B-297413; B-297413.2; B-297413.3, Puglia Engineering of California, Inc., January 20, 2006

B-297413; B-297413.2; B-297413.3, Puglia Engineering of California, Inc., January 20, 2006 TITLE: B-297413; B-297413.2; B-297413.3, Puglia Engineering of California, Inc., January 20, 2006 BNUMBER: B-297413; B-297413.2; B-297413.3 DATE: January 20, 2006 ****************************************************************************************** B-297413; B-297413.2; B-297413.3, Puglia Engineering of California, Inc., January 20, 2006 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: Puglia Engineering of California, Inc. File: B-297413; B-297413.2; B-297413.3 Date: January 20, 2006 Mark G. Jackson, Esq., Derek D. Crick, Esq., and G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., Preston Gates & Ellis LLP, for the protester. C. Scott Penner, Esq., John C. Dippold, Esq., and Sandip Soli, Esq., Carney Badley Spellman, PS, for Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation, an intervenor. Talbot J. Nicholas, II, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable, and that the solicitation's evaluation criteria were fairly and consistently applied in the agency's assessment of both the protester's and the awardee's proposals. 2. Source selection authority (SSA) performed a reasonable price/technical tradeoff in determining that the awardee's proposal represented the best value, where the SSA's judgment, based upon the results of a reasonable, documented technical evaluation, demonstrates the SSA's understanding of the evaluated strengths and weaknesses of the respective proposals, and shows a reasonable weighing of the offerors' respective technical and price advantages consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. DECISION Puglia Engineering of California, Inc. (PECI) protests the award of a contract to Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCG85-05-R-625306, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Maintenance & Logistics Command Pacific, for dockside maintenance services. PECI argues that the agency conducted a flawed evaluation of proposals and failed to perform a reasonable price realism evaluation; PECI contends that the selection decision was flawed for these reasons, and was improper on its face. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The objective of this procurement is to improve delivery of maintenance and dockside ship repair services for the HEALY, a Coast Guard vessel. The HEALY is a unique research vessel used by both the national and international scientific communities and has the most rigorous mission schedule in the Coast Guard. The HEALY's primary mission generally lasts from late May until mid-November when the vessel returns to its homeport in Seattle, Washington for its annual winter maintenance. Since its commissioning, the Coast Guard has not been able to adequately perform vessel maintenance; therefore, the agency decided to issue a multiple-year, multiple-option ship repair contract in order to achieve its maintenance objectives and still serve the scientific community. Agency Report (AR) exh. 6, Acquisition Plan, at 1. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. The services required are represented by four distinct types of efforts: (1) contractor advance planning for dockside availabilities; (2) contractor execution of dockside availabilities; (3) interavailability/voyage repairs; and (4) provisioned item procurement (material/equipment purchases). RFP at 3-10. The solicitation advised offerors that, in the award selection, the combined non-price factors would be considered significantly more important than price. RFP amend. 5, at 3. Under the evaluation factor for assessing technical quality, the solicitation established the following five technical elements, listed in descending order of importance:[1] (1) understanding scope of responsibilities (with four associated sub-elements);[2] (2) ability to manage purchasing /subcontractor effort (with two associated sub-elements); (3) contractor facilities (with one associated sub-element); (4) business base information (with one associated sub-element); and (5) past performance. RFP at 39-40.