Higher Power Engineering, B-278900, March 18, 1998

B-278900 Mar 18, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST 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 bad faith or violation of regulations. Offerors were to submit proposals for development and demonstration of a "commercially viable integrated. Intuitive operator friendly controller that will increase maneuverability of causeway ferries while reducing the need for highly skilled operators" and will "simultaneously control from two to four . . . thrusters." /1/ The solicitation contained four evaluation criteria as follows: (1) soundness and technical merit of the proposed approach and its incremental progress toward topic solution. View Decision Matter of: Higher Power Engineering File: B-278900 Date: March 18, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Higher Power Engineering (HPE) protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of the Navy under Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program solicitation No. N97-142. HPE alleges that the Navy improperly evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The solicitation sought phase I proposals on the topic, "Integrated Control of a Powered Causeway Ferry." Offerors were to submit proposals for development and demonstration of a "commercially viable integrated, intuitive operator friendly controller that will increase maneuverability of causeway ferries while reducing the need for highly skilled operators" and will "simultaneously control from two to four . . . thrusters." /1/ The solicitation contained four evaluation criteria as follows: (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 the fulfillment of the research topic's requirements; and (4) qualifications of the principal/key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants, in terms of both their ability to perform the research and their ability to commercialize the results. The agency received 12 proposals. Based on the evaluation, the protester's proposal was ranked tenth, with 24 of a possible 48 points. The agency made award to American GNC Corporation based on that firm's highest-rated proposal (42 points). Following award, HPE submitted an agency-level protest. In response, the agency reevaluated the firm's proposal and increased its score 1 point (to 25 points) on the basis of one evaluator's initial incorrect determination that the protester had proposed two thrusters instead of four, as required; however this did not change the relative ranking (tenth out of 12 proposals received) of the firm's proposal. /2/ HPE argues that the Navy misevaluated the firm's proposal as inferior to the awardee's and was biased against the firm, and that the awardee's proposed system is not operator friendly, as required. Where an agency is conducting an SBIR procurement, it has the discretion to determine which proposals it will fund. See Small Business Innovation Research Program Policy Directive, 58 Fed. Reg. 6144, 6149 (1993); Microexpert Sys., Inc., B-233892, Apr. 13, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 378 at 2. In light of this 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. Bostan Research, Inc., B-274331, Dec. 3, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 209 at 2. There is no basis for disturbing the award here. First, there is no showing of a violation of regulations. Further, the considerations which led the Navy to downgrade HPE's proposal (during the original evaluation and the reevaluation)--primarily failure to sufficiently address the hydrodynamics of the ferry (technical merit factor), lack of apparent integrated control of multiple thrusters (adequacy of proposed effort factor), and lack of resume for the proposed senior electrical engineer and lack of marine experience with small craft similar to the causeway ferries here (qualifications of principal/key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants factor)--all were consistent with and encompassed by the stated criteria, and the award decision was based on the relative ranking of the proposals under these criteria. Consequently, we conclude that the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation. Although HPE's protest focuses on its disagreement with the evaluation conclusions, in light of the discretion afforded agencies under the SBIR program, the evaluation judgments that go into award decisions generally are not subject to legal objection. In any case, the agency's evaluation conclusions appear unobjectionable.