B-295087, DOER Marine, December 21, 2004

B-295087 Dec 21, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DOER Marine protests the issuance of a purchase order to Deep Ocean Engineering under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00167-04-Q-0412, issued by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWCCD), Department of the Navy, for tethered underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV) systems. DOER argues that Deep Ocean Engineering misrepresented its corporate history and ROV manufacturing experience. We deny the protest. View Decision B-295087, DOER Marine, December 21, 2004 Decision Matter of: DOER Marine File: B-295087 Date: December 21, 2004 John P. Hurabiell, Esq., Huppert & Hurabiell, for the protester. Stephen H. S. Tryon, Esq., Naval Surface Warfare Center, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protesters contention that the awardee misrepresented its corporate history and technical experience is denied where the record shows that no misrepresentation occurred and that, in any event, the agency did not evaluate the awardee or any other offeror as to corporate experience. DECISION DOER Marine protests the issuance of a purchase order to Deep Ocean Engineering under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00167-04-Q-0412, issued by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWCCD), Department of the Navy, for tethered underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV) systems. DOER argues that Deep Ocean Engineering misrepresented its corporate history and ROV manufacturing experience. We deny the protest. On August 3, 2004, NSWCCD issued the RFQ for seven ROV systems. [1] The RFQ, issued as a simplified commercial item acquisition under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 13, contemplated the award of a fixed-price purchase order. In addition to the specifications for the ROV system, the solicitation notified vendors that [a]ward will be made to the company [whose] offer can meet all of the technical specifications and delivery requirements, and at the lowest overall cost. ROV Specifications at 4. Five vendors, including DOER and Deep Ocean Engineering, submitted quotations consisting of a technical proposal and price proposal by the August 27 closing date. The Navys evaluation of vendors technical proposals determined that only Deep Ocean Engineerings proposal met all of the solicitation requirements; by contrast, the agency determined that DOERs proposal did not, among other things, meet the solicitations weight and delivery schedule requirements. [2] Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, Agency Evaluation of ROV Quotations, at 2-3. After determining that Deep Ocean Engineerings price of781,690 was fair and reasonable, the agency made award to Deep Ocean Engineering as the vendor submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation. AR, Tab 7, Source Selection Decision. This protest followed. DOERs protest essentially centers upon its assertion that Deep Ocean Engineering misrepresented both its corporate history and ROV manufacturing experience. Specifically, DOER contends that while the current Deep Ocean Engineering company has been in existence for just 4 years, the entity masquerades as a firm with a 20-plus year contiguous [ sic ] history and unfairly trades on the proven track record of the original [Deep Ocean Engineering] company, citing various corporate sales, divestitures, and name changes. Protest at 2. DOER further argues that Deep Ocean Engineerings various misrepresentations about its corporate history and ROV manufacturing experience have misled clients and potential clients, including the Navy here. Id. When using simplified acquisition procedures, an agency must conduct the procurement consistent with a concern for fair and equitable competition and must evaluate quotations in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. Kathryn Huddleston & Assocs., Ltd. , B-289453, Mar. 11, 2002, 2002 CPD 57 at 6; Finlen Complex, Inc. , B-288280, Oct. 10, 2001, 2001 CPD 167 at 8-10. In reviewing protests of an allegedly improper simplified acquisition evaluation, we examine the record to determine whether the agency met this standard and exercised its discretion reasonably. American Artisan Prods., Inc. , B-293801.2, June 7, 2004, 2004 CPD 127 at 3. An offerors misrepresentation concerning experience or other matters that materially influences an agencys consideration of its proposal generally provides a basis for proposal rejection or reevaluation of the award decision based on the faulty proposal. See ACS Govt Servs., Inc. , B-293014, Jan. 20, 2004, 2004 CPD 18 at 4; Cygnus Corp. , B-275957, B-275957.2, Apr. 23, 1997, 97-1 CPD 202 at 10. A misrepresentation is material where the agency relied upon it and it likely had a significant impact upon the evaluation. ACS Govt Servs., Inc. , supra ; Integration Techs. Group, Inc.