Matter of: Polar Power, Inc. File: B-257373 Date: September 2, 1994

Matter of: Polar Power, Inc. File: B-257373 Date: September 2, 1994

DIGEST

Attorneys

DECISION

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the acquisition is to develop and produce a 5 kilowatt, 28 volt direct current APU using a multi-phase acquisition approach. The RFP contemplated awarding two or more cost-reimbursement contracts for phase I (development), with an option for phase IIa (continued engineering and development), to be followed with fixed-price production contracts (phases IIb and III) to one of the successful offerors under the RFP. Offerors were required to submit proposals divided into five separate volumes consisting of an executive summary, technical, integrated logistics support (ILS), past performance, and a cost proposal. Award was to be made to the offerors whose proposals represented the best value to the government.

A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the 11 proposals submitted in response to the RFP in accordance with the RFP's evaluation scheme. Based on the results of the initial evaluation, the agency included 10 proposals, including the protester's, within the competitive range, held written discussions, and requested best and final offers (BAFO) from all 10 firms. The SSEB evaluated BAFOs and submitted its results to a source selection advisory council (SSAC). The source selection authority (SSA) concurred with the recommendations of the SSAC and directed the contracting officer to award contracts to Goodman-Ball, FERMONT, and Lear Astronics as the firms whose proposals represented the best value to the government.

Polar protested the awards to the Army alleging that the agency had improperly evaluated the proposals and had failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm. The Army responded to each of Polar's contentions, explaining in detail the basis for the award decisions. This protest to our Office followed. PROTESTER'S CONTENTIONS

Polar contends that the agency improperly evaluated the competing proposals. Polar argues that the SSEB failed to recognize benefits in its proposed APU which should have resulted in its proposal's receiving an overall higher technical rating. The protester also argues that the SSEB overlooked weaknesses and risks in the awardees' proposals which should have resulted in those firms receiving overall lower ratings. Polar also asserts that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm.[1]

ANALYSIS

Evaluation of Proposals and Selection Decisions

Section M of the RFP explained that the technical area would be evaluated using the following factors--technical design and performance, capability and plans, and personnel and facilities. The ILS area would be evaluated using ILS planning, technical data, and logistics integration as evaluation factors. Each offeror's past performance would be evaluated for contractual adherence and similarity of relevant work. Each evaluation factor contained several subfactors listed in the RFP. The RFP stated that the technical area was more important than the ILS area, which was considerably more important than past performance. Past performance and cost were of equal importance. The RFP explained that the agency would evaluate each area, except cost, using adjectival ratings ranging from unacceptable to excellent; past performance would also be assigned a risk rating ranging from low to unacceptable risk. The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate each offeror's proposed costs for realism, and would evaluate proposals based on a most probable cost to the government for phases I and IIa.[2]

The results of the final evaluation of the awardees' and protester's proposals were as follows:

Area Ratings

Offeror Tech. ILS Past Perf/ Evaluated Risk Costs Goodman-Ball Sat. Sat. Good/M Low $1,428,629 FERMONT Sat. Good Good/M Low 1,484,144 Lear Good Good Excellent/Low 2,074,614 Polar Sat. Sat. Good/M Low 1,779,425

Based on these results the SSA selected Goodman-Ball, FERMONT, and Lear Astronics as the firms whose proposals represented the best value to the government.

In reviewing a protest against the propriety of an evaluation, it is not our function to independently evaluate proposals and substitute our judgment for that of the agency. See General Servs. Eng'g, Inc., B-245458, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 44. Rather, we will review an evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the RFP evaluation criteria. Id. Here, the record reasonably supports the SSEB's evaluation of proposals.

Overall, the SSEB found that Polar had satisfied the RFP's requirements with respect to all subfactors in the technical area, rating Polar's proposal "satisfactory" for each evaluation subfactor, and "satisfactory" overall for the technical area. Although the SSEB concluded that Polar's proposal was complete and demonstrated a general level of understanding of the required tasks, with two minor exceptions, the evaluators found no significant strengths in Polar's proposal worth noting in the technical area. With respect to the ILS area, the SSEB found five strengths and no weaknesses, earning the protester's proposal a "satisfactory" rating in that area. Regarding Polar's past performance, the evaluators concluded that the firm is exceptional in quality, and good in delivery and cost control, earning the firm a rating of "good" and a risk assessment of "medium low" for that area.

Polar's contention that the SSEB improperly failed to recognize benefits in its proposed APU (such as its allegedly superior noise suppression feature, fuel efficiency, high electrical quality, and higher power output), which should have resulted in its proposal receiving an overall higher technical rating, is without merit. With respect to noise suppression, the RFP required that audio noise sound-pressure levels (SPL) emanating from the APU not exceed "75 dBA at 7 meters (23 feet) from the perimeter of the APU . . . . In addition, audio noise SPL emanating from the APU shall not exceed 85 dBA at the operator's position." Polar claimed that the SPL emanating from its APU could be expected to measure less than 70 dBA. The record shows that the SSEB thoroughly considered the information Polar provided and concluded that, although Polar's proposal demonstrated a high level of understanding of noise suppression design, Polar's noise suppression analysis did not adequately support the low noise level Polar claimed could be expected at the operator's position.

With respect to fuel efficiency, the SSEB developed fuel consumption values for each offeror and found that the values developed for Polar and the awardees were comparable. The SSEB found that while Polar's proposed fuel consumption satisfied the RFP's minimum requirements, Polar's solution did not demonstrate any significant advantage over any other proposal. Similarly, with respect to electrical quality and power output, the record shows that the SSEB carefully examined this aspect of Polar's proposal and found that although Polar's system design was adequate and capable of meeting the system's output, Polar's proposed APU did not provide any significant benefits over the awardees' systems.

The protester's contention that the agency overlooked beneficial attributes of its proposed APU is not supported by the record. What the record does show is that the SSEB thoroughly evaluated each area of the competing proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria announced in the RFP and found that while Polar's proposal met the RFP's minimum requirements, it did not demonstrate any significant advantages over the awardees' proposals. While the protester asserts that the SSEB's conclusions concerning its proposal were irrational, Polar does not point to any specific part of its proposal or otherwise provide any data or explanation showing that the SSEB's conclusions with respect to the evaluation of noise suppression, electrical quality, and power output were unreasonable.

Polar's allegations concerning the evaluation of the awardees' proposals are similarly not supported by the record. With respect to FERMONT, after the final evaluation, the SSEB identified six strengths and no weaknesses in the technical area; the SSEB identified seven strengths and no weaknesses in the ILS area; FERMONT's past performance earned a rating of "good," and a risk rating of "medium low."

With respect to Goodman-Ball's proposal, the SSEB identified eight strengths and no weaknesses in the technical area; the SSEB identified two strengths and no weaknesses in the ILS area; and assigned the firm's proposal past performance ratings of "good" and "medium low" risk. Lear's proposal was the highest rated overall with nine strengths and no weaknesses in the technical area; the SSEB identified eight strengths and no weaknesses in the ILS area; and assigned past performance ratings of "excellent" and "low risk."

The decision not to award a contract to the protester was not based on Polar's submitting a technically unacceptable proposal. Rather, Polar's proposal was considered "satisfactory" and received overall final ratings comparable to two of the awardees. The record shows, however, that for each awardee, the SSEB identified several strengths in the technical area--the most important evaluation area. By contrast, the SSEB did not identify any significant strengths worth noting in the technical area of the protester's proposal. The protester has not provided any evidence showing that the SSEB's conclusion that the awardees had submitted superior proposals was unreasonable.

As noted above, our Office does not evaluate proposals de novo; our review of an allegedly improper evaluation is limited to determining whether the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. CORVAC, Inc., B-244766, Nov. 13, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 454. Polar's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation does not render the evaluation unreasonable. Based on our review of the record, we find that given the strengths identified in the awardees' proposals in the most important evaluation area, and the lack of any notable strengths in Polar's proposal, the SSA reasonably concluded that the awardees' proposals represented the best overall value to the government.[3]

Meaningful Discussions

Polar asserts that all of the questions the Army posed during discussions focused on minor points, and contends that the Army failed to raise questions concerning areas of its proposal that did not receive "winning scores."

Agencies are not required to afford offerors all-encompassing discussions. They need only lead offerors generally into the areas of their proposals that require amplification. TM Sys., Inc., B-228220, Dec. 10, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 573. Where a proposal is considered to be acceptable and in the competitive range, an agency is not required to discuss every aspect of the proposal that receives less than the maximum score. Caldwell Consulting Assocs., B-242767; B-242767.2, June 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 530.

Here, based on the initial evaluation of the technical area, the evaluators identified nine weaknesses in Polar's proposal, initially rating the protester's proposal "marginal" in that evaluation area. It is clear from the narratives accompanying the evaluators' rating sheets that each of those nine weaknesses was actually a combination of related items about which the SSEB had concerns.

By letter dated November 19, 1993, the contracting officer informed Polar that certain areas of its proposal required clarification or explanation, and included 29 standard "ERRORS, OMISSIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, DEFICIENCIES" (EOC) forms, with questions numbered from K001 to K029. Each EOC indicated that the question concerned the technical evaluation area, and referenced the relevant volume and section of Polar's proposal, and the corresponding solicitation section. These questions were based on the weaknesses the SSEB identified in the protester's proposal following the initial evaluation.

The record further shows that between December 16 and January 28, 1994, the contracting officer provided Polar additional written questions to issues raised earlier in the agency's EOCs, and to which Polar either had not fully responded, or had answered with conflicting or confusing statements. These questions covered a broad range of areas related to weaknesses in Polar's proposal including questions related to Polar's noise attenuation analysis; maintenance ratio calculations; system tests; fuel system; design features related to health, safety, and human engineering; and personnel and organizational structure. Based on the agency's several rounds of questions, it should have been clear to Polar that the SSEB remained concerned over certain areas of Polar's proposal. While Polar responded in writing to each round of questions by supplying additional information, analysis, or design clarifications, the record shows that the SSEB's concerns were not alleviated.

The agency's discussion questions reasonably led Polar into the specific areas of its proposal requiring amplification or explanation, and therefore met the standard for meaningful discussions. See SeaSpace Corp., B-252476.2, June 14, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 462. Contrary to the protester's assertions, the Army's numerous questions provided the protester with several opportunities to address issues that were anything but minor in scope, and which required extensive, relatively detailed responses. The fact that Polar's often conflicting responses to the Army's questions did not overcome the SSEB's concerns sufficiently to raise Polar's technical rating above "satisfactory" does not establish that the discussions were inadequate.

The protest is denied.

1. Polar also complains that for more than 5 years the agency "has done everything within its power to deny Polar" other contracts. Our bid protest function encompasses only objections which relate to particular procurements. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3551(1) (1988); Environmental Health Research and Testing, Inc., B-243702.2, Oct. 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 389. Accordingly, we will not consider Polar's allegation in this regard because it provides no basis to challenge the Army's evaluation and selection decisions in this case.

2. The RFP stated that the pricing data submitted for the fixed-price portion of the RFP, phases IIb and III, would be for informational purposes only and would not be considered in the evaluation of proposals for award of phase I contracts.

3. Polar also disagrees with the agency's upward adjustment of its proposed costs. The record shows that Polar's proposed costs were higher than two of the awardees' with equivalent technical ratings. Thus, there is no basis to conclude that the agency would not have selected those two proposals--with comparable ratings and lower costs--even if Polar's proposed costs had not been adjusted upward. With respect to the third awardee--Lear--while Polar's proposed costs were slightly lower, Lear's proposal received a higher technical rating. Again, there is no basis to conclude that the award decision would have changed even assuming Polar's proposed costs were accepted as realistic, since there is no requirement that award be made on the basis of lower cost in a best value procurement, see Hercules Engines, Inc., B-246731, Mar. 19, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 297, and, as explained above, the agency found significant strengths in Lear's proposal that were absent from Polar's proposal.