Mathews Associates, Inc., B-295764; B-295764.2, April 20, 2005

Mathews Associates, Inc., B-295764; B-295764.2, April 20, 2005 TITLE: Mathews Associates, Inc., B-295764; B-295764.2, April 20, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295764; B-295764.2 DATE: April 20, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Mathews Associates, Inc. File: B-295764; B-295764.2 Date: April 20, 2005 William M. Weisberg, Esq., Sullivan & Worcester LLP, for the protester. Vera Meza, Esq., and John J. Reynolds, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging elimination of proposal from competitive range is denied where record shows agency reasonably found proposal technically unacceptable based on evaluation consistent with terms of solicitation. DECISION Mathews Associates, Inc. (MAI) protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-04-R-C005, issued by the Department of the Army to acquire lithium manganese dioxide batteries. MAI argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The solicitation contemplated the award, on a "best value" basis, of up to two indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for a base year, with four 1-year options, to furnish five different lithium manganese dioxide batteries. Offerors were advised that the agency intended to split the total projected requirement, with 60 percent of the requirement limited to domestic sources and the remaining 40 percent open to all prospective sources. The RFP further advised that the agency would evaluate proposals giving consideration to price and two non-price criteria--a technical factor and a performance risk factor, with the former being significantly more important than the latter, and the latter being slightly more important than price. Within the technical factor there were four subfactors: battery performance, battery safety (these two subfactors were equal in importance and significantly more important than the third subfactor), production (this subfactor was significantly more important than the fourth), and small business participation. Proposals had to receive at least an acceptable rating under each of the technical subfactors in order to be considered for award.[1] The agency received and evaluated numerous proposals, including MAI's. The agency rated MAI's proposal unacceptable under each of the four technical subfactors, and also assigned it a moderate performance risk rating. Based on these evaluation results, MAI's proposal was eliminated from the competitive range. During a subsequent debriefing, the agency advised MAI that its proposal was evaluated as containing 17 deficiencies or weaknesses. MAI alleges generally that the agency was largely incorrect in its evaluation conclusions; MAI maintains that its proposal in fact included all necessary information and that the agency either did not read the proposal or otherwise failed to glean the information presented. In support of its protest, MAI furnished a "compliance matrix" that lists each of the deficiencies or weaknesses identified by the agency, and presents corresponding narratives and references to its proposal that it maintains demonstrate that the agency's evaluation conclusions are incorrect. In its agency report, the Army provided a detailed, point-by-point response that it maintains establishes that its evaluation conclusions were reasonable and supported by the record; the principle theme of the agency's response is that MAI failed to include adequate information in its proposal to demonstrate its understanding of the agency's requirements. In its comments responding to the agency's detailed report, MAI merely reiterates (and incorporates by reference) the position stated in its initial protest, namely, that the agency failed to correctly understand the firm's proposal for the reasons outlined in the "compliance matrix." We have reviewed the record with respect to each of MAI's allegations and find no basis for questioning either the agency's evaluation conclusions or its detailed explanation of its findings. Where, as here, a protester advances arguments to which the agency responds in detail, and the protester offers no rebuttal, there generally is no basis for our Office to question the agency's evaluation findings. Industrial Property Mgmt., B-291336.2, Oct. 17, 2003, 2003 CPD P 205 at 5. We discuss two illustrative examples below. The record shows that the agency evaluators found MAI's proposal deficient for failing to include any discussion of the design and operation of the battery's state of charge indicator (SOCI); this led, in large measure, to the proposal's unacceptable rating under the battery performance subfactor.