Glatz Aeronautical Corporation

B-416392 Aug 09, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Glatz Aeronautical Corporation, a small business located in Newtown, Pennsylvania, protests the determination of the Department of the Army not to fund Glatz's phase I proposal under the Department of Defense's (DoD) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) No. DoD SBIR-18-1, Army Topic No. A18-001, which invited proposals for research projects to address air platform passive occupant protection. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal as unreasonable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Glatz Aeronautical Corporation File:  B-416392 Date:  August 9, 2018 Jeffrey D. Glatz, for the protester. Rachel E. Woods, Esq., and James Blakeman, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s decision not to fund proposal under phase I of Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research Program solicitation is denied where the evaluation was consistent with solicitation. DECISION Glatz Aeronautical Corporation, a small business located in Newtown, Pennsylvania, protests the determination of the Department of the Army not to fund Glatz’s phase I proposal under the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) No. DoD SBIR-18-1, Army Topic No. A18‑001, which invited proposals for research projects to address air platform passive occupant protection.[1]  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal as unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the BAA on November 29, 2017, seeking proposals for phase I efforts.  The topic at issue here sought proposals to develop air platform occupant safety improvements to prevent injury or fatality within the constraints associated with legacy air vehicles.  BAA § 12, Army Component Instructions & Technical Topics, at 14 (topic 1).  Specifically, the focus was to prevent the vehicle occupants from striking interior hard points, such as the control stick or aircraft structure, during a crash or hard landing.  Id.  With respect to phase 1, topic 1 required the following: Perform a design study to support the development of a system that will integrate seamlessly with existing crash worthy aircraft systems on rotary wing and fixed wing military aircraft.  Conduct an assessment of appropriate technologies which may be utilized to build, integrate, and test a system to the meet the challenges listed above.  Perform a trade-off analysis to determine the best approach for a system.  Fully develop a preliminary engineering design.  Id. at 14.  In addition, topic 1 indicated that the agency was particularly interested in proposals that addressed certain specified innovations.[2]  Id.  The BAA provided that phase I proposals would be evaluated based on the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical merit, staff qualifications and capability, potential for commercialization, and cost/price.  BAA at 26.  The solicitation explained that the proposal must provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed work represents “an innovative approach to the investigation of an important scientific or engineering problem and is worthy of support.”  Id. at 11.  It also provided that the technical reviewers would base their conclusions only on the information contained in the proposals, and that it could not be assumed that the reviewers would be acquainted with the firm, key individuals, or any referenced experiments.  Id.