ACME Industrial Inc.

B-414023 Jan 13, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ACME Industrial, Inc., of Staten Island, New York, protests the award of a contract to Federated Maritime, LLC, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTMA91R1600045, issued by the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, for an Oily Water Separator System. ACME argues that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal and failed to make a reasonable price-technical tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  ACME Industrial, Inc. File:  B-414023 Date:  January 13, 2017 Joesph Mariucci, ACME Industrial, Inc., for the protester. Ashley S. Amano, Esq., and Janis P. Rodriguez, Esq., Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal and price-technical tradeoff decision is denied where the record shows that both were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria. DECISION ACME Industrial, Inc., of Staten Island, New York, protests the award of a contract to Federated Maritime, LLC, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTMA91R1600045, issued by the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, for an Oily Water Separator System.  ACME argues that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee’s proposal and failed to make a reasonable price-technical tradeoff decision.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on August 30, 2016, as a small business set-aside, anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract for the procurement and custom installation of an Oily Water Separator (OWS) System in the Engineering Laboratory at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York.  RFP at 4.  The purpose of the system is to train engineering midshipmen in the function, operation, and maintenance of a typical flocculent type OWS system commonly found on large merchant vessels.[2]  Id. Award was to be made, without conducting discussions, to the firm whose offer was determined to be the best overall value considering price and two non-price evaluation factors, technical approach and past performance.  Id. at 24.  The technical approach factor was significantly more important than past performance and price; the past performance factor was more important than price; and both non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 27.  Under the past performance factor, the only one at issue here,[3] the agency was to evaluate the offeror’s recent relevant experience to determine whether its experience in OWS purchase and installation contracts was similar in size, scope, complexity to the work at issue here.  Proposals were to be assigned relevancy ratings and confidence ratings of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence.  Id. at 25-26. The agency evaluated three of the proposals it received as technically acceptable:   Technical Approach Past Performance Price Offeror A Acceptable Not Relevant No Confidence $310,757 Federated Excellent Somewhat Relevant Satisfactory Confidence $347,326 ACME Marginal Somewhat Relevant Satisfactory Confidence $218,785 AR, exh. 5, Source Selection Decision, at 1. In her source selection decision, the contracting officer recounted the detailed evaluation findings for each proposal under each non-price factor.  Federated’s excellent technical approach rating was based, in part, upon its well-defined work plan and contingencies; extensive details for testing and training; the experience, certification, and availability of its project manager; and its detailed work breakdown structure (WBS).  Id. at 2-3.  The firm’s detailed and complete proposal gave the contracting officer confidence that Federated had the knowledge, experience and ability to complete the installation with minimal risk.  Id.  ACME’s marginal rating was based, in part, upon its limited details for system design or installation, utilities, testing or training; its failure to show the experience, certification, or availability of its project manager; and its failure to include a WBS of events or completion date.  Id. at 3.  The contracting officer stated that, although ACME was experienced in ship repair, nothing in its proposal indicated knowledge or experience in OWS system design or installation, and its proposal lacked details for the agency to fully understand its intentions.  Id. With respect to past performance, Federated’s satisfactory rating was based on four recent references.