International Marine Products, Inc., B-296127, June 13, 2005

B-296127 Jun 13, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights International Marine Products, Inc. (IMP) protests the award of a contract to Beach Panel Controls, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62381-03-R-1003, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command for automation control system inspection, training, system services and repairs, as well as "emergent repairs." RFP at 2-20. IMP protests the evaluation of its proposal and alleges that the agency was biased in favor of Beach Panel. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296127, International Marine Products, Inc., June 13, 2005 Decision Matter of: International Marine Products, Inc. File: B-296127 Date: June 13, 2005 Robert A. Landman for the protester. Scott Garner, Esq., and George Brezna, Esq., Military Sealift Command, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Receipt on Saturday of an agency-level protest decision by a vice-president for the protester did not constitute actual or constructive knowledge of adverse agency action on that date, where Saturday was not a business day for the protester and the envelope containing the decision was not opened until Monday, the first business day after receipt. 2. Protester's assertion that agency's evaluation of its technical proposal was flawed is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and the protester's contentions represent only its disagreement with the agency's judgment. DECISION International Marine Products, Inc. (IMP) protests the award of a contract to Beach Panel Controls, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62381-03-R-1003, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command for automation control system inspection, training, system services and repairs, as well as "emergent repairs." RFP at 2-20. IMP protests the evaluation of its proposal and alleges that the agency was biased in favor of Beach Panel. We deny the protest. The Navy issued the RFP on March 19, 2002. As amended, the RFP anticipated the award of an indefinite-delivery requirements-type contract with fixed unit prices, for a base year plus four 1-year options, for a variety of inspection, repair, training, and testing services to be performed aboard 35 Military Sealift Command vessels. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the "best value" to the government based on the agency's consideration of three major evaluation factors (in descending order of importance): technical, price, and past performance. RFP at 52-53. Under the technical factor, the RFP identified (in descending order of importance) four "technical factors": (1) ability to perform the statement of work (which included two subfactors, 1.1 management control and 1.2 quality control); (2) understanding the statement of work; (3) experience; and (4) problem areas. As it relates to the protest, under the technical factor regarding ability to perform the statement of work, the RFP required offerors to provide manufacturer "certifications/qualifications of being an OEM original equipment manufacturer' for the equipment being maintained aboard vessels." RFP attach. J-2. Offerors were further required to provide "contractors['] special pricing" agreements with manufacturers and to identify "the available labor resources to accomplish scope of work and capability of performing multiple large tasks, upgrades and inspections simultaneously on vessels all over the country. (Ability to accomplish large tasks on up to five' vessels concurrently)." Id. Four offerors submitted timely proposals by the RFP's June 18, 2003 closing date, including proposals from the protester and Beach Panel. In its initial evaluation of proposals, the Navy rated IMP as "satisfactory" overall under the technical evaluation factors, while identifying numerous weaknesses with IMP's proposal, and rated its past performance as "good." Beach Panel received overall ratings of "excellent" for both the technical and past performance factors. Specifically, as it relates to the protest, with regard to the evaluation of IMP's proposal under the technical factor regarding ability to perform the statement of work, the Navy noted that IMP's evidence of OEM certification was limited to two companies through a third-party electrical supplier. This perceived "lack of OEM depth" created risk for the government, according to the Navy. [1] AR, Tab 7, Technical Evaluation Report, Aug. 6, 2003, at 9. Under this same technical factor, the Navy found fault with IMP's evidence of contractor special pricing agreements, noting IMP's failure to include specific pricing and product information and IMP's limited supply structure, which, in the Navy's view, exposed the government to greater risk.