Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication, Inc., B-279793, July 23,

B-279793 Jul 23, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Even though there was no supporting narrative on the questionnaire forms regarding the protester's performance of these contracts. 2. The protester has not established a reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the misevaluation. Where the protester failed to submit any evidence that its performance of these contracts was better than satisfactory. 3. Where those differences did not negate the applicability of the many performance strengths possessed by the awardee that were considered in the past performance evaluation. 4. Where those prices were much lower than the independent government cost estimate and the prices proposed by other offerors. Was significantly less important than the past performance factor. View Decision Matter of: Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication, Inc. File: B-279793 Date: July 23, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62799-98-R-0018, issued by the Department of the Navy, for repair work to be performed on the U.S.S. Constellation at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract based on a tradeoff between the offerors' evaluated prices and past performance ratings. RFP Sec. L-2-6, RFP Amendment 1 Sec. M-6(b)(1), (b)(2), (g). The price factor, which provided for an evaluation of price realism, among other things, was significantly less important than the past performance factor. RFP Amendment 1 Sec. M-6(b)(2), (c)(2). The past performance factor contemplated a performance risk assessment under three subfactors, technical, schedule, and management. RFP Amendment 1 Sec. M-6(b)(1)(A), (B), (C). The offeror's performance ratings on relevant ship repair contracts were to be considered in this evaluation. RFP Amendment 1 Sec. L-2-8(a). Contracts involving work of comparable type and complexity to the instant requirements were to receive greater consideration in the evaluation. RFP Amendment 1 Sec. M-6(b)(1). In this regard, the "most relevant" contracts for evaluation purposes were fixed-price contracts performed within the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for tank/void repair and preservation work, as required by this solicitation. Id. The solicitation asked offerors to list relevant ship repair contracts of more than $500,000 performed for the government within the past 3 years and to discuss any aspect of their performance record that they desired the Navy to consider. RFP Amendment 1 Sec. L-2-8(b), (c). The results of the past performance evaluation were represented by adjectival ratings ("exceptional," "very good," "satisfactory," "neutral," "marginal," and "unsatisfactory"), risk assessment ratings ("high," "moderate," "minimal," and "none"), and ratings to express the relevance of the evaluated contracts ("relevant," "some relevance," "barely relevant," and "not relevant"). /1/ Four firms submitted initial proposals, including Pacific Ship and Todd. The agency conducted oral discussions relating to price only with all offerors and requested best and final offers. Pacific Ship submitted the lowest-priced offer at $1,998,852, and Todd submitted the next lowest-priced offer at $2,659,035, which was close to the government estimate of $2,638,934. In terms of past performance, Todd's proposal was highest-rated and Pacific Ship's proposal was next highest-rated. Todd's past performance evaluation was based on seven contracts, four "somewhat relevant" and three "barely relevant"; the relevance ratings reflected the fact that Todd predominantly performed the contracts at its private shipyard, some on a cost-reimbursement basis. The PPET identified 24 major strengths, 3 minor strengths, 4 minor weaknesses, and no major weaknesses stemming from Todd's performance of these contracts, and rated Todd's overall past performance "exceptional/minimal risk." Pacific Ship's past performance evaluation was based on 20 contracts, 14 "relevant" and 6 "somewhat relevant"; its performance record was deemed more relevant than Todd's. The PPET identified 27 major weaknesses, 3 minor weaknesses, 2 major strengths, and 1 minor strength stemming from the protester's performance of the evaluated contracts, and rated Pacific Ship's overall past performance "satisfactory/moderate risk." Based on the results of the price and past performance evaluations, the best value advisory committee (BVAC) identified several evaluated past performance weaknesses and certain unrealistic prices in the protester's proposal as risk factors. Overall, the BVAC's conclusion was that the $660,183 price premium associated with Todd's offer was justified to avoid the greater performance risks posed by Pacific Ship. /2/ The contracting officer adopted the BVAC's selection recommendation.