TITLE: B-310766, IVI Corp., January 23, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310766
DATE: January 23, 2008
*************************************
B-310766, IVI Corp., January 23, 2008

   Decision

   Matter of: IVI Corp.

   File: B-310766

   Date: January 23, 2008

   George J. Mackertich for the protester.

   Col. Timothy J. Cothrel, Steven R. Fuscher, Esq., and Col. Neil S.
   Whiteman, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preperation of this decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Under brand name or equal procurement, the contracting agency's
   determination regarding whether an offered product is acceptable will not
   be disturbed unless it is unreasonable.

   2. Offer of an "equal" product under brand name or equal solicitation was
   properly rejected where the technical information provided to the
   contracting agency failed to demonstrate that the "equal" product met all
   of the salient characteristics set forth in the solicitation.

   DECISION

   IVI Corp. protests the award of a contract to Vacuum Precision
   Technologies under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7000-07-R-0032,
   issued by the Department of the Air Force for a Multi-Layer Precision
   Optical Coating System. IVI argues that the agency failed to timely
   evaluate its proposal. The Air Force acknowledges that it temporarily lost
   IVI's proposal, but argues that it has now evaluated the proposal and
   reasonably determined that it is not technically acceptable. In response,
   IVI asserts that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP was issued on June 11, 2007 as a brand name or equal solicitation
   including a detailed listing of salient characteristics. The RFP directed
   that proposals could be emailed or faxed to the attention of the contract
   specialist, and to contact the contracting officer in the contract
   specialist's absence.

   The agency received four proposals by the closing time of the
   solicitation. Two of the proposals were sent by email to the contract
   specialist, while the remaining two proposals, including IVI's, were sent
   by email to the contracting officer, despite the fact that the contract
   specialist was present on the closing date. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2,
   Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts, at 1. The contracting officer
   neglected to forward IVI's proposal to the contract specialist, though he
   did forward the other proposal he received. Id. The three proposals
   received by the contract specialist were sent to the customer for
   technical evaluation, and the customer determined that all three proposals
   that it reviewed were technically acceptable. Id. The award was made to
   the lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror, Vacuum Precision
   Technologies, on September 8.

   IVI claims that it contacted the agency three times between the closing
   date of the solicitation and the date of the award, and that on each
   occasion it was informed that its proposal was under consideration.
   Protest, Tab 2, Telephone Log; Tab 3, Agency Protest, at 1-2. The agency
   has no record of this correspondence, however, both parties agree that IVI
   contacted the agency on October 10, to inquire as to the status of the
   solicitation, and was informed by the contracting officer that an award
   had been made on September 8, at a price higher than that of IVI's
   proposal. AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts, at 2.
   During the October 10 conversation with IVI, the contracting officer was
   unable to locate IVI's proposal and stated to IVI that its proposal had
   not been received by the agency. Id.; Protest, Tab 3, Agency Protest, at
   2.

   IVI filed an agency-level protest of the award on October 15. In response
   to this protest the contracting officer conducted a search of the agency's
   records, which revealed that IVI had by email submitted a timely proposal
   of an "or equal" item. The contracting officer then immediately sent the
   proposal to the customer for technical evaluation. The technical
   evaluation concluded that IVI's proposal was not acceptable, and the
   agency was therefore in the process of denying IVI's agency-level protest
   when IVI filed its protest with our Office on November 7.

   ANALYSIS

   Although it is clear that the agency mishandled IVI's proposal in this
   case, this is not a "lost proposal" situation in which the missing
   information cannot be independently verified and meaningfully evaluated.
   See, e.g., Project Res., Inc., B-297968, Mar. 31, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 58;
   S.D.M. Supply, Inc., B-271492, June 26, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 288 (lost
   proposal recovered after contract had been completed); East West Research,
   Inc., B-239565, Aug. 21, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 147. Here, the "lost"
   proposal was discovered in the agency's possession, was known to have been
   timely received, was sent for a technical evaluation, and was determined
   to be technically unacceptable. In this context, while the agency's
   failure to timely forward the IVI proposal for evaluation was unfortunate,
   we view the protest solely as a challenge to the reasonableness of the
   agency's technical evaluation. See, e.g., Basic Tech., Inc., B-214489,
   July 13, 1984, 84-2 CPD para. 45 (late evaluated proposal deemed
   technically unacceptable, protest decided as an evaluation challenge).
   This is because a reasonable determination that IVI's proposal is
   technically unacceptable would render IVI ineligible for the award
   regardless of the agency's other conduct in the procurement.

   The agency asserts that its determination was reasonable because, while
   IVI's offer contained blanket statements that its "or equal" product would
   meet the salient characteristics in the RFP, the technical information it
   provided was incomplete and failed to support those blanket statements.
   IVI contends that its proposal provided an affirmative response to every
   characteristic listed in the RFP, and that the agency's after-the-fact
   determination is unsupported.

   It is well-settled that it is the offeror's duty to include sufficiently
   detailed information in its proposal to establish that the equipment
   offered will meet the solicitation requirements, and that blanket
   statements of full compliance are insufficient to fulfill this duty.
   Aztek, B-229525, Mar. 2, 1988, 88-1 CPD para. 218 at 3. Likewise, merely
   restating the RFP's requirements is no better than a blanket offer of
   compliance. Id.

   With respect to the offer of an "or equal" product, an offeror's proposal
   must demonstrate that its product conforms to the salient characteristics
   listed in the solicitation. See CAMSS Shelters, B-309784, B-309784.2,
   October 19, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 199 at 4. The contracting agency is
   responsible for evaluating the data submitted by the offeror and
   ascertaining if it provides sufficient information to determine if the
   offeror's product is acceptable. ACR Elec., Inc., B-266201, Jan. 24, 1996,
   96-1 CPD para. 19 at 4. In making this determination, the agency enjoys a
   degree of discretion which we will not disturb unless we find that the
   determination is unreasonable. Id.

   Here, we find that the agency's determination was reasonable. The record
   demonstrates that most of IVI's proposal was a mere restatement of the
   RFP's salient characteristics, without elaboration. Indeed, the record
   shows that the technical data accompanying IVI's proposal was limited to a
   2-page product brochure that failed to address the majority of the more
   than 100 salient characteristics detailed by the RFP. In addition, some of
   the technical data provided in IVI's product brochure contradicted its
   proposal's claims that its product possessed the required salient
   characteristics. For example, the RFP specified as a salient
   characteristic that the optical coating system's coating chamber be 60 to
   80 centimeters in diameter, and while IVI's proposal specified a coating
   chamber 80 centimeters in diameter, its product brochure specified a
   coating chamber 36 inches, or 91.4 centimeters, in diameter.[1]

   In sum, as the offeror of an "or equal" item, the burden was on IVI to
   submit a proposal that adequately demonstrated that its offered product
   met the salient characteristics of the solicitation. As mere restatement
   of the RFP's salient characteristics is insufficient to meet that burden,
   and IVI's provided technical data was incomplete and contradicted its
   proposal, we cannot find unreasonable the agency's determination that
   IVI's proposal was not technically acceptable.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] In its comments, IVI acknowledges that it "was offering a slightly
   larger chamber" and claims that "[t]he larger size, by any optical
   technical standards, offers an advantage in product uniformity and
   flexibility of process." Protester's Comments at 1. IVI's claim of a
   technical advantage is immaterial. When a solicitation sets forth
   particular features of a brand name item, they are presumed to be material
   and essential to the government's needs. CAMSS Shelters, supra. Here, as
   noted, the agency specified an 80-centimeter maximum coating chamber
   diameter as a salient characteristic.