B-297879, BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair Inc., March 29, 2006

B-297879 Mar 29, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair Inc. protests the award of a contract to Earl Industries, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-05-R-4401, issued by the Department of the Navy for maintenance and modernization work on Dock Landing and Amphibious Transport Dock class ships (i.e., LSD and LPD class ships) homeported in Norfolk, Virginia. BAE alleges that the agency's cost and technical evaluations of its proposal were improper, resulting in a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297879, BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair Inc., March 29, 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: BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair Inc. File: B-297879 Date: March 29, 2006 Thomas O. Mason, Esq., Robert E. Korroch, Esq., and Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq., Williams Mullen, for the protester. Robert M. Tata, Esq., Carl D. Gray, Esq., and Kevin J. Cosgrove, Esq., Hunton & Williams LLP, for Earl Industries, LLC, an intervenor. Rhonda L. Russ, Esq., Naval Sea Systems 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. Where solicitation for award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract required offerors to base their cost proposals on sample work items and further required offerors to use government estimates for labor hours and material costs for the sample work items unless offerors supported proposed deviations to the estimates by –clear and compelling— evidence, agency reasonably concluded that protester's proposed deviations, supported by non-binding fixed-price quotes for the sample work items, failed to meet the –clear and compelling— evidentiary standard. 2. Agency's assignment of same overall adjectival rating to protester's and awardee's proposals despite protester's slightly higher past performance rating was reasonable where past performance was the least important technical factor and the record reflects that the agency reasonably considered the underlying substantive differences between the protester's and the awardee's proposals in making its technical and best value assessments. 3. Protester's argument that its proposal should have been more highly rated under management capability factor because it received the highest possible rating under the past performance factor is unwarranted because the two factors at issue had different bases for evaluation. DECISION BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair Inc. protests the award of a contract to Earl Industries, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-05-R-4401, issued by the Department of the Navy for maintenance and modernization work on Dock Landing and Amphibious Transport Dock class ships (i.e., LSD and LPD class ships) homeported in Norfolk, Virginia. BAE alleges that the agency's cost and technical evaluations of its proposal were improper, resulting in a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on March 9, 2005, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for execution planning and accomplishment of repair, maintenance, and alteration requirements of LSD 41/49 and LPD 4 class ships. The RFP provided for the award of a base contract including execution planning for the first scheduled availability[1] for the USS Gunston Hall, as well as non-scheduled repair and alteration requirements between scheduled availabilities as ordered on various LSD and LPD class ships. [2] In addition, the RFP provided for 31 option items—the first option was for performance of the GUNSTON HALL availability, and the remaining options were for 15 additional scheduled availabilities and associated execution planning over a period of 7 years. RFP sect. B, Schedule of Supplies or Services and Prices. The RFP indicated that the agency would make award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government based on a consideration of two evaluated categories: technical and cost. Overall technical merit was considered more important than cost; however, the importance of cost would increase –as the differences in overall Technical merit among competing proposals decreas[ed].— RFP at 171. Under the technical category, the RFP listed three evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) management capability; (2) resource capabilities; and (3) past performance. The past performance factor was further divided into four subfactors of equal importance: (1) technical; (2) schedule; (3) management; and (4) cost. RFP at 177-78. In evaluating the management capability and resource capabilities factors, the agency assigned adjectival ratings of outstanding, very good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory.