Fishermen's Boat Shop, Inc., B-287592, July 11, 2001

B-287592 Jul 11, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's downgrading of protester's technical proposal is unobjectionable where the record establishes that the evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. FBS asserts that its proposal was improperly downgraded and that the Coast Guard applied inequitable evaluation standards in retaliation for a prior successful FBS protest. Award was to be made on a best value basis. Price and technical were equal in importance. FBS's evaluated price was $352. BBS's was $387. Technical proposal provided benefits that outweighed the associated price premium of approximately 10 percent over the two lowest cost proposals (one of which was FBS's). Both of which were significantly lower rated technically. View Decision Fishermen's Boat Shop, Inc., B-287592, July 11, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Fishermen's Boat Shop, Inc. (FBS) protests the award of a contract to Bellingham Bay Shipyard (BBS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG85-01-R-625178, issued by the United States Coast Guard, Department of Transportation. FBS asserts that its proposal was improperly downgraded and that the Coast Guard applied inequitable evaluation standards in retaliation for a prior successful FBS protest. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on January 12, 2001, with an amended closing date of February 14, calls for dry-docking and repairs for two vessels, the United States Coast Guard Cutter Bayberry and Barge 60044, lists 36 definite and 11 optional items, and provides that the agency may award a contract without conducting discussions. Award was to be made on a best value basis, with the agency reserving the right to award to other than the lowest-priced offeror. Price and technical were equal in importance, with the RFP specifying four technical factors listed in descending order of importance: past performance, understanding scope of work, management control, and facilities. The agency received six proposals by the closing time. To evaluate price, as provided for under the solicitation, the agency totaled the proposed prices for all of the definite and optional items and added certain other specified costs. FBS's evaluated price was $352,950.20; BBS's was $387,823.60. Agency Report at 8. In performing the technical evaluation, the agency assigned numerical scores under each factor and a cumulative total, with an associated narrative assessment of excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal or unsatisfactory, and a performance risk assessment of low, medium or high. FBS's technical proposal received a total point score of 74 out of 100 possible points, with satisfactory ratings under each of the four factors, for an overall rating of satisfactory with a moderate performance risk assessment. Agency Report at 4-5. BBS's proposal received a total point score of 95, with excellent ratings under the first three factors and a good rating under the fourth, least important, factor, for an overall rating of excellent with a low performance risk assessment. Agency Report at 5-6. The source selection authority (SSA) awarded to BBS as offering the best value, without conducting discussions, based on a determination that BBS's excellent, highest rated, technical proposal provided benefits that outweighed the associated price premium of approximately 10 percent over the two lowest cost proposals (one of which was FBS's), both of which were significantly lower rated technically. Agency Report at 9. The SSA also noted that in light of BBS's excellent past performance, he believed that an early completion schedule proposed by BBS would result in cost savings to the government. Id. After receiving a debriefing from the Coast Guard, FBS filed this protest with our Office. FBS agrees that the agency was not obligated to conduct discussions before making the award, and does not question the propriety of the particular tradeoff determination that award to a higher priced, significantly higher technically rated offeror was warranted. Protest at 3; Protester's Comments at 2. Rather, FBS asserts that its proposal was improperly downgraded, and states that it "is fearful that the [Coast Guard] may have purposely applied inequitable standards to FBS in retaliation for a prior FBS protest . . . that was decided in favor of FBS." Protest at 3. In support of this position, FBS questions every instance in which the Coast Guard evaluated FBS's proposal as warranting less than the highest possible evaluation score, asserting that "the [Coast Guard] only identified issues of form as weaknesses and deficiencies" and that "those requirements as to form were not identified in the solicitation or logically discernible from the solicitation." Protest at 3. We have considered all of FBS's objections and find them without merit.