Halter Marine, Inc., B-289303, December 12, 2001

B-289303 Dec 12, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where solicitation called only for demonstrated experience and responsibility for society's requirements and did not require offerors to possess or obtain certificates. The ISCS includes an integrated bridge system (IBS) and is required to comply with DNV W1. Offerors were required to select and propose a single system integrator (the SSI-B) for the IBS. Which would be responsible for ensuring that integration and interface requirements were met. The proposed SSI-B was also required to possess past performance related to the requirements of DNV W1. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal complied with the RFP requirements and was considered most advantageous to the government. View Decision Halter Marine, Inc., B-289303, December 12, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Halter Marine, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Marinette Marine Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG23-01-R-AGL001, issued by the U.S. Coast Guard for design and construction of a Great Lakes Ice Breaker (GLIB) ship. Halter asserts that the awardee's proposal does not meet the past performance requirements of the RFP. We deny the protest. The RFP set forth performance specifications for the GLIB, including the integrated ship control system (ISCS) for automatic and manual control of the GLIB and its machinery systems. RFP Sec. 3.5.7. The ISCS includes an integrated bridge system (IBS) and is required to comply with DNV W1, an industry design and construction standard. /1/ RFP Sec. 3.5.7.1. Offerors were required to select and propose a single system integrator (the SSI-B) for the IBS, which would be responsible for ensuring that integration and interface requirements were met. RFP Sec. 3.2.15. The proposed SSI-B was also required to possess past performance related to the requirements of DNV W1. Id. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal complied with the RFP requirements and was considered most advantageous to the government. RFP Sec. M.2. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of technical/management and past performance which, combined, were more important than price. RFP Sec. M.3. The past performance evaluation was to be based on a past performance questionnaire and information obtained from previous or current customers. RFP Sec. M.5. Based on its evaluation of Halter's and Marinette's proposals, the source selection authority concluded that Marinette's proposal, which was lower in price, represented the best value to the government. After receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, Halter filed this protest. Halter asserts that Marinette does not meet the DNV W1 past performance requirements set forth in RFP section 3.2.15. According to Halter, DNV W1 is "governed by three DNV certificates," and Marinette's proposed SSI-B has only one of the three certificates. Protest at 3. Halter asserts that only its proposal was acceptable because it proposed an SSI-B that meets the DNV W1 past performance requirements. /2/ In reviewing a protest against a procuring agency's proposal evaluation, our role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. National Toxicology Labs., Inc., B-281074.2, Jan. 11, 1999, 99-1 CPD Para. 5 at 3. The Coast Guard's evaluation here was reasonable. Halter's protest is based on an erroneous interpretation of the RFP's requirements; nothing in the RFP required that an SSI-B possess DNV certificates to establish its past performance. In this regard, under the RFP, the SSI-B was to be the vendor of the major bridge system components to be installed on the GLIB and had to be an organization that has demonstrated successful past performance in the same capacity on design and construction projects utilizing an [IBS] of equal or greater complexity. Specifically, past performance must demonstrate single system integration experience and responsibilities for the Integrated Bridge requirements of DNV W1. RFP Sec. 3.2.15. While this provision clearly required relevant experience under the requirements of DNV W1, it did not require that the vendor possess certificates from DNV to establish that experience, and nothing else in the RFP set forth such a requirement. In fact, the RFP's design and construction standards (DCS) specifically stated that certificates were not required. /3/ According to the DCS, where "classification society rules" are cited, "the GLIB shall be designed and constructed to comply with the cited rule or regulation [but] the Contractor is not required to obtain Classification Certificates or Certificates of inspection" in meeting the DCS. RFP Sec. J. We conclude that there was no requirement that the proposed SSI-B be certified by DNV.