Marine Hydraulics International, Inc., B-291594.3, October 3, 2003

B-291594.3 Oct 03, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Marine Hydraulics International, Inc. (MHI) protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Metro Machine Corporation pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N62678-02-R-0031 for maintenance of specified Navy ships. MHI's protest challenges various aspects of the agency's source selection decision, including assertions that the agency failed to perform a proper cost realism analysis, failed to properly evaluate the offerors' past performance, and failed to engage in meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. View Decision B-291594.3, Marine Hydraulics International, Inc., October 3, 2003 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Marine Hydraulics International, Inc. File: B-291594.3 Date: October 3, 2003 Robert E. Korroch, Esq., and Michael J. Gardner, Esq., Williams Mullen, for the protester. Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., Esq., Edward R. Murray, Esq., and Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for Metro Machine Corporation, an intervenor. Rhonda L. Russ, Esq., Katherine A. Andrias, Esq., and Stephen P. Anderson, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation for cost-reimbursement contract required offerors to provide supporting rationale for proposed costs and protester failed to provide credible support for its proposed staffing levels, as confirmed by hearing testimony provided by protester's personnel, agency reasonably increased protester's proposed staffing levels, for cost evaluation purposes, with regard to tasks the agency considered understaffed. 2. Agency conducted meaningful discussions with protester where it identified every work item the agency believed to be understaffed and sought additional information from the protester regarding the bases for its staffing calculations. 3. Where solicitation for cost-reimbursement contract to perform ship repairs advised offerors that prior contracts involving drydocking and contracts performed on a cost-reimbursement basis would be more relevant for purposes of evaluating past performance, agency properly considered those factors in determining the relative relevance of offerors' prior contracts, and protester's assertion that it was entitled to past performance rating of excellent rather than [deleted] constitutes mere disagreement with the agency's judgment.________________________________ DECISION Marine Hydraulics International, Inc. (MHI) protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Metro Machine Corporation pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N62678-02-R-0031 for maintenance of specified Navy ships. MHI's protest challenges various aspects of the agency's source selection decision, including assertions that the agency failed to perform a proper cost realism analysis, failed to properly evaluate the offerors' past performance, and failed to engage in meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation at issue here was published on April 15, 2002, seeking proposals to perform various tasks associated with the ongoing maintenance of FFG class ships (frigates) homeported in Norfolk, Virginia. The solicitation contemplated award of a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for performance of selected restricted availabilities (SRAs) and drydocking selected restricted availabilities (DSRAs) on certain ships,[1] along with associated advance planning and procurement of required materials for each availability. Each offeror was required to submit a three-part proposal consisting of a technical proposal,[2] a past performance proposal, and a cost proposal. Section M of the solicitation advised offerors that, for proposals evaluated as technically acceptable, the agency would perform a trade-off between evaluated cost and past performance and that, although these factors would be approximately equal, past performance would be more important. Agency Report, Tab 1, at M-2.