Oceaneering International, Inc., B-287325, June 5, 2001

B-287325 Jun 05, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights First raised in comments submitted more than 10 days after receipt of the agency report on which the issues were based. Are dismissed as untimely. 2. Agency's determination that the corporate experience of the awardee was equivalent to that of the incumbent is reasonable where the awardee performed contract work very similar to the work required under the solicitation and where the awardee's proposed key management personnel possessed significant experience. 4. Agency was not required by the solicitation to contact sources of information relating to an offeror's past performance. Agency may have a reasonable basis to consider one proposal superior to another under an evaluation factor. Even though both proposals are awarded the same rating for the factor. 6. View Decision Matter of: Oceaneering International, Inc. File: B-287325 Date: June 5, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Oceaneering International, Inc. protests an award to Phoenix International, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-R-4114, issued by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), for undersea operations services. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The mission of NAVSEA's Office of the Director of Ocean Engineering, Supervisor of Salvage and Diving (SUPSALV), is to provide support to the Navy and other agencies in the ocean engineering disciplines. In doing so, SUPSALV maintains contracts to supplement the Navy's salvage, search, recovery and rescue capabilities. The primary purpose of the contract contemplated by this RFP is to provide services that assist the Navy in conducting undersea search, salvage and rescue operations on a worldwide basis. Oceaneering is the incumbent contractor for these services. Phoenix is the incumbent contractor for SUPSALV's worldwide diving services contract. The RFP, issued on September 11, 2000, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract at fixed-price rates, with provision for some cost-reimbursement type services, for 1 year with 4 option years. Work will be ordered under the contract by delivery orders that may include fixed rate "scheduled" items as well as cost reimbursable "nonscheduled" items. The scheduled items were for various categories of personnel, for which fixed hourly rates were required to be offered, as well as for certain equipment. The nonscheduled cost reimbursable items included subcontract costs. According to the RFP, evaluated cost was to be based on an analysis of the reasonableness, realism and completeness of the offerors' responses to five scenarios included in schedule C of the RFP. For each of the scenarios, the RFP specified the hours for each scheduled item, for which the offeror was to provide their rates; for nonscheduled items, including subcontracting costs, the RFP stated dollar figures that were applicable to all offerors, and offerors were to provide only the dollar value of their firm's burdens applicable to the stated cost figures. The RFP provided for the submission of supporting cost data for the offeror's indirect costs and subcontracted costs where appropriate. The awardee was to be the responsible offeror whose acceptable proposal represented the best value as determined in accordance with the stated evaluation factors and subfactors. The technical evaluation factors and their relative importance were as follows: technical capability--30 percent; management approach--30 percent; experience--25 percent; and organizational past performance--15 percent. The technical capability factor had the following three equally weighted subfactors: oral presentation, resumes, and facilities. The RFP stated that the technical evaluation factors were significantly more important than evaluated cost. The RFP stated that it was intended that award would be made without discussions. NAVSEA received proposals from Oceaneering and Phoenix. The agency rated Phoenix's proposal outstanding (i.e., the highest adjectival rating) under all factors and subfactors, and rated Oceaneering's proposal outstanding under all factors and subfactors, with the exception of a good rating (i.e., the second highest rating) under the resumes subfactor of the technical capability factor. Phoenix's proposal had the lowest evaluated cost of $27,442,727. Oceaneering's evaluated cost was $28,255,921. NAVSEA selected Phoenix's proposal for award. The source selection decision stated the following: 4. Although the SSET concluded that both offers were outstanding in technical capability, it determined the Phoenix proposal was stronger overall in the technical capability factor. In the resumes subfactor, Phoenix's proposed Search and [Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV)] Operation Project Managers . . . and Search Operation Assistant Project Managers . . . were better suited to conduct SUPSALV search and recovery operations. 5.