AmClyde Engineered Products Company, Inc., B-282271; B-282271.2, June 21, 1999

AmClyde Engineered Products Company, Inc., B-282271; B-282271.2, June 21, 1999 TITLE: AmClyde Engineered Products Company, Inc., B-282271; B-282271.2, June 21, 1999 BNUMBER: B-282271; B-282271.2 DATE: June 21, 1999 ********************************************************************** AmClyde Engineered Products Company, Inc., B-282271; B-282271.2, June 21, 1999 Matter of: AmClyde Engineered Products Company, Inc. File: B-282271; B-282271.2 Date: June 21, 1999 Leonard Egan, Esq., Marcus B. Slater, Esq., and Jennifer J. Zeien, Esq., Slater & Zeien, for the protester. Richard G. Welsh, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably evaluated the protester's proposal as acceptable, rather than outstanding, under the capability/relevant past performance subfactor, where the protester's proposal demonstrated extensive relevant experience but the agency received negative past performance information. 2. Protester is not an interested party to protest the evaluation of the awardee's proposal where the protester's proposal was properly rated and there is an offeror whose proposal is higher rated and lower priced than the protester's, because the protester would not be in line for award even if its protest were sustained. 3. Agency did not misuse the pre-award survey process in ascertaining that the awardee's proposal may not comply with a material term of the contract and subsequently conducting discussions to resolve this problem with all competitive range offerors, including the protester. 4. Agency's clarification of the awardee's technically acceptable subcontracting plan after source selection and prior to contract award did not constitute discussions, since the ultimate approval of a subcontracting plan involves a question of responsibility. 5. Agency's best value decision properly did not consider certain factors not contemplated by the solicitation's stated evaluation scheme. DECISION AmClyde Engineered Products Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Samsung Heavy Industries Company, LTD, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62472-97-R-1643, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Navy Crane Center, Lester, Pennsylvania, for the design and manufacture of portal cranes. AmClyde asserts that the proposals were misevaluated and the award selection was improper. We deny the protest. The Navy issued the RFP on May 15, 1998, to acquire one 151-ton portal crane for Norfolk Naval Shipyard and up to 20 60-ton portal cranes for various specified shipyards in the United States under a requirements contract. RFP amend. 9, at 2. The contract was for a 5-year base period with three 1-year option periods. Id. The design of the 151-ton crane was to be ordered at the time of award, and the remaining requirements were to be accomplished at a rate of no more than four cranes per year. [1] Id. The specifications required the cranes to meet detailed design requirements, including the ability to handle nuclear loads. RFP parts N, P. Also, the RFP incorporated the clause at Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement sect. 252.247-7023, Transportation of Supplies by Sea, which essentially requires any supplies to be furnished under the contract transported by sea to be transported on United States-flag vessels. RFP sect. I, at I-3. The RFP provided for award on a best value basis, price and other factors considered. RFP sect. M-4. The evaluation factors were price and technical, which were said to be of equal weight. Under technical, the RFP identified three equally weighted subfactors: technical approach, management plan, and offeror's capability/relevant past performance. RFP sect. M-4.C.B. The management plan subfactor required, among other things, for offerors to provide a proposed schedule, staffing, and management plan for successfully completing the work within the required timeframes, the identification of major subcontractors, and a description of the quality assurance organization. RFP sect. M-4.C.B.2. Under this subfactor, an acceptable subcontracting plan for subcontracting with small business, small disadvantaged business and women-owned small business concerns was also required to be submitted and approved. RFP sect. M-4.C.B.2.f. The offeror's capability/relevant past performance subfactor required offerors to "[l]ist at least three (3) previous projects that were worked on within the past five (5) years that demonstrate [the offeror's] ability to design, manufacture, install and test portal cranes of a similar capacity and complexity." RFP sect. M-4.C.B.3(a).