B-299705.2, Metson Marine Services, Inc., July 20, 2007

B-299705.2 Jul 20, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Metson Marine Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Seaward Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00033-06-R-1013 issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command (MSC) for port operations and vessel management services at the Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center (NDSTC) in Panama City, Florida. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated offerors' past performance, failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and that the resulting award decision was improper. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299705.2, Metson Marine Services, Inc., July 20, 2007 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: Metson Marine Services, Inc. File: B-299705.2 Date: July 20, 2007 Margaret A. Dillenburg, Esq., Law Offices of Margaret A. Dillenburg, PC, and Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., Brittin Law Group, PLLC, for the protester. Richard P. Rector, Esq., and Carl L. Vacketta, Esq., DLA Piper US LLP, for Seaward Services, Inc., an intervenor. Joel A. Weger, Esq., and Pamela Castellano, Esq., Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is denied where agency's determinations were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and protester's arguments amount to mere disagreement with the agency's conclusions. DECISION Metson Marine Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Seaward Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00033-06-R-1013 issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command (MSC) for port operations and vessel management services at the Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center (NDSTC) in Panama City, Florida.[1] The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated offerors' past performance, failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and that the resulting award decision was improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This acquisition is for vessel operation and maintenance services for the NDSTC and the Naval School Explosive Ordinance Disposal (NAVSCOLEOD), and port control services for the Naval Support Activity (NSA), including port operations and scheduling of all vessel operations.[2] The RFP, issued on August 15, 2006, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with reimbursable elements for a base year with four option periods. The solicitation provided for award on a –best value— basis, considering technical quality, past performance, and price. Technical quality was more important than past performance, and the two factors together were more important than price. The technical quality factor consisted of five equally weighted subfactors: (1) management overview and experience; (2) organization and personnel; (3) operational capabilities; (4) maintenance capabilities; and (5) management processes. RFP at 77-78. As relevant for this dispute, the instructions in the RFP for the organization and personnel subfactor required offerors to provide specific information such as: Offeror shall provide an organizational chart which must include the total number of personnel; separately identify each position; identify contract or subcontracted personnel; part-time personnel; and show related cross-decking of personnel to each position (or collateral duties). Offeror must describe how it will provide adequate qualified personnel to meet the mission requirements by describing its labor pool; providing a strike contingency plan; providing a plan for obtaining additional personnel should the need arise during the life of the contract. Offerors should provide convincing proof that it has, or has the ability to obtain, additional personnel with relevant experience in technical areas described in Section C. Id. at 72-73. As to the personnel requirements, the RFP required offerors to demonstrate that their proposed personnel met minimum qualification requirements for education and experience. For example, the RFP required offerors to propose a project manager (PM) for this work, and indicated that the individual proposed was required to have a –Bachelor of Science Degree in Management, Marine Transportation or Engineering or comparable experience— as well as –the equivalent of ten (10) years experience directly related to the performance requirements— of this contract. RFP amend.