Oceaneering International, Inc., B-278126; B-278126.2,

Oceaneering International, Inc., B-278126; B-278126.2, BNUMBER: B-278126; B-278126.2 DATE: December 31, 1997 TITLE: Oceaneering International, Inc., B-278126; B-278126.2, December 31, 1997 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Oceaneering International, Inc. File: B-278126; B-278126.2 Date:December 31, 1997 Daniel J. Riley, Esq., and Stan Hinton, Esq., Baker & Botts, for the protester. Buel White, Esq., and Brian Cohen, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, for Phoenix Marine, Inc., an intervenor. Veronica Murtha, Esq., and James Menapace, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly evaluated technical proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors; protester's mere disagreement with the agency's conclusion does not render the evaluation unreasonable. 2. Allegation that awardee should have been disqualified as nonresponsible for failure to demonstrate possession of a specific line of credit is dismissed where the requirement for financial capability at issue is not set forth in the form of a definitive responsibility criterion. DECISION Oceaneering International, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Phoenix Marine, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-97-R-4025(Q) issued by the Department of the Navy's Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) for world-wide diving and diving-related services. Oceaneering challenges the agency's evaluation of technical proposals and argues that Phoenix Marine did not comply with a definitive responsibility criterion.[1] We deny the protest. The RFP, issued via the Internet on October 18, 1996, contemplated the award of a combination cost and fixed-price/indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery contract for various diving-related services, including underwater maintenance on ships' hulls and structures, dry- and wet-welding, and salvage assistance. All services will be performed in response to task orders issued on a per-diem cost plus award fee basis (for operational services, including emergency or field operations) or a firm, fixed-price basis (for non-operational services not requiring field deployment). The RFP called for the submission of separate technical and cost proposals and advised that technical considerations were more important than cost. The RFP provided that award would be made, without discussions, to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, was determined to be most advantageous to the government. The evaluation factors and subfactors and the weight of each factor or subfactor are listed below: 1. Personnel 33 percent 2. Quality Assurance Plan and Procedures27 percent a. Quality Assurance Plan 8 percent b. Welding and NDT Procedures[2]7 percent c. Welding Certification Plan6 percent d. NDT Personnel Certification6 percent 3. Corporate: Past Performance, Organization, Management 27 percent a. Past Performance 17 percent b. Organization 6 percent c. Management 4 percent 4. Equipment and Facilities 13 percent a. Equipment 9 percent b. Shore-based Support Facilities 4 percent Two proposals, Oceaneering's and Phoenix Marine's, were received by the January 24 closing date.[3] The proposals were reviewed individually by each of the three members of the technical evaluation review panel (TERP).[4] The evaluators rated each factor and subfactor using adjectival ratings and corresponding point values on a scale of 0 to 10 (9.5 to 10 for "outstanding"; 8.5 to 9.4 for "excellent"; 7.5 to 8.4 for "good"; 6.5 to 7.4 for "acceptable"; 3.5 to 6.4 for "marginal"; and, 0 to 3.4 for "unsatisfactory").[5] The individual scores assigned were averaged to arrive at a composite numerical score for each of the subfactors. The numerical rating was multiplied by the weight for the subfactor and the scores for each subfactor were totaled. A proposal that received all outstanding ratings would receive a maximum weighted point score of 10.