B-296902; B-296902.2, Delphinus Engineering, Inc., September 20, 2005

B-296902; B-296902.2, Delphinus Engineering, Inc., September 20, 2005 TITLE: B-296902; B-296902.2, Delphinus Engineering, Inc., September 20, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296902; B-296902.2 DATE: September 20, 2005 ********************************************************************* B-296902; B-296902.2, Delphinus Engineering, Inc., September 20, 2005 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: Delphinus Engineering, Inc. File: B-296902; B-296902.2 Date: September 20, 2005 Joseph G. Billings, Esq., and Philip A. Tordella, Esq., for the protester. Terence Murphy, Esq., and Patrick H. O'Donnell, Esq., Kaufman & Canoles, for Q.E.D. Systems, Inc.; Daniel R. Weckstein, Esq., Stephanie M. Himel-Nelson, Esq., and Michael L. Sterling, Esq., Vandeventer Black LLP, for Tecnico Corporation; and Michael J. Gardner, Esq., Troutman Sanders, for George G. Sharp, Inc., the intervenors. Catherine Kellington, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. The protester--a section 8(a) qualified business--had no basis to expect that the agency would award it a contract as the only 8(a) offeror submitting a technically acceptable proposal, where the solicitation was issued on an unrestricted basis and stated that award would be made to the offerors submitting the proposals determined to be most advantageous to the agency considering the listed technical factors and cost. 2. The agency's evaluation of the protester's response to a sample task order did not have to consider protester's performance on another contract not identified in the protester's proposal. DECISION Delphinus Engineering, Inc. protests its failure to receive a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. N65540-03-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Navy, for engineering and technical support services to support the installation and repair of various ship habitability areas. Delphinus argues that the agency was required to award it a contract because Delphinus was the only firm certified under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) section 8(a) program to have submitted a technically acceptable, competitively priced proposal, and that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable.[1] We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on an unrestricted basis on June 25, 2003, provided that the agency would award a single or multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity cost-plus-fixed-fee task order contract or contracts for the required services. The solicitation stated that awards would be made to the offerors submitting the proposals "determined most advantageous to the Government" based upon the following evaluation factors: cost, corporate experience/past performance, sample task order/technical approach, personnel, management/quality assurance plan, and facilities. The RFP, as amended, informed offerors that all of the evaluation factors other than cost, when combined, would be significantly more important than cost. With regard to the non-cost factors, the RFP provided that the corporate experience/past performance factor was most important, with the sample task order/technical approach, personnel, and management/quality assurance plan factors being equal in importance and each more important than the facilities factor.[2] RFP at 72. The solicitation included detailed proposal preparation instructions and informed offerors that oral presentations would be required. The agency received proposals from five offerors, including Delphinus, by the September 5, 2003 closing date. The offerors' technical and cost proposals were evaluated, and all five proposals were included in the competitive range. Agency Report (AR) at 4; Tab 21, Pre-Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum (BCM), at 1. Discussions were conducted, the offerors' responses were received and evaluated, and final revised proposals (FRP) were requested and received. AR at 4; AR, Tab 21, Written Discussion Letters; Tab 24, FRP Requests.