Ite. X+THE COMPTROLLER GENRAL

DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES

\ ,K WWASH ING TON. D. C. 2054 8

-4-9/D

FILE: B-192193 DATE: February 9, 1979

MATTER OF: Antenna Products Division, DHV, Inc.

DIGEST: joF/

1. Protester is determined to have been diligentin initiating request for information regardingacceptability of another offer where that wasdone following revocation of stop order whichhad been issued to permit consideration of pro-tester's original complaint that it was lowofferor.

2. Offer of antenna supported by tower was incompliance with specifications notwithstandingspecifications set forth design, bracing andpreservation requirements for pole supports,since tower was alternative in specifications.

3. Where contracting agency provides opportunityto protester to provide information to makealternate proposal acceptable and protesterdoes not take advantage of opportunity, pro-tester was prejudiced by decision not to fur-nish information rather than by contractingagency.

4. Claim for proposal preparation costs is deniedwhere it is not reasonably certain claimantwould have received award, absent contractingagency's mistakes in conduct of procurement.

G c3588

B-192193 2

On January 17, 1978, request for technical proposals(RFTP) No. N00189-78-RFTP-0117 was issued by the Departmentof the Navy, Naval Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia (Navy),as the first step of a two-step advertised procurement.The RFTP solicited technical proposals for inverted coneantennas, type I and type II (which differ in their fre-quency range characteristic), with related first articletest reports, interim repair parts and technical data.

Three firms on or before the March 10, 1978,closing date submitted proposals in response to theRFTP: go y

a. Technology for Communications International(TCI)

b. Antenna Products Division, DHV, Inc. (DHV)

c. Granger Products (Granger)

An evaluation of the proposals was conducted on April 5,1978, which resulted in the determination that the TCIand DHV proposals were deemed "acceptable" while theGranger proposal was initially viewed as being "suscep-tible of being made acceptable." The latter determina-tion was changed to "unacceptable".and is not an issuein the protest. The evaluation team, notwithstandingits "acceptable" ratings for TCI and DHV, had severalunresolved technical questions pertaining to both pro-posals. However, it was the team's opinion that answersto the questions were not required.

Subsequently, the second step of the procurementwas issued on May 8, 1978, to TCI and DHV. At bid open-ing, May 26, 1978, one bid from each company was readand recorded which resulted in an inquiry by DHV as towhy its alternate bid was not read and recorded. Navyresponded that it was unaware of an alternate proposal.

DHV's bid contained two pages numbered 12, thefirst labeled "ALTERNATE I (WOOD POLE SUPPORTS)" andthe second "ALTERNATE II (HOT DIPPED GALV. STEEL SUPPORTSTRUCTURE)." Also, there had been included in DHV'sfirst step technical proposal a paragraph numbered 2.3.5,entitled '!ALTERNATE SUPPORT," which referred to a drawingsetting forth the Alternate II support approach. Theparagraph provided:

B-192193 3

"During the preparation of thisproposal, it became obvious that itwould be extremely costly to ship woodenpoles to some parts of the World. Notonly do the poles require extra lengthcontainers, but also the poles are heavyand bulky. Therefore, it was felt thatan alternate support for the antennaconsisting of 10 foot sections of steeltower would be appropriate. The 10 footsections of tower are insulated to pre-vent pattern distortion.

"Figure 2-21, sheet 5 shows thealternate support. It is envisionedthat it might be desirable to have bothsupports available and the Naval SupplyCenter could designate a support for aparticular location."

Shortly after TCI reviewed DHV's second step bid,it filed with the Navy a protest that DHV's alternateproposal for steel towers was nonresponsive. Navyawarded the contract to TCI.

DHV filed a protest with our Office on June 20,1978, questioning the award of the contract to TCI.DHV contended that both of its first step proposalswere "fully accepted without qualification" by theNavy and that, since its bid on alternate II was theapparent low bid, TCI's contract should be canceledand the award made to DHV.

In addition, DHV objected to the Navy's August 2,1978, telex which requested information to enable Navyto conduct what DHV characterized as a "technical re-evaluation" of the procurement. DHV argued that, becauseit was-initiated after award, it "representfed] a blatantattempt by [Navy] to cover an obvious irregularity inprocurement practices." The Navy telex provided:

"1. YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMITTED INRESPONSE TO REF (A) HAS BEEN EVALUATED INACCORDANCE WITH THE CRITERIA SET FORTH INSECTIONS C AND D OF THE SOLICITATION (STEPONE). THIS EVALUATION HAS RESULTED IN THE

B-192193 4

DETERMINATION THAT YOUR FIRM SHOULD FURNISHA REVISION TO YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSALADDRESSING THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCIES:"A. FAILURE TO FURNISH ECONOMIC TRADE-OFFS FOR INSTALLATION TOLERANCES AS WELL ASFAILURE TO COMMENT ON HOW THE ANTENNAPERFORMACE WILL BE AFFECTED IN RELATION TOTHE GRADING CRITERIA OF PLUS 3 FEET and 3DEGREES."B. COMPUTER DATA FAILED TO INCLUDEGUY WIRE IN ITS ANALYSIS."C. FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE HOW ANTENNAPERFORMANCE IS AFFECTED BY INSTALLATIONTOLERANCES."D. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SCHEDULING ORWORK FLOW SEQUENCE."E. FAILURE TO INDICATE POLE STEPS ONTHE INSTALLATION DRAWINGS. CATENARYAND LATERAL CROSS BRACING GUY ATTACH-MENTS TO WOODEN POLES ARE QUESTIONABLEIN AREAS OF TWIST, SLIPPAGE, AND RELI-ABILITY. WILL THESE ATTACHMENTS WITH-STAND 160 MPH WINDS? IF SLIPPAGE OCCURS,WHAT HAPPENS TO THE GALVANIZING BETWEENTHE TWO GALVANIZED RINGS? WHAT TYPE OFSEALANT PROTECTS THE JUNCTION FROM COR-ROSION? THE POLE EMBEDMENT DEPTH FOR160 MPH WIND IS QUESTIONABLE."F. MORE PICTORIAL DATA IS NEEDED TOCLARIFY NODE AND MEMBER NUMBERS FOR ABETTER UNDERSTANDING OF COMPUTER DATA.THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS DID NOT INCLUDEGUY WIRES AND GROUND SCREEN."G. YOUR SUGGESTION TO USE METAL TOWERSVERSUS WOODEN POLES WAS SUPPORTED ONLYIN REGARD TO SHIPPING EASE. REQUEST YOUSUBMIT ALL DATA REQUIRED IN SECTION C OFTHE RFTP TO FACILITATE EVALUATION OF YOURPROPOSAL ASSUMING METAL POLES ARE USED ASTHE ALTERNATE SUPPORT METHOD.

"2. PLEASE ADVISE IF CIRCUMSTANCES WILLPREVENT YOUR SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION BY15 AUGUST 1978."

B-192193 5

DHV refused to respond to Navy's telex because DHV wasunder the impression that "[the] questions were askedonly for the purpose of attempting to discredit DHVafter prices were revealed in Step Two." Also, DHVstated that there was "no indication that step twoha[d] been cancelled or step one reopened." Further,DHV argued that the Navy, even after being advised thatDHV believed that the answering of the aforementionedquestions was an academic exercise, would only offerDHV the "reassurance that this would result in a fairevaluation" and the information that a stop work orderwas being negotiated with TCI. DHV's refusal to re-spond was also based on its belief that 5 man-hour weekswould be required for a complete response. However,a later clarification (November 2, 1978) revealed thatDHV could have responded to the aforementioned questionswith respect to alternate II "in a matter of hours."

Finally, DHV advised that through counsel it fileda Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(1976), request which resulted in DHV protesting thatTCI's proposal was nonconforming to the RFTP. It isDHV's position that "TCI merely submitted its broadbandmonopole [antenna] configuration under the name of an'inverted cone' in an effort to gain acceptance of itsless costly nonconforming configuration." DHV contendsthat the issue, even though first raised on October 18,1978, is timely.

A conference was held at our Office on November 2,1978, during which the grounds for protest were clarifiedand set forth as follows:

(1) Is DHV's protest concerning the technicalacceptability of TCI's proposal timely filedwith GAO?

(2) Was TCI's proposal technically acceptable?

(3) Were the Navy's actions in the instantprocurement improper and/or prejudicial towardsDHV?

B-192193 6

Timeliness

It is TCI's position that the protest concerningthe technical acceptability of TCI's proposal is un-timely. TCI contends that the question before us is not"whether or not the [additional grounds of] protest hadbeen filed within ten days of [receipt of the FOIAinformation]," but "whether a protestant can delay forwell over a month (possibly over 2 months) requestinginformation which might provide him with a basis forprotest and, thereafter, claim his protest is timelyfiled because it was filed within ten days after hereceived the requested information."

In our view, DHV was timely in filing the protestagainst TCI's acceptability. As TCI has observed, theprotest was filed within 10 days after DHV received theinformation it requested under the FOIA. See 4 C.F.R.§ 20.2(2) (1978). The question is whether DHV wasdiligent in initiating its request under the FOIA. Inthat regard, we note that DHV's original protest wasthat it was entitled to award as the low bidder. As aresult of that protest, a stop work order was issuedagainst TCI. DHV would not furnish the Navy with theinformation it requested while the stop order was out-standing because it believed that as low bidder it wasentitled to an award without it. Not until the stoporder was rescinded was its claim as low bidder effec-tively denied. Up until that time, there was a possi-bility that TCI's performance would not'be reinstated.When it was reinstated, the acceptability of the higherbid of TCI became relevant.

We know that a notice of the rescission of the stoporder was issued to TCI on August 29,,1978, and that bySeptember 13, 1978, DHV had initiated the FOIA requestto the Navy. We do not know whether the rescissionnotice was communicated to DHV on August 29, 1978, orwhether DHV made the FOIA request before September 13,1978. No one has contended that DHV did not act promptlyto obtain the information on the acceptability of TCI'sproposal once the stop order was revoked. Moreover, bythe Navy's reconsideration of DHV's alternate proposalthere was, in effect, a reopening of the Step 1 negotia-tions. Accordingly, it would have been inappropriatefor the Navy to have released TCI's technical proposalto DHV had DHV made such a request at that time. See

B-192193 7

DAR § 3-507.2 (1976 ed.). Therefore, we will considerthe protest to have been diligently pursued.

Technical Acceptability

Section C 53 of the RFTP. provided in pertinentpart:

"2. The data requested in the followingparagraphs are required to enable formula-tion of a computer model of the antennadesign submitted in response to a Requestfor Technical Proposal (RFTP). These datawill be used to construct a computer modelfrom which the proposed antenna performancecharacteristics can be calculated as a func-tion of the specified operating frequencyrange. Results of the computer model com-putations, together with other informationsubmitted under the RFTP, will provide the basisfor evaluation of the proposal. Data isrequired as follows and is to be provided intabular form:

'(a) * * * The components shall includebut not necessarily be be limited to thefollowing types:

M(1) Intentional radiating elements(e.g., wires, tubes, surfaces, towers)

"(2) Support structure componentsincluding conducting elements, such astowers, guy wires, tubes, surfaces; andany non-conducting structure used tosupport the antenna, (e.g., guys, poles).

"(3) Transmission lines, either openwire or coaxial, which are internal to theantenna, or without which the antenna willnot provide the desired performance.

"(4) Insulators

"(5) Ground screens (wire or other)

B-192193 8

"(6) Lumped constants either R, L,or C; including those used for impedancematching at the feed point."

Paragraph 2 of RFTP section F set forth theperformance specifications as follows:

"2.1 A complete antenna, exclusive onlyof concrete and reinforcing rods shallbe supplied in kit form for Governmentinstallation. It shall include, but notbe limited to tower(s), pole(s), arraycurtain, guys, anchors, ground radials,matching unit, connectors, and miscella-neous hardware as necessary to providethe following characteristics:

'Configuration: Inverted cone

"Frequency Range: Type I: 2 MHz to30 MHz, minimum

Type II: 2.5 MHz to30 MHz, minimum

* * ***

"Azimuth Pattern Omnidirectional with+ 1 db

"Ground System A minimum of 60 radials,each 110 feet or longer,consisting of #10 AWGsoft or medium drawncopper wire.

"Wind Load Capability 160 MPH (minimum)(Per RS-222A)

"Guys Metallic

"Insulator Material Ceramic

"Poles Per all paragraphsof MIL-A-28766 with

B-192193 9

Amendment #1, exceptfor paragraph 3.2.6.Poles shall bedesigned for embed-ment in concrete,lateral cross bracingshall be suppliedbetween the tops andbases of all adjacentpoles. The preserva-tive shall be Ammon-iacal Copper Arsenate*(ACA) as specified inAWPA P-5, in lieu ofcreosote Wooden polesshall not be spliced

".*SUBJECT TO CHANGE"

DHV contends that in order for an antenna config-uration to be called an inverted cone antenna its apexand ground plane must be at the bottom and it must besupported by six poles on its perimeter with no supportstructure above the horizontal plane above the poles.DHV explains:

"In the 1960's there were two basictypes of broadband omnidirectionalantennas used for HF [high frequency]communications. These were classi-cally called the inverted cone antenna[Figure 11, which was supported by sixpoles on the perimeter, and the conicalmonopole antenna [Figure 21, which wassupported by a single center supportpole. In the 1970's, as the state ofthe art of antenna design has improved,manufacturers have extrapolated fromthose basic antenna configurations tosatisfy the requirements of differentcustomers. These new configurationshave taken on their own generic namessuch as monocone antenna [Figure 3]and the broadband monopole antenna[Figure 41."

B-192193 10

£t \:20 ma\' ' '?

INVERTED CONE CONICAL MONOPOLE

FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2

At 7< f$S __ /

K /~~~~~~~~ 1

MONO CONE BROADBAND MONOPOLE

FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4

B-192193 11

DHV contends that TCI's proposal is technically unac-ceptable because it does not conform to an inverted coneantenna configuration.

At the conference, the Navy, through its technicalexpert, advised that there was "no true definition ofan inverted cone antenna and thus, no hard and fastdivision between the different types of antennas."Further, the Navy advised that "its anticipation wasthe traditional 6 pole inverted cone antenna," asdescribed by DHV above. But, the Navy continued toexplain that this would not preclude the acceptance ofa nontraditional inverted cone antenna.

We note that the descriptive terms utilized byvarious companies in the industry appear to describetheir antennas as a combination of configurationswith no real consistency among them. For example,Granger has a "Model 794 Series, Monocone Vertically-Polarized Antenna" which DHV would characterize as aninverted cone antenna, but Granger also has a Model 1794Series, with which it uses the same descriptive terms,that has a single central tower. Apparently, the onlydifference is the support structure since Granger'sliterature states Series 1794 has the "[slame electricalproperties as Series 794." Another example is the HyGainCommunications Systems (HyGain) "Vertically PolarizedMonocone Antennas" which HyGain describes as an invertedcone antenna. The picture shows this antenna as onehaving a single central tower as part of its supportstructure.

TCI has a Model 505 antenna which it calls an"Inverted Cone Broadcast Antenna" which has the 6 polesas DHV contends it must. In addition, TCI has Model 550[Figure 5], called a "Single Tower Inverted Cone Antenna,"which is the antenna in question here and which its lit-erature states is "similar to the widely used [Model]505, except that it has only a single, central, metallictower instead of six wooden spars or poles." We areadvised that Model 550 was included in TCI's 1977 GeneralServices Administration Federal Supply Schedule price listand was described as a single tower, inverted cone antenna.Accordingly, DHV's suggestion that TCI's literature onModel 550 was prepared only with the instant procurementin mind need not be given any further attention by ourOffice.

B-192193 12

TC1 Single Tower Inverted Cone Antenna

FIGURE 5

B-192193 13

The Navy's evaluation team considered TCI's proposalacceptable. However, in August 1978, the Navy requestedadditional information from TCI. While TCI acceded tothe Navy's request, its response was basically that allthe information requested was e-ither not required by theRFTP, was provided in the proposal or will be providedas part of contract performance. The Navy reviewed TCI'sresponse and, after substantially agreeing with it, con-cluded that TCI's proposal and response were "acceptableas submitted."

DHV argues that TCI's technical proposal was notin compliance with the performance specifications in theRFTP and, therefore, when the Navy decided to accept theTCI configuration it should have provided all offerorswith an opportunity to submit proposals on the same basis.It is DHV's position that in order to be in compliancewith the performance specifications the antenna proposedhad to be supported by poles, since that is specifiedin paragraph 2.1, see above. Although poles are listedunder the antenna characteristics, the listing ispreceded by the statement that the antenna kits "shallinclude, but not be limited to tower(s), pole(s), * * *as necessary" which would lend the specification to aninterpretation that tower(s) was a viable alternative andthat the inclusion of "poles" under the characteristicssection was not to preclude antennas without poles, butfor the purpose of setting forth how poles, if used,should be designed, braced and preserved. Accordingly,we find that TCI's offer of a tower configuration waswithin the terms of the specification and, therefore,in compliance and that all offerors had the same oppor-tunity to make a similar offer under the specification.

Navy's Actions - Improper/Prejudicial ?

DHV has taken the position that the instant pro-curement contains numerous irregularities and that theNavy's attempt to correct them was nothing more than an"administrative sham." DHV believes Navy's failure torecognize both of DHV's proposals pursuant to the RFTPand its failure to accept both of DHV's bids pursuantto step two must result in the cancellation of the con-tract awarded to TCI and the reopening of step one.

B-192193 14

DHV, in support of its position, cites an August1978 intraoffice memo (Naval Supply Systems Command(NAVSUP), Washington, D. C., to Naval Supply Center(NSC), Norfolk, Virginia) which stated in pertinentpart:

"1. * * * NAVSUP in reviewing the NSCadministrative report to GAO recognizedthat corrective action was requiredprior to forwarding to GAO. * * *

"2. Review of the tech portion of thisprocurement indicates Step One was nevercompleted. * * * The KO did not recognizethat DHV had offered an alternate techproposal as well as a conforming proposal.The KO was also not aware that TCI submittedonly an alternate tech proposal, offeringmetal vice wood towers. * * *

"3 . Protest report of KO represents anaward of the contract which is notdefensible before GAO.

"4. In order to preclude cancellationof the procurement which would result indelays to the antenna program at Guam,NAVSUP advised NSC to reopen discussionson step one to cure the deficiencies inboth TCI and DHV proposals. * * *"

DHV contends that Navy's actions were directed toward"sendfing] a defensible report to GAO, not to ensurea fair and equitable competition between the bidders."Also, DHV states that it was neither advised of anyindication to return to step one nor that, if it cor-rected the alleged deficiencies under step one, itwould lead to a submission of bids under a new step twoand possibly an award to DHV. Further, DHV contendsthat it received "no assurance whatsoever about thecourse of action which the Navy intended to pursue."With respect to the alleged lack of assurances, DHVstated:

B-192193 15

"Without these assurances, correctionof the 'deficiencies' in its primaryproposal for wood poles was a uselessact because the proposal was alreadyhigher than TCI's regardless of whetherthe 'infirmities' were corrected. Withregard to Antenna Products' metal poleproposal, the company had no way ofknowing what treatment it would subse-quently receive even if the discrepancieswere corrected."

The Navy's position is that "DHV did not makeclear in their technical proposal that an alternateproposal was being offered." Initially, the Navy viewedDHV's alternate II as nothing more than a suggestion.The Navy states that had the contracting officer recog-nized alternate II as an alternate proposal during stepone, it is probable that it would not have been deemedacceptable under Defense Acquisition Regulation (DAR)§ 2-503.1(e) (1978), since DHV did not provide datawhich would have enabled the Government to evaluate thetechnical feasibility of substituting metal poles forwood poles around the perimeter of the antenna config-uration. On the other hand, the Navy submits that TCI,even though its proposal included the use of metal whichwas for a single metal tower in the center of the antennaconfiguration, did provide sufficient technical data toevaluate the acceptability of the proposal.

In addition, the Navy, in its report dated Octo-ber 11, 1978, presents the following discussion explain-ing the Navy's actions once it became aware that DHV hadintended to submit two proposals:

"At the end of Step 2, when it wasfirst discovered that DHV had intendedtheir suggestion as an alternate proposal,the alternatives facing the ContractingOfficer were to cancel the IFB and resolicitStep 1 or to award to the low bidder who hadsubmitted an acceptable technical proposal.In selecting the second alternative, theContracting Officer considered the impact onthe bidders of resoliciting after bid priceshad been exposed and the impact in terms ofcost and delay on this critical Navy project.

B-192193 16

This decision was made after considerablediscussion with the technical personnel,experienced contracting personnel in theRegional Procurement Department and NSCNorfolk legal counsel.

"Upon review of the subject protest,the Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP)recommended that NSC Norfolk reopen dis-cussions on step one of this two-step for-mally advertised procurement to resolvedeficiencies in technical proposals ofboth DHV and TCI. Additionally, it wasrecommended that a stop-work order benegotiated with TCI pending the outcome ofdiscussions.

"TCI and DHV were requested * * * tosubmit by 15 August 1978 answers to unre-solved technical questions raised in theevaluation of technical proposals. A stop-work order was incorporated into the contract

"TCI provided a response to thetechnical questions * * *, which wasforwarded to Naval Electronics EngineeringCenter (NAVELEXENGCEN) Portsmouth forevaluation. [The response and results ofevaluation are referred to above.]

"DHV did not respond to the technicalquestions by 15 August 1978. The Contract-ing Officer contacted DHV by telephone on17 August 1978 to determine whether DHVintended to respond and advised DHV that aresponse was necessary by 21 August 1978.* * * DHV did not respond on 21 August 1978.On 22 August 1978, DHV was again contactedto determine whether a response had beensubmitted but not received by NSC Norfolk.DHV advised that the company did not intendto respond * *

"Due to DHV's refusal to furnish therequested technical information, the Con-tracting Officer was unable to complete the

B-192193 17

evaluation of DHV's alternate proposal andtherefore determined that DHV's alternateproposal must be rejected as technicallyunacceptable. The Contracting Officer con-cluded that award of the contract should bemade to the low responsive responsible offeror(TCI) and rescinded the stop-work order * *.

"DHV alleges * * * that NSC Norfolk wasattempting to discredit DHV's proposal in aneffort to 'cover an obvious irregularity inprocurement practices.' The ContractingOfficer attempted to convince DHV in alldiscussions that the action being taken byNSC Norfolk was a good-faith effort to resolvethe protest. DHV was advised that the stop-work order issued to TCI was evidence of ourintentions to resolve the protest, and actionbeing taken was not simply to rationalize theaward to TCI. DHV insisted on some assurancethat the contract with TCI would be cancelledand awarded to DHV. The Contracting Officercould not give that assurance since it couldnot be predicted that DHV's alternateproposal would be acceptable and thatDHV would be entitled to award."

From our review of the record, it appears thatafter DHV protested, the Navy became aware that it hadnot paid proper attention to DHV's first step alternateproposal and that it attempted to correct the situationby providing DHV with an opportunity to furnish theadditional information deemed necessary to make theproposal acceptable. On the latter point, DHV has fur-nished no evidence that the Navy had any other intention.Only because DHV refused to furnish the requested infor-mation to make the proposal acceptable did the Navy re-voke the stop order issued and proceed with the awardorignally made. By not taking advantage of the oppor-tunity the Navy offered, DHV essentially precludeditself from corrective action. In the circumstances,it would appear that DHV was prejudiced by its decisionnot to furnish the information rather than by the actionof the Navy.

B-192193 18

Regarding DHV's claim for an unspecified amount forproposal preparation costs, the courts and our Officehave allowed recovery of bid or proposal preparationcosts where the Government acted arbitrarily or capri-ciously with respect to a claimant's bid or proposal.Condur Aerospace Corporation--Claim for Proposal Prep-aration Costs, B-187347, July 14, 1977, 77-2 CPD 24;National Construction Company, B-185148, March 23,1976, 76-1 CPD 192. However, Government action, tobe arbitrary or capricious, must result from somethingmore than "ordinary" or "mere" negligence. GrotonPiping Corporation and Thames Electric Company (jointventure) - Claim for Bid Preparation Costs, B-185755,June 3, 1977, 77-1 CPD 389; Morgan Business Associates,B-188387, May 16, 1977, 77-1 CPD 344. Moreover, pro-posal preparation costs may not be recovered unless itis reasonably certain that the disappointed offerorwould have received the award had it not been for thecomplaint of Government action. International FinanceEconomics, B-186939, October 25, 1977, 77-2 CPD 320;Morgan Business Associates, supra,

Based upon our review of DHV's alternate proposals(alternate I was priced higher than TCI's proposal;alternate II, while priced lower than TCI's proposal,lacked the technical data necessary to make a determina-tion concerning whether or not it was technically accept-able), we cannot conclude that, absent Navy's mistake inthe conduct of the procurement, it was reasonably certainthat DHV would have received the award. Therefore, wefind no basis for allowing DHV's claim.

Accordingly, the protest and the claim for proposalpreparation costs are denied.

Deputy Comptroller eneralof the United States