Mar, Inc; WHECO Corporation; Jensco Marine, Inc., B-278929.2;

Mar, Inc; WHECO Corporation; Jensco Marine, Inc., B-278929.2; BNUMBER: B-278929.2; B-278929.4; B-278929.5; B-278929.6 DATE: September 28, 1998 TITLE: Mar, Inc; WHECO Corporation; Jensco Marine, Inc., B-278929.2; B-278929.4; B-278929.5; B-278929.6, September 28, 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:Mar, Inc; WHECO Corporation; Jensco Marine, Inc. File: B-278929.2; B-278929.4; B-278929.5; B-278929.6 Date:September 28, 1998 Richard L. Hames, Esq., Davis Wright Tremaine, for WHECO Corporation; Paul Shnitzer, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for MAR, Inc.; W. Bruce Shirk, Esq., and Lorenzo F. Exposito, Esq., Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, for Jensco Marine, Inc., the protesters. John A. Douglas, Esq., William A. Shook, Esq., and Kelley P. Doran, Esq., Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, for General Offshore Corporation, an intervenor. Arthur I. Rettinger, Esq., and William P. McGinnies, Esq., U.S. Customs Service, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and Jerold Cohen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of the evaluation of proposals as technically equal is denied where the record shows that the agency's determination was reasonable based on the similarity of competing proposals in terms of personnel and experience, past performance, and overall quality. 2. Protest that cost evaluation was improper because the agency failed to consider the realism of the awardee's proposed labor rates is denied where the protester was not prejudiced by the agency's failure to make certain upward adjustments to the awardee's rates. 3. Protester has not presented a basis to challenge the award where the agency downgraded the protester's proposal because its newly formed corporation failed to demonstrate corporate experience, but nonetheless considered the proposal to be technically equal to the other proposals and awarded the contract to a lower-priced offeror. 4. Award to successor in interest to the firm that submitted the initial proposal is proper where the successor in interest acquired the offeror's entire business. DECISION MAR, Inc., WHECO Corporation, and Jensco Marine, Inc. protest the award of a contract to General Offshore Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. CS-97-012, a small business set-aside issued by the Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, for marine vessel maintenance. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on February 26, 1997, was to procure marine vessel maintenance (preventive and corrective) and related services and equipment in connection with a national marine maintenance program.[1] RFP, Statement of Work, sec. C.1. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a base period, with 4 option periods. RFP sec. B.2. The RFP provided for award on a best-value basis, in which technical quality was more important than cost/price. The RFP advised, however, that if the technical features of proposals were determined to be essentially equivalent, cost/price might become the determining factor for the award. RFP sec. M.5.2. Further, the RFP stated that for purposes of the cost/price technical tradeoff analysis the agency would perform a comparative analysis of the proposals' discriminating features. RFP sec. M.5.1. The technical evaluation factors and corresponding point values were as follows: (1) Experience and Past Performance60 (a) Key Personnel (40) 1 - Program Manager (20) 2 - Site Managers (15) 3 - Mechanics (5) (b) Corporate (20) 1 - Experience (10) 2 - Past Performance(10) (2) Management Approach 40 (a) Soundness of Approach (35) 1 - Overall Plan (10) 2 - Transition Plan (10) 3 - Property Control Inv.(10) 4 - Environmental Controls/ Waste Disposal (5) (b) Reporting Procedures (5) Cost/price was not point scored, but each offeror's proposed costs were to be evaluated for realism and reasonableness, as well as the offeror's ability to attract and retain a qualified staff and any risk introduced by the offeror's cost/price proposal. RFP sec. M.4. Seven proposals were received in response to the RFP by the July 31, 1997 closing date. A technical evaluation team (TET) then assigned point scores, and adjectival ratings based on the scores, to the proposals,[2] and a cost team evaluated the cost proposals.