DynaLantic Corporation, B-274944.5, August 25, 1997

B-274944.5 Aug 25, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested the Navy's revised solicitation, made as a result of its sustained contract award protest, for ship handling simulation services, contending that the Navy's removal of the original 35-percent maximum price premium provision, the incorporation of a present value evaluation factor, and the addition of a funding profile provision improperly favored the original awardee. GAO held that: (1) the challenged revisions reflected reasonable procurement practices; and (2) any possible competitive advantage enjoyed by the original awardee was mitigated by the protester's opportunity to submit a revised proposal responding to the revised terms. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: DynaLantic Corporation File: B-274944.5 Date: August 25, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION DynaLantic Corporation protests several of the Navy's revisions to request for proposals (RFP) No. N00600-96-R-0749, issued for ship handling simulation services. The Navy made the revisions as a result of implementing our corrective action recommendation in DynaLantic Corp., B-274944.2, Feb. 25, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 101. In that decision, our Office sustained DynaLantic's protest that its proposal had been improperly excluded from the competitive range and recommended that the Navy conduct discussions with DynaLantic and solicit best and final offers (BAFO) from both DynaLantic and Marine Safety International (MSI), the only other offeror. In its current protest, DynaLantic contends that the Navy's removal of the original RFP's 35-percent maximum price premium provision, the incorporation of a present value evaluation factor, and the addition of a funding profile provision improperly favor--and thus preserve the original contract award to--MSI, in contravention of our prior decision's recommended corrective action. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The original RFP was issued on February 7, 1996, and contemplated the award of an indefinite quantity fixed-price contract for a base year and 9 option years to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the government. The solicitation called for the contractor to perform essentially four tasks: (1) construct a facility to house the ship handling simulator complex on government-owned property within 9 months of award, (2) install and configure the simulator equipment and training stations, (3) provide all personnel and technical services necessary to run the ship handling simulator complex for a period of up to 10 years, and (4) "upon completion or termination of the contract [be] responsible for the removal of the building and restoration of the grounds to original condition at no additional cost to the government." The solicitation required offerors to submit both technical and price proposals. Technical proposals were to be organized according to the following evaluation factors, which were listed in the RFP in descending order of importance: Technical Approach; Personnel; and Management Plan. For their price proposals, offerors were directed to complete and submit the fixed-price schedule set forth at section B of the RFP which required unit prices for estimated quantities of 3,360, 4,300, and 5,000 hours per contract year. Of significance to DynaLantic's current challenge, the RFP required offerors to propose one comprehensive hourly rate for performing any hour of required service; no separate contract line items were included for nonrecurring costs such as building construction or equipment expenses. The original RFP also contained a maximum price premium provision which provided, in relevant part: The Government may elect to pay a price premium of up to approximately 35 [percent] to select an Offeror whose non-cost/price evaluation factors (e.g. technical . . .) are superior. Only two offerors--DynaLantic and MSI--submitted proposals. After evaluating DynaLantic's technical proposal as unacceptable, the Navy excluded it from the competitive range and awarded the contract to MSI-- whose technical proposal was rated outstanding. On October 7, 1996, DynaLantic filed a protest in this Office challenging the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range on the ground that the Navy had improperly evaluated the proposal as technically unacceptable. By decision dated February 25, 1997, we sustained DynaLantic's protest and recommended that "discussions be held with DynaLantic" and BAFOs "solicited from both competitors and evaluated by a new TEP [Technical Evaluation Panel]." [1] On March 17, the Navy convened a new TEP, which conducted a fresh evaluation of both DynaLantic's and MSI's initial proposals; from May 2 until May 9, written and oral discussions were conducted with both offerors.