Polar Power, Inc.

Polar Power, Inc. BNUMBER: B-274846.2; B-274846.3 DATE: January 14, 1997 TITLE: Polar Power, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Polar Power, Inc. File: B-274846.2; B-274846.3 Date:January 14, 1997 Brian M. Regan, Esq., and Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for the protester. Brian E. Toland, Esq., and Vera Meza, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that contracting agency unreasonably evaluated protester's technical proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria; protester's proposal was downgraded principally due to its failure to substantiate its claims, as required, and its disagreement with the agency's judgment as to the impact that this lack of substantiation had on various aspects of its proposal does not render that judgment unreasonable. DECISION Polar Power, Inc. protests the award of contracts to Goodman Ball, Inc., Dynamic Corporation of America, Fermont Division, and T&J Manufacturing, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAK01-95-R-0075, issued by the Department of the Army for the development of a 3-kilowatt (kw) tactical quiet generator. Polar Power principally argues that the Army unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The solicitation contemplated the award of contracts to two or more offerors for an engineering and manufacturing effort leading to the procurement of 3-kw, 60 Herz (Hz) tactical quiet generator sets, with an option to develop and produce 3-kw, 400 Hz generator sets. Cost reimbursement contracts would be awarded for phase I (engineering and manufacturing development), with an option for phase IIA (continued engineering and manufacturing development). Fixed-price production contracts for phases IIB and III would subsequently be awarded to one of the successful offerors under the solicitation. Award would be made to the offerors whose proposals represented the best value to the government, considering four areas: technical, integrated logistics support (ILS), past performance, and cost. The technical area was slightly more important than the ILS area, which was slightly more important than the past performance area, and the past performance and cost areas were equally important. Proposals would be adjectivally rated under the technical and ILS areas and their factors and subfactors and the past performance area.[1] Cost would be evaluated for realism. The technical area contained three factors: technical design and performance; specific design characteristics; and capabilities, plans, personnel, and facilities. The second factor was significantly more important than the first, and the third factor was significantly less important than either of the other two. The first two technical factors are the only ones at issue here. The specific design characteristics factor consisted of six subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: weight; high temperature and altitude; noise suppression; fuel tank capacity; dimensions; and reliability predictions. The technical design and performance factor consisted of five equally weighted factors: overall design and approach; environmental characteristics; maintainability and life; engine analysis; and generator/electrical analysis. Army evaluation teams reviewed each of the five proposals received and forwarded numerous errors, omissions, and clarifications (EOC) to the source selection evaluation board (SSEB). The source selection authority (SSA) eliminated the proposals of both Polar and another firm from the competitive range but subsequently reinstated them following agency-level protests. The EOCs were forwarded to the offerors, discussions were conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) were requested and received. The final relevant evaluation results were as follows: GBI T&J Fermont Polar[2] Technical S S S M Design & PerformanceS S S M Specific Design HS HS HS S Capabilities S S S M ILS S S HS S Past PerformanceL-M L-M M N Cost Phase I $576,024 $951,915 $1,030,196 $829,452 The SSEB recommended that contracts be awarded to Goodman Ball, T&J, and Fermont as representing the best overall value to the government.