Thermolten Tech., Inc., B-278408; B-278408.2, January 26,

Thermolten Tech., Inc., B-278408; B-278408.2, January 26, BNUMBER: B-278408; B-278408.2 DATE: January 26, 1998 TITLE: Thermolten Tech., Inc., B-278408; B-278408.2, January 26, 1998 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Thermolten Tech., Inc. File: B-278408; B-278408.2 Date:January 26, 1998 E. Kent Hirsch, Esq., for the protester. Frank J. Borgia for Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc., an intervenor. Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Lisa R. Simon, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest against conduct of debriefing, contending that agency should have had experts capable of understanding technical aspects of proposal conduct the debriefing in order to allow protester to elaborate on its inadequately written proposal, is denied; the adequacy of a debriefing is a procedural matter concerning agency actions after award which are unrelated to the validity of the award, and, in any event, the purpose of a debriefing is not to give offerors the opportunity to cure deficiencies in their proposals, but to furnish the basis for the selection decision and contract award. 2. Protest that agency improperly rejected protester's proposal for failure to meet solicitation's technical requirements is denied where the record shows that proposal contained major deficiencies--a failure to present a coherent explanation of the offered process for disposing of chemical munitions and a general lack of care in assessing and managing the potentially lethal byproducts of the process--reasonably warranting its rejection. 3. Post-award protest that agency improperly limited competition to offerors of "mature technologies" is dismissed as untimely where solicitation made clear that agency was seeking only such technologies and protest thus should have been filed before the time set for receipt of initial proposals. DECISION Thermolten Tech., Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAM01-97-R-0031, for identification of technologies other than incineration for demilitarization of assembled chemical weapons. Thermolten generally challenges the evaluation of its proposal and contends that, given the unique nature of its process, which could not be explained adequately through the normal proposal preparation and review process, it should have had the opportunity to supplement its written proposal through a presentation at the post-award debriefing. We deny the protests. As a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, ratified to date by 168 countries and effective in April 1997, the United States became obligated to destroy chemical weapons previously stored at depots within the United States and its territories. The Army's preferred method of disposal, incineration, has created concerns over potentially toxic byproducts that could be released into the air surrounding the disposal sites. As a consequence, section 8065 of the National Defense Appropriations Act for 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-101-3009-102 (1996), provided for: the conduct of a pilot program to identify and demonstrate not less than two alternatives to the baseline incineration process for the demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions . . . [and evaluation of] the effectiveness of each alternative chemical munitions demilitarization technology identified and demonstrated under the pilot program to demilitarize munitions and assembled chemical munitions while meeting all applicable Federal and State environmental and safety requirements . . . [N]o funds may be obligated for the construction of a baseline incineration facility at the Lexington Blue Grass [Kentucky] Army Depot or the Pueblo [Colorado] Depot activity until 180 days after the Secretary of Defense has submitted to the congressional defense committees a report detailing the effectiveness of each alternative chemical munitions demilitarization technology identified and demonstrated under the pilot program and its ability to meet the applicable safety and environmental requirements . . . . The statute thus suspends construction activities on additional facilities for incineration until the agency has identified, analyzed, and reported to Congress on promising alternative technologies necessary for meeting the United States' treaty obligations. On July 28, 1997, the agency issued the RFP here, for the selection and demonstration of approaches, other than the "baseline" incineration approach, for demilitarization and disposal of stockpiled assembled chemical weapons. RFP sec. C.1.