Marine Design Dynamics, Inc.

B-414109 Feb 16, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Marine Design Dynamics, Inc. (Marine), of Washington, DC, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-16-R-2212, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for a post shakedown availability of United States Naval Ship (USNS) Lewis B. Puller (Puller), an expeditionary mobile base vessel. Marine challenges the agency's conduct of discussions and the evaluation of its technical proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Marine Design Dynamics, Inc. File:  B-414109 Date:  February 16, 2017 Bradford P. Johnson, Esq., Johnson Law Group International, PLLC, for the protester. C. Peter Dungan, Esq., Christine Reynolds, Esq., and Thomas L. McGovern III, Esq., Hogan Lovells US LLP, for Metro Machine Corporation d/b/a General Dynamics NASSCO-Norfolk, an intervenor. Katherine A. Andrias, Esq., Susan S. Grooms, Esq., and Rhonda L. Russ, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s conduct of discussions and evaluation in a lowest-priced, technically acceptable procurement is denied where the record provides no basis on which to conclude that discussions were not meaningful and where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Marine Design Dynamics, Inc. (Marine), of Washington, DC, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-16-R-2212, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for a post shakedown availability[1] of United States Naval Ship (USNS) Lewis B. Puller (Puller), an expeditionary mobile base vessel.  Marine challenges the agency’s conduct of discussions and the evaluation of its technical proposal. We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The solicitation,[2] issued on July 22, 2016, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, with base and option contract line item numbers (CLINs).  RFP at 1, 2-20, 94.  The work will include such items as significant alteration/modernization and integration of naval and aviation requirements, as well as post-delivery repairs and modernization.  Id. at 28-39.  Award was to be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis, considering the following four technical evaluation factors:  understanding of the statement of work, ability to perform the statement of work, management control and quality assurance, and past performance.  Id. at 113.  For the understanding of the statement of work factor, as relevant here, section L of the solicitation required offerors to submit a time-phased progress sequencing network (TPSN) that demonstrates, in detail, an understanding of the overall scope and plan to accomplish contractor work.  Id. at 100.  The solicitation also required that the TPSN provide the anticipated progress at one week intervals and the anticipated manning levels for each work item at one week intervals; and that it include at a minimum 18 specific milestones, the dates of which were specified by the agency.  Id.; see also id., section J-6, Execution Milestones and Key Event Dates.  The solicitation further required that offerors demonstrate an understanding of the requirements of the contract by providing a critical path analysis by work item, as well as a detailed narrative addressing areas specified in the solicitation and other areas that the offeror deemed critical.  RFP at 100.  Also of relevance to the protest, the solicitation requested that the offeror demonstrate it would plan, manage, and execute a number of specific work items that were of particular concern to the agency.  Id. at 100-101. The solicitation stated that all offerors’ responses would be evaluated, as relevant here, to assess the offeror’s understanding of the statement of work (SOW) as it “pertains to the requirements of Section L of this solicitation.  The offeror will be evaluated on the documentation and narratives relating to planning [and] scheduling . . . that it proposes to satisfy the requirements of the [Puller] [post-shakedown availability].”  Id.