Sun Chemical Corporation, B-288466; B-288466.2; B-288466.3, October 17, 2001

Sun Chemical Corporation, B-288466; B-288466.2; B-288466.3, October 17, 2001 TITLE: Sun Chemical Corporation, B-288466; B-288466.2; B-288466.3, October 17, 2001 BNUMBER: B-288466; B-288466.2; B-288466.3 DATE: October 17, 2001 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Sun Chemical Corporation File: B-288466; B-288466.2; B-288466.3 Date: October 17, 2001 David D. DiBari, Esq., Carlos E. Provencio, Esq., and Timothy P. Peterson, Esq., Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells, for the protester. Scott Arnold, Esq., Harvey G. Sherzer, Esq., and Alan Sutton, Esq., Howrey Simon Arnold & White, for SICPA Securink Corporation, an intervenor. Marvin Kent Gibbs, Esq., Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, for the agency. Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that contracting agency improperly determined that protester's product failed to meet a mandatory technical evaluation criterion and rejected its proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the agency's determination was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. 2. Protest that contracting agency improperly failed to subject awardee's product to the testing required to evaluate that product under all of the solicitation's technical evaluation criteria is academic where the agency, during the pendency of the protest, proposes to take corrective action by completing the testing and evaluation of the awardee's product in accordance with the express terms of the solicitation. DECISION Sun Chemical Corporation protests the award of a contract to SICPA Securink Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. BEP-01-04, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), to obtain black and green intaglio ink and varnish for application to new United States paper currency. Sun contends that the BEP improperly determined that its green ink failed to meet a mandatory health and safety technical evaluation criterion and rejected its proposal as technically unacceptable. Sun also contends that the BEP improperly failed to subject SICPA's inks and varnish to the testing required to evaluate its products against all of the solicitation's technical evaluation criteria. We deny the protests. The BEP produces paper currency using intaglio printing, a process that involves the creation of engraved designs that are made into dies and transferred to printing plates; the printing plates are used to print the currency on high-speed, sheet-fed rotary presses. Each sheet of currency paper is forced, under extremely heavy pressure, into the recessed lines of the printing plate to pick up the ink. The backs of the notes are printed with green ink and allowed to dry for 24-48 hours before the faces are printed with black ink. See , BEP Money Facts. The BEP issued this solicitation on December 22, 2000, to procure the black and green intaglio ink and varnish [1] used to print paper currency at the BEP's Western Currency Facility in Fort Worth, Texas, and at its Washington, D.C. Facility. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for one base year, with up to four 1-year option periods, to the firm whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, considering price and other factors. These other factors included three mandatory technical evaluation criteria against which offerors' samples were to be evaluated, on a pass/fail basis, to determine whether the inks and varnish had adverse health effects on BEP employees and to determine the volatile organic compounds (VOC) content of the inks. Samples that passed all of the mandatory criteria were to be evaluated against two "gradable" criteria to determine performance with respect to both the printing and processing and the printed work requirements set forth in the specification. [2] Under these gradable criteria, each offeror's samples were to be evaluated relative to other offerors' samples. Each offeror was required to submit samples of ink and varnish identical to the materials it proposed to furnish if awarded the contract. These samples were to be fully compliant with all of the requirements of the specification, including numerous physical and chemical requirements. For each technical proposal, each offeror was required to submit one 20-drum sample each of black ink and green ink and one 400-pound sample of varnish to BEP's Washington, D.C. Facility for evaluation.