Bostan Research, Inc.

B-274331 Dec 03, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's decision not to fund protester's proposal under Small Business Innovation Research Program procurement was proper where evaluation was consistent with terms of solicitation and there is no showing of agency fraud or bad faith. Offerors were to submit proposals for exploratory development of a very small UAV system. The solicitation provided that offerors were to assess the UAV's operational utility and further stated that "[f]light vehicle concepts and designs should address critical performance attributes such as range. The solicitation provided that "[s]ystem concepts will be evaluated on the basis of technical feasibility. The protester's proposal was ranked eleventh. Or references were offered. View Decision Matter of: Bostan Research, Inc. File: B-274331 Date: December 3, 1996 Agency's decision not to fund protester's proposal under Small Business Innovation Research Program procurement was proper where evaluation was consistent with terms of solicitation and there is no showing of agency fraud or bad faith, or of violations of regulations. Attorneys DECISION Bostan Research, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), under DOD Fiscal Year 1996 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program solicitation No. SB962-080. Bostan alleges that DARPA improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The solicitation sought phase I proposals on the topic, "Micro Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) System Design and Operation." Offerors were to submit proposals for exploratory development of a very small UAV system, with a maximum dimension of 15 centimeters (6 inches) or less, for unique military applications. The solicitation provided that offerors were to assess the UAV's operational utility and further stated that "[f]light vehicle concepts and designs should address critical performance attributes such as range, speed, hover, agility, and covertness, but the operation approach must address all relevant implementation issues." The solicitation contained four evaluation criteria: (1) soundness and technical merit of the proposed approach and its incremental progress toward topic solution, (2) potential for commercial (government or private sector) application and the benefits expected to accrue from commercialization; (3) adequacy of the proposed effort for fulfillment of the research topic's requirements; and (4) qualification of the principal/key investigators, staff and consultants, in terms of both their ability to perform the research and their ability to commercialize the results. Additionally, the solicitation provided that "[s]ystem concepts will be evaluated on the basis of technical feasibility, ease of implementation, operational utility, and affordability." The agency received 19 proposals. Based on the evaluation, the protester's proposal was ranked eleventh, with 13 of a possible 20 points. The agency made award (and selected for funding) the two highest-scored proposals. Bostan takes issue with the technical evaluation, maintaining that the agency failed to consider the technical merit of certain features of the firm's proposed UAV, and incorrectly concluded that the firm's proposed ducted fan UAV technology contained performance and stability claims for which no data, analyses, or references were offered. The protester believes the evaluators are familiar only with fixed wing UAV technology, and failed to understand its new technology, i.e., ducted fan vertical take-off and landing (VTOL), with transition to forward flight. Where an agency is conducting an SBIR procurement, it has the discretion to determine which proposals it will fund. In light of their 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. Systems Research Co., B-260280.2, Aug. 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 62. We find that the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and there is no evidence of bad faith. The considerations which led DARPA to downgrade Bostan's proposal -- primarily unsubstantiated performance and stability claims -- were all consistent with and encompassed by the stated criteria, and the award decision was based on the relative ranking of the proposals under these criteria. Further, it is clear that the agency considered the content of Bostan's proposal; for example, contrary to the protester's contention, the record indicates that the evaluators did in fact consider that Bostan's "proposed vehicle would operate in a VTOL mode, with transition to forward flight" and that the "vehicle concept [was] based on . . . gyroscopic stabilization." Consequently, we have no basis to conclude that the evaluation was inconsistent with the solicitation.