JEOL USA, Inc., B-277160, July 2, 1997

B-277160 Jul 02, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights JEOL protests that the rejection of its offer as technically unacceptable was unreasonable. JEOL's product manager stated that the specified resolution of JEOL's microscope was for much shorter working distances than required under NASA's specification. He stated that the resolution was 2.5 nm at 1 kV for a working distance of 3 mm. NASA determined that JEOL's proposal was unacceptable. As were the proposals of two other offerors. These three proposals were rejected and award was made to Hitachi on May 23. It contends that its proposal was technically acceptable because it stated that it would meet all of the stated solicitation requirements. A blanket offer of compliance with the specification is not sufficient to comply with a solicitation requirement for detailed technical information necessary for evaluation purposes. View Decision Matter of: JEOL USA, Inc. File: B-277160 Date: July 2, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION JEOL USA, Inc. protests an award to Hitachi Scientific Instruments under request for offers (RFO) No. RFO3-072251, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Lewis Research Center, for a field emission scanning electron microscope. JEOL protests that the rejection of its offer as technically unacceptable was unreasonable. We deny the protest. [1] The solicitation, issued on May 5, 1997, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract. [2] The solicitation required offerors to provide: "a description (including manufacturer, brand, and model no.) in sufficient detail to show that the product or service offered meets the Government's requirement included in the attached model contract." The model contract stated detailed minimum requirements for the microscope, including: "The resolution must be at least 2.5 [nanometers (nm)] for an accelerating voltage of 1 [kilovolt (kV)] and 1.5 nm for an accelerating voltage of 15 kV at a working distance of 12 [millimeters (mm)]." [3] NASA received four offers by the May 15 due date, including those of JEOL for $368,368 and Hitachi for $451,319. JEOL's proposal stated that its "[o]ffer meets all of the specifications of the request document." The descriptive literature provided with the proposals stated the following resolution specifications: "1.2 nm guaranteed (at 15 kV) 2.5 nm guaranteed (at 1 kV)" JEOL's proposal did not state the working distances for these resolution specifications. On May 22, NASA conducted a telephone conference with JEOL. During this call, NASA asked about the resolution capability of the proposed microscope. JEOL's product manager stated that the specified resolution of JEOL's microscope was for much shorter working distances than required under NASA's specification. He stated that the resolution was 2.5 nm at 1 kV for a working distance of 3 mm, and 1.5 nm at 15 kV for a working distance of 6 mm. NASA determined that JEOL's proposal was unacceptable, as were the proposals of two other offerors. These three proposals were rejected and award was made to Hitachi on May 23. This protest followed. JEOL now alleges that its microscope satisfies the resolution requirement at a working distance of 12 mm. It contends that its proposal was technically acceptable because it stated that it would meet all of the stated solicitation requirements. When a solicitation in a negotiated procurement requires the submission of descriptive literature showing technical adequacy, an offeror must demonstrate technical sufficiency in its proposal. Power Dynatec Corp., B-251501.3, Aug. 3, 1993, 93-2 CPD Para. 73 at 3. A blanket offer of compliance with the specification is not sufficient to comply with a solicitation requirement for detailed technical information necessary for evaluation purposes. Id.; AEG Aktiengesellschaft, 65 Comp.Gen. 418, 421 (1986), 86-1 CPD Para. 267 at 4. The contracting agency is responsible for evaluating the data supplied by an offeror and ascertaining if it provides sufficient information to determine the acceptability of the offeror's item; we will not disturb this technical determination unless it is shown to be unreasonable. Inframetrics, Inc., B-257400, Sept. 30, 1994, 94-2 CPD Para. 138 at 3. The solicitation established the working distance requirement, and JEOL's proposal did not supply information evidencing that its proposed microscope satisfied that. The only information available to the agency relating to the working distance of JEOL's microscope was the oral statement of JEOL's product manager, who did not indicate that JEOL's proposed microscope satisfied the working distance requirement, but stated that the microscope's resolution was designed for a shorter working distance and provided the resolution of JEOL's microscope for working distances of 3 mm and 6 mm (but not for working distances greater than 6 mm).