlefield
   conditions. See Agency Report at 2.

   [4] Mesh networking is a way to route data, voice and instructions between
   nodes, which allows for continuous connections and reconfiguration around
   broken or blocked paths by "hopping" from node to node until the
   destination is reached. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking.
   ZigBee is the name of a specification for a suite of high level
   communication protocols using low-power digital radios based on the IEEE
   [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] 802.15.4 standard for
   wireless personal area networks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZigBee.

   [5] Paragraph 4.4 provided among other things that commercial potential
   would be assessed based on the proposer's commercialization strategy and
   the proposer's record of commercializing its prior SBIR projects.
   Solicitation at 12.

   [6] The first factor was worth 50 points, the second factor was worth 30
   points, and the third factor was worth 20 points.

   [7] Fantastic Data's proposal received evaluator scores of 28, 15, and 23
   points, respectively, out of 50 possible points for the first factor.

   [8] The four proposals forwarded for tier 2 evaluation received a total
   average score of 90 points or higher based on the evaluation of the three
   evaluators. In contrast, Fantastic Data's proposal would have scores of
   82, 61, and 73, respectively, if it had received perfect scores under
   these two evaluation factors.