Plasma-Therm, Inc., B-280664.2, December 28, 1998

B-280664.2 Dec 28, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that awardee's proposal failed to meet solicitation requirement is denied where there is nothing in the firm's proposal to show noncompliance with specifications. That the agency is biased against it. The device is used to "cut out" micromechanical parts. Offerors were required to submit etch specimens to allow the agency to evaluate their offered device. Among the characteristics identified were early delivery. The offers were evaluated and Plasma-Therm was found technically unacceptable because its written technical proposal offered a selectivity ratio of only "greater than" 150:1 for silicon dioxide and was silent with respect to the selectivity ratio for silicon nitride. Coupled with the fact that the STS device was considered to offer numerous "value characteristics" (for example. View Decision Matter of: Plasma-Therm, Inc. File: B-280664.2 Date: December 28, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Plasma-Therm, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Surface Technology Systems (STS) under request for offers (RFO) No. 3-100573, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for a plasma and gas-phase plasmaless micromachining tool for the fabrication of silicon carbide micro-electro-mechanical systems. Plasma-Therm maintains that the agency improperly rejected its proposal, and that the agency is biased against it. We deny the protest. The solicitation sought fixed-price offers to provide a micromachining tool capable of performing various etching processes used in connection with the fabrication of micro-electro-mechanical devices. Essentially, the device is used to "cut out" micromechanical parts. Among other requirements, the RFO specified that the device "shall support" high-rate isotropic gas-phase plasmaless etching of silicon using a xenon diflouride etching process or equivalent dry isotropic silicon etch process. RFO Sec. C.3, as amended by Amendment No. 1. The RFO also specified that the device "shall meet" the specification for a selectivity ratio of at least 500:1 for silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, aluminum, nickel and chrome. RFO Sec. C.3(f), as amended by Amendment No. 1. /1/ In addition to their written proposals, offerors were required to submit etch specimens to allow the agency to evaluate their offered device. RFO, Amendment No. 1 at 2. The solicitation advised that the agency would make award to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the best overall value to the government considering price, technical merit and past performance (all weighted equally). The RFO further advised that the agency would consider various "value characteristics" in making its award decision. Among the characteristics identified were early delivery, and features which enhanced the device's performance, flexibility, ease of use and reliability. NASA received offers from STS and Plasma-Therm. The offers were evaluated and Plasma-Therm was found technically unacceptable because its written technical proposal offered a selectivity ratio of only "greater than" 150:1 for silicon dioxide and was silent with respect to the selectivity ratio for silicon nitride. The record further shows that the firm's etch specimens exhibited a selectivity ratio of 150:1 for silicon nitride and 470:1 for silicon dioxide. In contrast, the STS device met or exceeded all the specified selectivity ratios. On the basis of these results, NASA made award to STS at a price higher than that offered by the protester. Plasma-Therm protested the agency's award decision to our Office (B-280664), maintaining, among other things, that the agency had not afforded firms enough time to process the etch specimens. In response, NASA offered to allow firms an opportunity to submit new etch specimens. We therefore dismissed Plasma-Therm's protest as academic. Plasma-Therm submitted a new batch of etch specimens. NASA evaluated the etch specimens and found that Plasma-Therm's device still had failed to achieve the selectivity ratio specified for silicon nitride; the firm's etch specimen exhibited a selectivity ratio for silicon nitride of only 40:1. This, coupled with the fact that the STS device was considered to offer numerous "value characteristics" (for example, it had produced specimens that exhibited selectivity ratios well in excess of the specifications--2,000:1 for silicon dioxide and 3,000:1 for silicon nitride), led the agency to affirm its original award to STS. Plasma-Therm contends that the agency improperly rejected its offer as technically unacceptable, since the silicon nitride selectivity ratio specified in the solicitation is not a critical or material measurement for the device, and the RFO did not state that offers would be rejected for failure to meet only one of the selectivity ratios.