Mare Island Dry Dock, LLC

B-410821 Feb 26, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mare Island Dry Dock, LLC (MIDD), of Vallejo, California, protests the award of a contract to Vigor Marine, LLC, of Portland, Oregon, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9127N-14-R-0029 for ship repair services. MIDD asserts that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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: Mare Island Dry Dock, LLC File: B-410821 Date: February 26, 2015 Theodore P. Watson, Esq., Nicole L. Carter, Esq., and Leanna Ajour, Esq., Watson & Associates, LLC, for the protester. Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., Ethan E. Marsh, Esq., and Charles L. Capito, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for Vigor Marine, LLC, an intervenor. Andrew Ainsworth, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Matthew T. Crosby, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Allegation that agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s proposal is denied where record reflects that proposal did not clearly provide information required by solicitation and that evaluation was otherwise reasonable and consistent with solicitation terms. DECISION Mare Island Dry Dock, LLC (MIDD), of Vallejo, California, protests the award of a contract to Vigor Marine, LLC, of Portland, Oregon, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9127N-14-R-0029 for ship repair services. MIDD asserts that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on August 29, 2014, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a 1-year period of performance. RFP at 3-7. Award was to be made to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. Id. at 230. The solicitation established the following non-price evaluation factors: capabilities; recent relevant experience; safety; environmental compliance; and past performance. RFP at 230. The capabilities factor included two subfactors: pier and wet berth; and drydock. Id. The solicitation provided that a proposal would be deemed acceptable only if it was evaluated as meeting all of the minimum requirements specified under the evaluation factors and subfactors. See id. Additionally, the solicitation cautioned that “[p]roposals must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this RFP,” and that the “[a]bsence of information will be deemed as if no support for that criterion was provided.” Id. at 217. The solicitation also cautioned that the agency intended to make award without holding discussions. Id. at 230. Under the pier and wet berth subfactor, the solicitation listed the following “[m]inimum requirements”: a. Low water level of 25 feet; b. 380 feet between fore and aft tie off kevels; c. 50’-0” x 16’-0” clear dock working area; d. Documented pounds per square foot load capability; e. 1200A, 480V AC, 3-phase, 60 cycle electrical service with GFCI and phase protection[.] RFP at 231. Hence, under section (d) above, the solicitation required that proposals include “[d]ocumented pounds per square foot load capability” for the proposed pier and wet berth. The agency received two proposals in response to the solicitation--one from MIDD, and one from Vigor. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 4. A technical evaluation board (TEB) convened and evaluated the proposals. As relevant here, the TEB found that MIDD’s proposal failed to include the “[d]ocumented pounds per square foot load capability” for MIDD’s proposed pier and wet berth. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, MIDD Technical Proposal Evaluation, at 4-5, 7. Because, as stated above, this was a minimum requirement under the pier and wet berth subfactor, the TEB assigned a rating of unacceptable to MIDD’s proposal under that subfactor. Id. at 7. After reviewing the TEB’s findings, the contracting officer, who also served as the source selection authority in this procurement, directed the contracting specialist to submit a clarification request to MIDD regarding whether the firm’s proposal included information documenting the pounds per square foot load capability of MIDD’s proposed pier and wet berth.[1] Contracting Officer’s Statement at 6. Thereafter, the contracting specialist sent the following communication to MIDD: This e-mail is a request for clarification per FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation] 15.306(a). This e‑mail does not constitute discussions per FAR 15.306(b). [T]he subject RFP, Sub-factor 1 (Pier and Wet Berth) requests for Offerors to document pounds per square foot load capability.