BNUMBER:  B-274131
DATE:  November 22, 1996
TITLE:  Kasco Fuel Maintenance Corp.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Kasco Fuel Maintenance Corp.

File:     B-274131

Date:November 22, 1996

F. J. Crovato for the protester.
Mort Ende, for Environmental Products Sales Corporation, an 
intervenor.
Lenore K. Strakowsky, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that awardee's proposal failed to establish compliance with 
specifications is denied where agency reasonably found compliance 
based on descriptive literature in proposal and knowledge and 
literature evaluators already possessed concerning awardee's 
equipment; although proposal failed to include information regarding 
performance of logistics support requirements, waiver of this 
deficiency was unobjectionable since it did not prejudice protester.

DECISION

Kasco Fuel Maintenance Corp. (KFMC) protests the award of a contract 
to Environmental Products Sales Corporation (ENPRO) under request for 
proposals (RFP) No. N68335-96-R-0109, issued by the Naval Air Warfare 
Center (NAWC) Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, for antifreeze 
recycling units. 

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for machines to 
recycle commercial antifreeze from various commercial vehicles and 
light duty ground support equipment.  Proposals were required to 
include descriptive literature which established compliance with 
performance specifications in the RFP.  The evaluation was to be on a 
pass/fail basis, with award to be made to the lowest-cost, technically 
acceptable offeror.  Three proposals were submitted, including KFMC's 
and ENPRO's (the third was rejected as unacceptable).  Award was made 
to ENPRO based on its substantially lower price. 

KFMC argues that ENPRO's proposal failed to establish that its unit 
meets certain specifications and failed to comply with other 
requirements and therefore should have been found technically 
unacceptable; it also alleges specific defects in the evaluation 
process.  As discussed below, we find no merit to KFMC's allegations. 

SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

KFMC maintains that ENPRO's proposal fails to establish that its unit 
meets the requirement that the antifreeze recycling unit produce 
recycled antifreeze with glycolic acid at a maximum level of 300 parts 
per million (ppm) and formic acid at 45 ppm.  This argument is without 
merit.  The literature included with ENPRO's proposal states that 
glycolic and formic acids are "neutralized or precipitated as 
potassium salt with glyclean and retained in filters."  The agency 
read this statement as indicating that virtually all glycolic and 
formic acids would be removed, and that ENPRO's unit therefore met the 
requirement.  We see nothing unreasonable in this conclusion.  While 
KFMC claims that it was unreasonable for the evaluators to rely on 
this statement without test data or other objective supporting 
evidence, the RFP required no such evidence.  Moreover, we note that 
KFMC's proposal also included no objective evidence supporting KFMC's 
proposal claim that its unit complies with the specification; thus, 
the offerors were treated the same.  See Electrophysics Corp., 
B-258674, Feb. 13, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  63.  KFMC argues that the 
specification requires the acids to be "removed," not merely 
neutralized.  There is no basis for reading the RFP so restrictively.  
Although the RFP labels the requirement "Acid Removal," the 
requirement goes on to state that the unit "shall produce recycled 
antifreeze with acidity levels as follows[.]"  Further, KFMC itself 
concedes that the substances are no longer in "acid form" after 
neutralization.  As ENPRO's proposal shows that its unit eliminates 
the acids, the agency reasonably determined that it meets the 
requirement.

KFMC maintains that ENPRO's unit cannot remove particulate/solids in 
accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) 
D-4656, as required; it asserts that ENPRO test data show inconsistent 
performance in this regard.  This argument is without merit.  The lab 
tests (performed in April 1992) contained in ENPRO's proposal show 
that ENPRO's unit produced recycled antifreeze with metal solids 
within the allowed maximums for solids stated in Table 3 of ASTM 
D-4656.  The agency therefore reasonably concluded that ENPRO's unit 
meets the requirement.[1]

In an October 11 submission, KFMC asserts that ENPRO's proposal fails 
to show how its unit meets the requirement for a power cord with a 
ground fault interrupter, or how the unit complies with the UL 508 
safety standards specified in the RFP.  Our Bid Protest Regulations 
require that protests based on other than apparent solicitation 
improprieties be filed not later than 10 calendar days after the basis 
of protest was or should have been known to the protester, whichever 
is earlier.  Section 21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. Reg. 39,039, 39,043 (1996) 
(to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)); Paging Network of 
Washington, Inc., B-274052, Aug. 13, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  63.  KFMC was 
furnished ENPRO's proposal with the agency report on September 13.  
Thus, these arguments, which concern the contents of the proposal, had 
to be raised no later than September 23.  As KFMC did not raise them 
until October 11, they are untimely and will not be considered.

LOGISTICS REQUIREMENTS

The RFP required that an offeror submit with its proposal two copies 
of an operation and maintenance manual which was to discuss the 
logistics requirements in the RFP and how the offeror intended to meet 
them.  The RFP provided that this information (or some similar 
explanation from the offeror) would be used to determine technical 
acceptability.

KFMC maintains that ENPRO's proposal was unacceptable because it did 
not include a copy of its operation and maintenance manual or indicate 
how ENPRO intended to meet the logistics requirements.  KFMC also 
argues that the absence of this information should have led the agency 
to question whether ENPRO intended to meet the requirements, given 
ENPRO's insertion of "NSP" (not separately priced) for the 14 
logistics support subitems on the price schedule, and the low price of 
ENPRO's unit. 

The logistic support items required and included, among other things, 
a recommended spare parts list, a technical manual, supplemental 
provisioning documentation, and a support equipment illustration.  The 
agency points out that ENPRO provided a videotape with its proposal 
which demonstrated how to assemble and operate a similar model, 
provided an illustration of a similar unit, and provided a list with 
parts and support materials.  The agency concedes that ENPRO did not 
provide any other logistics documentation with its proposal, but the 
company indicated in its proposal its intent to provide operating 
instructions and the other requirements.  In addition, the technical 
evaluators--a mechanical engineer and an engineering technician--were 
familiar with the operating manual provided with another similar ENPRO 
unit in operation at NAWC, Lakehurst.  The Navy concluded that the 
information available was sufficient to show that ENPRO has the 
capability to provide the required logistics data.
 
The agency's conclusion was reasonable.  The RFP's Contract Data 
Requirements List (CDRL) contains extensive information as to what is 
required of the contractor and how the contractor is to perform the 
logistics support requirements.  Thus, although the RFP required 
offerors to explain how they intended to meet the requirements, the 
RFP actually left little to clarify about the matter.  In this regard, 
we note that, while KFMC provided the required response, it consisted 
of four pages which largely recited back the requirements for each 
logistics support requirement.  In any case, to the extent that the 
agency relaxed the logistics data requirement for ENPRO without 
advising KFMC of the relaxation, KFMC suffered no competitive 
prejudice.  Even if the relaxation would have led KFMC to omit the 
logistics data from its proposal, KFMC does not allege, and there is 
no evidence or reason to believe, that this would have resulted in 
cost savings that would have enabled KFMC to reduce its price below 
ENPRO's.  See Laser Diode, Inc., B-249990, Dec. 29, 1992, 93-1 CPD  para.  
18.  Contrary to KFMC's assertion, the fact that ENPRO chose not to 
separately price the logistics support items does not support a 
conclusion that they do not intend to provide the required data.  We 
have held that an NSP notation only indicates the bidder's affirmative 
intent to obligate itself to provide the item at no charge to the 
government and should not be a basis for rejecting the bid.  See 
Urethane Prods. Corp., B-234694, May 25, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  508; AUL 
Instruments, Inc., B-220228, Sept. 27, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  351.

EVALUATOR QUALIFICATIONS

KFMC argues that the technical evaluators lacked the necessary 
background in chemistry to adequately evaluate the technical 
information in ENPRO's proposal.  The selection of individuals to 
serve as proposal evaluators is a matter within the discretion of the 
agency; our Office will decline to appraise the qualifications of such 
individuals absent a showing of possible fraud, conflict of interest, 
or actual bias on the part of the evaluators, none of which has been 
alleged in this case.  AmerInd, Inc., B-253751, Oct. 19, 1993, 93-2 
CPD  para.  240.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. KFMC alleges that ENPRO's proposal does not show that its unit can 
"bring used antifreeze back up to ASTM D-4656 standard."  This 
requirement was deleted by amendment 0002, prior to the closing date.  
Also, KFMC claims that ENPRO's proposal lacks test data for chlorides 
and foam testing, and approval by General Motors (GM) for ENPRO's unit 
to recycle coolants for GM automobiles.  However, the performance 
specification contains no requirements regarding chlorides, foam 
testing, or GM approval.  These arguments therefore are without merit.