United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Glatz Aeronautical Corporation 

File: B-405851; B-405851.2 

Date: January 6, 2012 

Jeffrey D. Glatz for the protester. 

Michael Kraycinovich, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. 

Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester’s challenge to agency’s decision not to fund protester’s proposal under 

phase I of a solicitation issued pursuant to the Department of Defense Small 

Business Innovation Research program is denied where, consistent with the 

solicitation’s criteria, the agency reasonably determined that the protester’s proposal 

was ranked 18th of 20 proposals.

DECISION

Glatz Aeronautical Corporation protests the decision of the Department of the Army 

not to fund Glatz’s Phase I proposal under Department of Defense (DOD) Small 

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program solicitation No. FY11.2. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND

The SBIR program is designed to increase the participation of small business 

concerns in federally funded research or research and development (R&D). See

Small Business Innovation Research Program Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. § 638 (2006). 

Pursuant to this authority, federal agencies (such as the Army) with R&D 

“extramural” budgets in excess of $100 million are required to provide a program 

under which a portion of the agency’s research or R&D effort is reserved for award 

to small business concerns through a three-phased process. See 15 U.S.C. 

§ 638(e)(4), (f). Under phase I, small businesses are invited to submit proposals to 

conduct research on one or more topics specified in the annual SBIR program 

solicitation. Under phase II, firms that received phase I awards may, on their own 
Page 2 B-405851; B-405851.2 

initiative, submit proposals for further development work on the topic. Phase III 

contemplates that, unlike phases I and II, non-SBIR funds will be used to pursue 

commercial applications of the R&D. See Kolaka No ` eau, Inc., B-291818, Apr. 2, 

2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 67 at 2-3; http://www.acq.osd.mil/sadbu/sbir/overview/index.htm. 

The Army issued the solicitation in April 2011, seeking phase I proposals for multiple 

topics, including Army Topic A11-071, “Fail Safe Adaptive Energy Absorber for 

Helicopter Crash Safety Seating Systems.” The topic sought the development of “a 

fail-safe adaptive energy absorber (FSAEA), with an intelligent adaptive load-stroke 

profile and vibration reduction, to reduce occupant fatigue during normal flight, as 

well as ensure that lumbar loads and occupant accelerations are adequately 

attenuated in a high sink rate crash landing.” Offerors were informed that the Army 

was aggressively pursuing a novel, adaptive crash safety technology for a range of 

helicopter applications with the intention of minimizing the probability of injury to 

crew when a helicopter is falling at rates as high as 50 feet/second. 

The solicitation instructed offerors to design an absorber capable of providing 

fail-safe energy attenuation for a “stroking” seat crash protection system. 

Agency Report (AR), Tab 4-2, Proposal Submission Instructions, at Army, at 14. 

Offerors were informed that the agency would “select for award those proposals 

offering the best value” to the government, considering the following factors, in 

descending order or importance: (1) technical merit and innovation of the proposed 

approach and its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution; 

(2) qualifications of the proposed principal/key investigators, supporting staff, and 

consultants; and (3) the potential for commercial application and the benefits 

expected to accrue from this commercialization. Solicitation at 17-18. 

The Army received 20 phase-I proposals under this topic, including Glatz’s, which 

were evaluated under a two-tier process. Under tier 1, a technical evaluation team 

(TET), comprised of Army scientists and technologists, and a team chief, conducted 

a scientific review process and technical assessment of proposals.1

 The TET would 

forward those proposals deemed best to the technical area chief for the tier 2 

evaluation, under which a source selection evaluation board (SSEB) would review

and validate the tier 1 recommendations and provide analysis and recommendations 

to the source selection authority.2

 

1

The Army’s SBIR Source Selection Plan provides that TET members would evaluate 

proposals solely under the factors identified in the solicitation, and not against other 

proposals under the topic. 

 AR at 2-3; AR, Tab 5, SBIR Source Selection Plan, 

at 25-26. 

2

 Of the 20 proposals received here, only 2 proposals (not Glatz’s) were 

recommended for tier 2 review. Ultimately, only 1 proposal was recommended to 

receive SBIR funding. AR, Tab 8, Funding Recommendation. 
Page 3 B-405851; B-405851.2 

Glatz proposed to develop a “Level-of-Threat Energy-Attenuator,” which it stated 

was based on a solenoid-controlled linear brake (SCLB) previously developed by 

Glatz. Although the TET identified some strengths in Glatz’s proposal, it identified a 

number of weaknesses under each evaluation factor. For example, under the first 

factor (technical merit and innovation), the TET stated that they could not evaluate 

Glatz’s capability to meet the program objectives, because Glatz failed to clearly 

explain or describe the SCLB upon which Glatz’s approach was based. The TET also 

expressed concern that Glatz’s reference in its proposal to using off-the-shelf 

components indicated that these components may require modification, and the TET 

questioned whether the components could accurately be considered off-the-shelf. 

AR, Tab 7, Proposal Evaluation, at 2. One evaluator noted as a concern that Glatz 

was proposing to use multiple SCLBs to generate sufficient force, which the 

evaluator viewed would require extra parts, increasing system weight and 

complexity, and reducing reliability. 

Under the second factor (qualifications of proposed personnel), the TET found that 

Glatz had not demonstrated extensive experience in the development of closed loop 

control systems and microelectronics, or in making the transition from research to 

development. The TET also questioned Glatz’s expertise in designing a controller, 

and noted that Glatz had not demonstrated strength in the field of product modeling, 

computer assisted design, or fabrication capabilities. Id. at 2-3. 

Under the third factor (potential for commercial application), the evaluators found, 

for example, that Glatz had not provided specific details about bringing a product 

developed under this topic to market, nor had it demonstrated experience in 

transition of research to production, or identified potential partners for 

manufacturing. Id.

The TET assigned Glatz’s proposal an average numerical score of 36 of 100 possible 

points and ranked the proposal 18th of the 20 proposals received under this topic. 

The TET did not recommend the protester’s proposal for further review under tier 2. 

AR, Tab 7, Proposal Evaluation; Tab 8, Funding Recommendation, at 1. The SSEB 

concurred with the TET’s recommendation to not further consider Glatz’s proposal 

for funding. 

Following a debriefing, Glatz protested to our Office.

DISCUSSION

Glatz challenges the evaluation of its proposal, arguing that it was unreasonable and 

inconsistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. In addition, Glatz complains 

that the Army improperly conducted a “peer or scientific review” rather than a “best 

value” evaluation. 
Page 4 B-405851; B-405851.2 

In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not our role to 

reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the record to determine whether 

the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord with the evaluation criteria. 

Abt Assocs. Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 223 at 4. The protester’s 

disagreement with the agency’s judgment does not establish that an evaluation was 

unreasonable. UNICCO Gov’t Servs., Inc., B-277658, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD ¶ 134 

at 7. Moreover, an agency is accorded considerable discretion to determine which 

proposals will be funded under an SBIR procurement. Kolaka No ` eau, Inc., supra, 

at 5-6. 

The record here shows that the agency’s evaluation of Glatz’s proposal was 

consistent with the evaluation criteria and reasonable. Although Glatz disagrees 

with the agency’s evaluation judgments regarding its proposal, the protester does not 

show the agency’s judgment to be unreasonable concerning the merits of Glatz’s 

proposal. We have considered all of Glatz’s arguments and, while we do not discuss 

each of them here, we find that none provides a basis to object to the Army’s 

determination not to select Glatz’s proposal for award of a phase-I SBIR contract. 

For example, Glatz disagrees with the agency’s evaluated concern under the first 

factor (soundness, technical merit, and innovation of the proposed approach) that 

Glatz’s proposed use of multiple SCLBs increased complexity and weight, and 

reduced reliability. Although Glatz now argues that the “extra” SCLBs were 

redundant components that could be removed during phase II if the Army did not

want them, this does not appear consistent with its proposal. Rather, its proposal 

states that the use of multiple SCLBs is a result of the need to “scale” the original 

SCLB for use on a crashworthy seat, and “[s]ince there aren’t solenoids large enough 

to use just one,” it is necessary to use multiple units. See Protester’s Proposal at 13. 

In any event, Glatz’s argument reflects nothing more than disagreement with the 

agency’s judgment, which does not show that the agency’s concern was 

unreasonable. 

As another example, Glatz objects to the agency’s judgment under factor 3 (potential 

for commercial application) that Glatz did not present any evidence of potential 

partners for manufacturing, and that Glatz’s proposed commercialization strategy 

lacked specific details about bringing a product developed under this topic to 

market. 3

 Protest at 15. Glatz contends that its proposal showed that the firm had 

successfully demonstrated a “supply-chain” approach which “explicitly identifies 

manufacturing,” and argues that this is “evidence of potential partners.” Id.

 

3

 Glatz also argues that this evaluation factor did not encompass the Army’s 

evaluated weakness. We disagree. The solicitation provides at Section 4.4 that the 

assessment of a proposal’s commercial potential will include considering any 

commitments of additional investment in the technology during phase II. See

Solicitation at 18-19. 

 In 
Page 5 B-405851; B-405851.2 

support of this contention, Glatz refers to a Company Commercialization Report in 

its proposal and asserts that it shows Glatz’s commercializing of prior SBIR and 

Small Business Technology Transfer projects. This report indicates, however, that 

the firm received no phase-II awards and does not demonstrate a commercialization 

track record. Protester’s Proposal at 22. Glatz’s disagreement with the agency’s 

judgment does not demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable. 

Glatz also contends that the agency failed to evaluate which proposals reflected the 

best value to the agency, complaining that the agency failed to compare the 

competing proposals against each other. See, e.g., Supp. Protest at 2, 5. This 

argument is without merit. The Army evaluated the merits of each proposal in 

accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation scheme, assigning point scores 

(supported by narrative discussions) under each evaluation factor. Based upon the 

assigned point scores, and assessed strengths and weaknesses, two proposals were 

selected for further review under tier 2 and one was ultimately selected to receive 

funding. This was wholly consistent with the evaluation criteria stated in the 

solicitation for determining which SBIR proposal or proposals would be selected for 

funding.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel