University of Dayton Research Institute

B-412973 Jul 12, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI) of Dayton, Ohio, protests the decision by the Department of Air Force, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), not to award it a contract under Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) No. BAA-AFRL-RQKM-2015-0008, for the research and development (R&D) of a broad range of electromagnetic materials under the nanoelectronic materials optimization (NEMO) program. UDRI argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  University of Dayton Research Institute File:  B-412973 Date:  July 12, 2016 Daniel A. Bellman, Esq., Daniel A. Bellman Law Office, for the protester. LtC Aaron G. Lake, LtC Mark E. Allen, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Cherie J. Owen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly declined to award protester a contract under broad agency announcement for research and development related to electromagnetic materials is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and the agency reasonably concluded that the protester’s proposal, while acceptable, required further development. DECISION University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI) of Dayton, Ohio, protests the decision by the Department of Air Force, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), not to award it a contract under Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) No. BAA-AFRL-RQKM-2015-0008, for the research and development (R&D) of a broad range of electromagnetic materials under the nanoelectronic materials optimization (NEMO) program.  UDRI argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The BAA, issued on September 23, 2015, sought proposals for electronic and optical applications for the AFRL.  Advances made in the program are expected to lead to improved nanomaterials, material processes, and devices for digital, radio frequency, microwave, infrared detector, opti-electronic, secure communication, power generation, sensing, and control applications.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4.1, Basic Program Statement of Objectives, at 1.  The agency anticipated issuing two basic indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts and two task orders--one for nanoscale transport electronic materials and processes, and one for quantum semiconductor and magnetic materials and processes.  AR, Tab 4, BAA, at 4 and 12.  The solicitation noted, however, that the agency could make more or fewer awards.  Id.  Offerors were required to submit their proposals in three parts:  a proposal for the basic contract, and a proposal for each of the two task orders.  Id. at 14-15, 17.  The BAA provided that the basic contract proposal and the task order proposals would be evaluated as follows: The basic contract proposal will be evaluated on Technical and Risk factors (equal order of importance), with the evaluation of the Basic Contract (Part A) to be of greater importance than all the Task Orders combined.  Task Order proposals will be evaluated on Technical, Cost, and Risk factors (descending order of importance), with the evaluation of each Task Order proposal (Part B) determined to be of equal importance to each other.  Offerors must submit proposals for the basic ID/IQ effort, as well as Task Order 0001 and 0002, in order to be considered for an ID/IQ award. AR, Tab 4, BAA, at 18. In evaluating Part B proposals (task order proposals), the agency would consider the following six technical evaluation subfactors:  (1) unique and innovative approach proposed to accomplish the technical objectives; new and creative solutions and/or advances in knowledge, understanding, technology, or state of the art; (2) the offeror’s understanding of the scope of the technical effort; (3) soundness of the offeror’s technical approach; (4) availability of qualified technical personnel and their experience with the applicable technologies; (5) availability from any source, of necessary research, test, laboratory, or shop facilities; and (6) the potential of the AFRL to transition the research and development deliverables to future government needs.  AR, Tab 4, BAA, at 18; Tab 4.9, BAA Amend.