B-173264, DEC 22, 1971

B-173264, DEC 22, 1971

BID PROTEST - NEGOTIATIONS - TECHNICAL UNACCEPTABILITY DECISION DENYING PROTEST OF DIGILOG, INCORPORATED AGAINST THE REJECTION OF ITS OFFER UNDER AN RFQ ISSUED BY ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION, LAURENCE G. HANSCOM FIELD, BEDFORD, MASS. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF PROTESTANT THAT NEGOTIATIONS WITH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF THEIR PROPOSAL. AIR FORCE PROPOSAL- EVALUATION PROCEDURE REQUIRES THAT THE OFFEROR MAKE CLEAR WHAT IT INTENDS TO DO AND HOW IT INTENDS TO DO IT. DIGILOG'S OFFER WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT FAILED TO DO THIS. THE COMP. GEN. FINDS NO BASIS TO QUESTION THIS CONCLUSION.

TO DIGILOG, INCORPORATED:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 12, AND PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE, CONCERNING YOUR PROTEST UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS (RFQ) NO. F19628 71-Q -0265, WHICH WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 1, 1971, BY THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION, LAURENCE G. HANSCOM FIELD, BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS, FOR THE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, FABRICATION AND TESTING OF AN OMEGA SIGNAL PROCESSOR.

YOU CONTEND THAT NEGOTIATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED WITH DIGILOG, INCORPORATED, AFTER SUBMISSION OF DIGILOG'S PROPOSAL. SUCH NEGOTIATIONS WERE NOT CONDUCTED, THE AIR FORCE TECHNICAL EVALUATORS HAVING FOUND DIGILOG'S PROPOSAL TO BE TECHNICALLY UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY RELATE THE PROPOSED PROCESSOR TO ITS INTENDED USE AS REQUIRED BY THE RFQ. THE BASIS FOR THE AIR FORCE DETERMINATION OF NON- ACCEPTABILITY IS THAT DIGILOG FAILED TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE HOW IT INTENDED TO SATISFY THE OBJECTIVES OF THE AIR FORCE SOLICITATION. THE AIR FORCE HAS CONCEDED THAT COPIOUS INFORMATION CONCERNING THE DIGILOG MODEL DG-12 RECEIVER CHARACTERISTICS AND ITS THEORETICAL DESIGN BASIS WERE PROVIDED IN THE PROPOSAL. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO QUESTION THAT THE MODEL SO DESCRIBED WOULD NOT MEET THE STATED AIR FORCE REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT MODIFICATION. THE PROPOSAL SIMPLY INDICATED THAT DIFFERENCES WOULD BE RESOLVED WITHOUT DIFFICULTY. THERE WAS NO SHOWING OF HOW THIS WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED.

IN CONTRAST, WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT ALL OTHER OFFERS, WHETHER OR NOT FOUND TO BE IN THE COMPETITIVE RANGE, PROVIDED ADEQUATELY DETAILED INFORMATION FOR THE AIR FORCE CAMBRIDGE RESEARCH LABORATORIES TECHNICAL EVALUATION. THE TECHNICAL CAPABILITY OF DIGILOG IS NOT QUESTIONED BY THE AIR FORCE. HOWEVER, THE AIR FORCE PROPOSAL-EVALUATION PROCEDURES REQUIRES THAT THE OFFEROR MAKE CLEAR WHAT IT INTENDS TO DO AND HOW IT INTENDS TO DO IT IN ACHIEVING THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFQ. WE FIND NO BASIS TO QUESTION THE AIR FORCE CONCLUSION THAT THE DIGILOG PROPOSAL DID NOT DO THIS.

IN YOUR LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1971, YOU HAVE ALLEGED THAT THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION LACKED PROPER GUIDELINES RESULTING IN ITS BEING ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. THE AIR FORCE HAS PROVIDED US WITH A COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING TECHNICAL PROPOSALS WHICH WAS INCLUDED WITH THE RFQ. THESE INSTRUCTIONS ITEMIZE FIVE FACTORS EMPLOYED IN THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION: UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM, COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH, EASE OF MAINTENANCE, AND SPECIAL TECHNICAL FACTORS SUCH AS SIMPLICITY OF DESIGN AND LOW FABRICATION COST. THE INSTRUCTIONS FURTHER POINT OUT THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM AND COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE GIVEN RELATIVELY HEAVIER WEIGHTS IN THE EVALUATION.

ALTHOUGH THE EVALUATION CRITERIA MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY OFFEROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN MISLED OR THAT THE EVALUATION WAS UNREASONABLE. OUR OFFICE HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE PURCHASING ACTIVITY HAS THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING ITS MINIMUM NEEDS AND WHETHER A PRODUCT MEETS THOSE NEEDS. SEE B-170492, OCTOBER 26, 1970. HAVE ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A COMPETITIVE RANGE, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS, IS A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION WHICH WILL NOT BE DISTURBED WHEN SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS OF RECORD. SEE 48 COMP. GEN. 314, 317-318 (1968); B-170750(1), FEBRUARY 22, 1971; B-170317, FEBRUARY 2, 1971; B-169773, OCTOBER 9, 1970; B 161676, AUGUST 22, 1967.

IN VIEW OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THESE PRINCIPLES TO THE PROTEST AND SINCE OUR REVIEW OF THE RECORD DISCLOSES NO BASIS UPON WHICH WE COULD QUESTION THE REJECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL, YOUR PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.