Xeno Technix, Inc., B-278738; B-278738.2, March 11, 1998

Xeno Technix, Inc., B-278738; B-278738.2, March 11, 1998 BNUMBER: B-278738; B-278738.2 DATE: March 11, 1998 TITLE: Xeno Technix, Inc., B-278738; B-278738.2, March 11, 1998 ********************************************************************** 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:Xeno Technix, Inc. File: B-278738; B-278738.2 Date:March 11, 1998 William F. Hanlon for the protester. Michael J. Gardner, Esq., Clark & Stant, P.C., for George G. Sharp, an intervenor. David H. Turner, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest against agency determination not to credit protester with the experience and performance of its proposed subcontractor is denied where protester's proposal indicated that subcontractor would perform less than 1 percent of the expected effort; agency could reasonably conclude that subcontractor's proposed contribution did not significantly bear on the likelihood of successful performance by protester such that attribution of subcontractor's record to protester was appropriate. 2. Composition of technical evaluation panel is within the discretion of the agency, and where protester has not shown actual bias on the part of particular evaluators there is no basis to question the composition of the panel. DECISION Xeno Technix, Inc. protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to George G. Sharp, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-97-R-1754, for shipboard troubleshooting, repair, and maintenance services in the vicinity of Norfolk, Virginia. Xeno primarily challenges the evaluation of technical proposals. We deny the protest. The solicitation contemplated award of a time-and-materials contract for a 1-year base period, with 4 option years, for troubleshooting, repair, and maintenance services for main and auxiliary, hull, mechanical and electrical (HM&E) systems aboard government vessels. The majority of work to be performed involves shipboard HM&E systems. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose conforming offer was most advantageous to the government, with technical considerations more important than price. The solicitation listed, in descending order of importance, the following five technical factors: (1) corporate experience and (2) past performance, which were of equal weight; (3) technical approach and (4) management plan, which were of equal weight; and (5) personnel resources. The Navy received proposals from four offerors. Those submitted by Sharp, Xeno, and a third offeror (not relevant here) were included in the competitive range. At the conclusion of discussions, the Navy requested best and final offers (BAFO). While Sharp's proposed price ($30,207,758) was approximately 5.1 percent greater than Xeno's ($28,666,119), the Navy determined that Sharp's proposal was technically superior. Sharp's proposal received a highly acceptable rating both overall and under each of the technical factors, while Xeno's received only an acceptable rating under each technical factor and overall. The agency found that Sharp, the incumbent contractor, had "demonstrated extensive experience . . . directly related to all aspects of the requirements set forth in the statement of work" (SOW), including performing 1,096,000 hours of tasking which was identical in magnitude and complexity to the work required under the SOW, and that its work under the current contract was "consistently very good . . . quality work and . . . on schedule." Selection Decision Memorandum at 2; Declaration of [DELETED] at 1-2. The Navy further determined that Sharp's proposal demonstrated "a clear and [thorough] understanding of the [SOW] as well as a [thorough] knowledge of the main and auxiliary hull, mechanical and electrical systems," such that when considered with Sharp's extensive, successful experience and performance, the proposal indicated "a high probability of success," with "the capability to satisfy all program areas immediately with no loss of planning continuity nor loss of time because of learning curve." Source Selection Decision Memorandum at 1-2. The Navy concluded that the "significant technical superiority [of Sharp's proposal] far outweighs the additional cost" such that Sharp's proposal was most advantageous to the government. Id. at 4. Upon learning of the resulting award to Sharp, Xeno filed this protest with our Office. PAST PERFORMANCE Xeno questions its past performance rating (acceptable), arguing that the agency failed to take into account additional information furnished during negotiations and Xeno's proposed use of Colonna Shipyard, Inc. in performing the contract.