SeaArk Marine, Inc., B-292195, May 28, 2003

B-292195 May 28, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the solicitation provides that remediation will not be permitted and agency provided results only to ensure that testing was properly performed. 2. Awardee did not receive unfair competitive advantage from prior contract experience where there was no evidence of unfair or preferential treatment. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the "overall best value" to the government. Vessel operational capabilities and physical characteristics was "significantly more important than all other factors. " and all of the technical factors combined with past performance were "significantly more important than price.". Offerors were informed that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and make awards without conducting discussions. View Decision SeaArk Marine, Inc., B-292195, May 28, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION SeaArk Marine, Inc., protests the award of a contract to SAFE Boats International, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG23-02-R-DNQ131, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, for small commercial boats modified to U.S. Coast Guard specifications. SeaArk contends that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions and provided SAFE with an unfair competitive advantage. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued under the commercial item procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12, provided for award of a 7-year fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract with an economic price adjustment. RFP at 5. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the "overall best value" to the government, based upon the following factors: vessel operational capabilities and physical characteristics, production capability, quality assurance and management, warranty, construction data rights and technical support, past performance, and price. Vessel operational capabilities and physical characteristics was "significantly more important than all other factors," and all of the technical factors combined with past performance were "significantly more important than price." RFP at 40-42. Offerors were informed that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and make awards without conducting discussions. Evaluation was conducted in two phases. Phase one involved evaluation of proposals and resulted in the selection of three offerors (including SeaArk and SAFE) to deliver one boat each to the agency for further testing. Phase two involved "hands on, boat in the water" testing and evaluation of the delivered boats and selection of one of the three offerors to receive production orders for up to 700 boats. RFP at 41-42; Contracting Officer's Statement at 3. With respect to the phase two testing, the RFP stated that test and evaluation results would be provided, but not for the purpose of discussions and that proposal revisions would not be permitted. Phase two testing was performed over a 3-week period by "a diversely qualified" technical evaluation team (TET), which tested the offerors' boats under similar conditions to validate each boat's performance under the vessel operational capabilities and physical characteristics factor. The test results were then used to re-evaluate this factor and the final standing for award. Contracting Officer's Statement at 3. After completing testing, the agency rated SAFE blue (superior) with low risk for the operational capabilities and physical characteristics factor, and SeaArk yellow (marginal) with high risk. The agency found that SeaArk's boat presented 3 significant performance weaknesses relating to "seakeeping" and "maneuvering" issues that the agency determined would involve significant redesign, 22 mission effectiveness weaknesses involving "transportability" issues that also required redesign, and 17 "service life" and "reliability" issues relating to construction quality. In contrast, SAFE's boat was found to meet or exceed the RFP's requirements and presented only minor weaknesses, which the agency determined to be "insignificant." Agency Report (AR), Tab H, TET Report, at 2. The agency found that SAFE's boat provided exceptional maneuverability, better stability, and superior construction quality to SeaArk's. AR, Tab I, Source Selection Authority Decision, at 1. The agency determined that SAFE's evaluated price was approximately $132 million and SeaArk's evaluated price was approximately $125 million, based on a maximum ordering quantity of 700 boats. /1/ However, given the technical superiority of SAFE's boat, the agency found that this 5% differential (or approximately $7 million) did not outweigh SAFE's technical superiority.