TITLE: B-299083, Fantastic Data, February 5, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299083
DATE: February 5, 2007
******************************************
B-299083, Fantastic Data, February 5, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Fantastic Data

   File: B-299083

   Date: February 5, 2007

   Dale Pitman for the protester.

   Frank V. DiNicola, 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 challenging procuring agency's decision not to fund proposal under
   phase I of the Department of the Defense Small Business Innovation
   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 Fantastic Data's 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 A06-110, "Compact, Wideband, Single
   or Dual Antenna Geolocation." The objective of this topic is to "[d]evelop
   and demonstrate techniques to perform geolocation [e.g. troop location,
   target location, battlefield condition related to a specific geographic
   location] using a compact, wideband, single or dual antenna for
   applications where array-based Direction Finding (DF) systems are not
   practical due to size, weight, and cost constraints." Under this topic,
   the Army seeks to develop techniques to perform geolocation with "small,
   compact, lightweight, and wideband single or dual antennae" to avoid
   certain limitations associated with DF systems operating at low
   frequencies and to take advantage of the "trend toward smaller, portable
   (hand-held), and affordable DF/geolocation systems." The goal of projects
   undertaken under this topic is to "reduce the number of antenna elements
   needed to do geolocation to one or two elements," resulting in an antenna
   that will have "sufficient gain to support signal intelligence . . . be
   broadband to reduce the number of antennas needed to cover the frequency
   range of 20 to 3000 [megahertz] . . . and "also be compact, lightweight,
   and small enough to be portable by a soldier." Agency Report, Tab B, Topic
   A06-110, at 1.

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

     Develop the antenna designs and identify new approaches (consisting of
     existing and/or new techniques, methods, and technologies) to perform
     geolocation with single or dual antenna. Provide a detailed trade study
     comparing all considered antenna configurations and geolocation
     techniques and reason for final selection. Demonstrate the feasibility
     of the selected technique. The Very High Frequency (VHF)/Ultra High
     Frequency (UHF) bands are of primary interest for Phase I.

   Id.

   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.[1]

   Solicitation at 11.

   The Army received 15 proposals, including Fantastic Data's, for this
   topic. The evaluation was conducted in three "tiers." First, a 2-member
   technical evaluation team that possessed scientific and technical
   knowledge in the topic area performed a technical assessment (Tier 1) and
   forwarded the "best" proposals for a second level of review (Tier 2).
   Here, three of the proposals, not including Fantastic Data's, were
   forwarded for Tier 2 evaluation, and ultimately only one proposal was
   selected for funding (Tier 3).

   The evaluators found weaknesses (as well as strengths) in Fantastic Data's
   proposal under each of the three technical evaluation factors, which
   resulted in its proposal receiving the tenth highest ranked score and not
   being forwarded for Tier 2 evaluation. For example, under the first
   factor, the evaluators noted that Fantastic Data's technical approach was
   based upon moving handheld devices after initially identifying the signal
   to determine the optimum point to refine the line of bearing, which the
   evaluators concluded might limit soldier mobility and expose soldiers to
   harm. Further, the evaluators found that Fantastic Data had proposed no
   "specific approach to the antenna part of the project" and did not specify
   what kind of antenna it proposed to use, and that its "proposed system,
   although technically sound, was too complicated because it relied upon
   "the coordination of other systems." Under the second factor, the
   evaluators found that Fantastic Data's personnel lacked "substantial"
   antenna development, signal intelligence, and geolocation algorithm
   backgrounds. Under the third factor, the evaluators found that the
   proposal presented an unclear plan for commercialization, and that
   Fantastic Data had two previous SBIR programs that had ended at phase II,
   which was no "success story." See Agency Report, Tab D, Evaluation Report,
   at 1-2.

   Fantastic Data challenges the validity of each of the weaknesses that the
   evaluators attributed to it 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.

   With regard to the first factor, Fantastic Data argues that the agency
   incorrectly found that Fantastic Data's failure to specify a proposed
   solution to the antenna was a weakness, given Fantastic Data's proposal of
   an approach of using antenna motion to synthesize a large antenna aperture
   from a small, handheld antenna, and contends that specifying a particular
   antenna in its proposal would have been inappropriate, given the phase I
   requirement that the contractor perform a trade study prior to selecting
   an antenna. The Army explains that attributing a weakness to Fantastic
   Data's proposal because it neglected to propose a more specific approach
   to the antenna part of the project was consistent with the evaluation
   factor, since among other things the agency was evaluating whether a
   proposal had demonstrated incremental progress towards topic solution. In
   fact, the goal of the topic was to "develop and demonstrate" geolocation
   using a "compact, wideband single or dual antenna" and during phase I the
   contract was to "develop the antenna designs." See Agency Report, Tab B,
   Topic A06-110, at 1. The protester's contention that selecting an antenna
   solution was predicated on first doing a trade study is too narrow of a
   reading of the phase I requirements, which included both developing
   antenna designs, and providing a trade study comparing all the antenna
   configurations that were considered and stating the reasons why the final
   design was selected. Although we agree that under the solicitation
   Fantastic Data did not necessarily have to propose a specific solution to
   the antenna aspect of the project, the agency could consider its failure
   to identify a specific antenna approach to be a weakness, given that the
   evaluation factor considered "the soundness, technical merit, and
   innovation of the proposed approach and its incremental progress toward
   topic or subtopic solution." See Solicitation at 11. An offeror who had
   not yet provided details of its specific antenna approach could reasonably
   be found to have made less incremental progress toward the topic solution.

   Fantastic Data also disputes the agency's conclusion that soldiers would
   be mobility limited or placed in harm under its technical approach. In
   this regard, the protester maintains that the Army has misread the
   proposal, which properly should be read as explaining how a soldier could
   move to improve geolocation after finding a signal, and that no direction
   finder can localize an emitter without either movement or coordination
   with one or more other direction finders. However, the Army reasonably
   explains that it was justified to conclude that Fantastic Data's approach
   was a weakness because the firm's proposal did not address how the
   reception of the signal would be affected if the soldier were not in the
   optimal position, nor what would happen if the soldier (due to war related
   or other circumstances) was unable to reposition to an optimum location.
   Fantastic Data's mere disagreement expressed here does not provide a legal
   basis for us to overturn the evaluation.

   With regard to the second evaluation factor, Fantastic Data contends that
   the Army misconstrued the qualifications of its key personnel, asserting
   that the agency improperly downgraded the proposal on the basis of the
   company's experience rather than the experience of the key personnel, who
   have "experience spanning the gamut of communications systems from
   networking to hardware design," and that its proposed key investigator is
   a radio frequency (RF) engineer who has developed numerous innovative RF
   devices for a variety of uses including communications, signal
   intelligence, and geolocation. Protest at 3. However, the record shows
   that the evaluators credited the proposal with a strength because
   Fantastic Data's investigators possessed significant experience in
   wireless communications, satellite communications, and computer
   networking. The evaluators nevertheless assigned a weakness because this
   experience was not considered as desirable as engineers with specific
   experience in antenna design, signal intelligence, and geolocation
   algorithms. Based on our review, we find no reason to question the Army's
   evaluation that the key personnel did not have this more desirable
   specific experience.

   Regarding the third factor, Fantastic Data disputes the Army's assignment
   of a weakness because the evaluators found that Fantastic Data only had
   two previous SBIR programs that ended at phase II, with no success story.
   The record confirms that the agency's evaluation was based on the fact
   that Fantastic Data has two phase II awards that have not yet gone to
   phase III, and, therefore, the agency could assign its proposal a weakness
   for this reason. However, the record also shows the evaluators attributed
   various strengths to Fantastic Data's proposal because it demonstrated a
   "good track record for transitioning Phase I SBIR's to a Phase II" and
   because "the offeror has experience transitioning technology in the form
   of a commercial venture." See Agency Report, Tab D, Evaluation at 1-2.
   Although the protester disagrees, the agency evaluation under this factor
   was reasonable.

   In sum, we find that the record shows that under each factor the Army
   reasonably evaluated Fantastic Data's proposal.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] 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.