INRAD, Inc., B-284021, February 4, 2000

B-284021 Feb 04, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested the Air Force's rejection of its bid for nonlinear optical crystals, contending that the Air Force: (1) improperly evaluated proposals; and (2) has demonstrated a history of bias in favor of its competitor. GAO held that: (1) the Air Force evaluated the protester's proposal in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria; and (2) did not violate applicable statutes or regulations. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: INRAD, Inc. File: B-284021 Date: February 4, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION INRAD, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's rejection of its proposal submitted under Program Research and Development Announcement (PRDA) No. 99-2-MLK, for Advanced Development of Far-Infrared Conversion Materials. INRAD maintains that the Air Force improperly evaluated proposals and alleges bad faith on the part of contracting officials. We deny the protest. The PRDA, synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) on May 10, 1999, stated that the Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, was soliciting research and development proposals for the purpose of furthering development of nonlinear optical (NLO) crystals for utilization in optical parametric oscillators, second harmonic generators, and other wavelength conversion devices, the applications for which include infrared countermeasures for protecting aircraft and standoff detection for chemical and biological defense. /1/ The PRDA cautioned that [m]aterial candidates that are proposed under this solicitation must have been previously investigated such that the Air Force can be reasonably certain of the candidate's potential for meeting the program requirements. The successful offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of the materials problems and propose an approach demonstrated by the offeror to be feasible for advanced development by the offeror's prior research or exploratory development. Possible candidates include, but are not limited to, cadmium germanium arsenide, gallium selenide, and silver gallium indium selenide. PRDA Sec. A.1. The contractor is to "conduct research and develop processes that increase the NLO crystals' size, improve the optical quality of the crystals' bulk and surfaces, and better the reliability of the materials' growth and processing techniques." Id. The PRDA provided for proposals to be evaluated based on technical aspect, ranked first in priority, and cost, ranked second. The technical aspect factor included the following four subfactors (of equal importance): (1) the offeror shall propose an approach demonstrated by the offeror to be feasible for advanced development; (2) the proposal shall demonstrate a clear and thorough understanding of the problem; (3) the proposal shall demonstrate that the personnel and principal investigator are technically qualified to perform the work; and (4) the proposal shall demonstrate how the equipment and facilities necessary to run the program will be utilized by the offeror. PRDA Sec. D. Under the evaluation procedures for PRDAs, proposals are evaluated and ranked for technical merit as Category I, Category II, or Category III. AFMC FAR Supp. Secs. 5335.016-90(d), 5335.9003(b). Proposals in Category I are well conceived, scientifically and technically sound, and pertinent to the program goals and objectives; such proposals are the most highly rated and are recommended for acceptance. Category II proposals are scientifically or technically sound proposals, but require further development; they may be recommended for acceptance, but have a lower priority than Category I proposals. Category III proposals are not technically sound or do not meet agency needs, and are rejected. AFMC FAR Supp. Sec. 5335.016-90(d). The Air Force received and evaluated three proposals. One proposal, submitted by Sanders, A Lockheed Martin Company, was rated as Category I and was recommended for funding. A second proposal was rated as Category III. The third proposal, submitted by INRAD, was rated as Category II. Although the Air Force determined that INRAD had proposed "a very good overall approach" which had value, the agency considered the proposal to be high risk and determined that funds were not currently available to fund INRAD's proposed effort. Agency Report, Tab 10, Technical Evaluation at 1 and attach. 2, at 1. INRAD challenges the agency's determination that its proposed effort is high risk, and concludes that its proposal should have been funded. We have accorded agencies substantial discretion in determining which proposals to fund under experimental and creative procurement programs where, as under the PRDA program, see AFMC FAR Supp. Sec.