In sum, an offeror, like Noble, is responsible for providing a
full discussion of its technical approach and methodology within
the four corners of its proposal and it is not unreasonable for
an agency to downgrade a proposal because the proposal lacks a
detailed discussion of an offeror's proposed approach. See ,
e.g. , Wyle Labs., Inc. , B260815.2, Sept. 11, 1995, 95-2 CPD
187 at 5. (Noble Solutions,
B-294393, September 10, 2004) (pdf)
Where an agency is conducting an SBIR procurement, it has the
discretion to determine which proposals it will fund. R&D
Dynamics Corp., B-285979.3, Dec. 11, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 201 at 4.
In light of this discretion, our review of an SBIR procurement
is limited to determining whether the agency violated any
applicable regulations or solicitation provisions, or acted in
bad faith. Bostan Research, Inc., B‑274331, Dec. 3, 1996, 96-2
CPD ¶ 209 at 2; see also Intellectual Properties, Inc.,
B‑280803.2, May 10, 1999, 99-1 CPD ¶ 83 at 5-6. The agency’s
award decision was unobjectionable. Contrary to the protester’s
assertions, there was nothing improper or unreasonable in the
agency’s focusing on deliverables as the key discriminator
between the otherwise equal proposals. In this regard, the
solicitation specifically provided that “Phase II is the
principal research or research and development effort and is
expected to produce a well-defined deliverable prototype.”
Solicitation, ¶ 1.2. Further, though not specified under the
evaluation criteria, delivery of a prototype was logically
encompassed by the first factor regarding technical merit and
progress toward topic solution. See Base Techs., Inc.,
B‑293061.2, B-293061.3, Jan. 28, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 31 at 8. In
this regard, we agree with the contracting officer that offering
to deliver a prototype is an indication of the soundness and
technical merit of the proposed approach and the “embodiment” of
the contractor’s solution to the topic problem. Contracting
Officer’s Statement at 6. Here, USPG does not dispute that its
proposal failed to include delivery of a prototype; it simply
asserts that the agency’s focus on deliverables as the deciding
factor was the antithesis of the firm’s approach. Comments at 1.
The agency recognized that both firms proposed the development
of software and hardware, but reasonably concluded that delivery
of a prototype represented a better value. USPG’s mere
disagreement with the agency’s judgment on the usefulness of
supplying a prototype does not provide a basis for finding the
agency’ source selection unreasonable. Global Assoc., Ltd.,
B‑275534, Mar. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 129 at 9. (U
S Positioning Group, LLC, B-294027, June 21, 2004) (pdf)
Our review of a protest involving an SBIR procurement is limited
to determining whether the agency violated any applicable
regulations or solicitation provisions, or acted in bad faith.
Intellectual Properties, Inc., B-280803.2, May 10, 1999, 99-1
CPD ¶ 83 at 5-6; Microexpert Sys., Inc., B-233892, Apr. 13,
1989, 89-1 CPD ¶ 378 at 2. (InkiTiki Corporation,
B-291823.4; B-291823.5, May 16, 2003) (pdf) |
