MAR Division of Oasis Systems, LLC

B-414810.5 Jul 26, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MAR, a Division of Oasis Systems, LLC, of Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA), of Albuquerque, New Mexico, under request for proposals (RFP) No. E16PS00140, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, for the operation and maintenance of the agency's Ohmsett facility. MAR maintains that ARA has an organizational conflict of interest, and that the agency's evaluation of the proposed prices 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:  MAR, a Division of Oasis Systems, LLC File:  B-414810.5 Date:  July 26, 2018 Scott A. Freling, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Nooree Lee, Esq., and Tyler Evans, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for the protester. Eric Whytsell, Esq., G. Lindsay Simmons, Esq., Hopewell H. Darneille, III, Esq., and Rodney W. Stieger, Esq., Jackson Kelly PLLC, for Applied Research Associates, Inc., an intervenor. William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that awardee has an “impaired objectivity“ type of organizational conflict of interest (OCI) is denied where record shows that agency thoroughly investigated the question and concluded (1) that award of the contract to the entity in question did not, in and of itself, present an OCI; (2) to the extent that issuance of future task orders might present a possible OCI, the agency will evaluate the question at the time those task orders are issued; and (3) there are robust safeguards in place to prevent the awardee from exerting improper influence in performing the contract. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s price evaluation is denied where record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION MAR, a Division of Oasis Systems, LLC, of Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA), of Albuquerque, New Mexico, under request for proposals (RFP) No. E16PS00140, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, for the operation and maintenance of the agency’s Ohmsett facility.  MAR maintains that ARA has an organizational conflict of interest, and that the agency’s evaluation of the proposed prices was unreasonable.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The contract at issue is for the operation and maintenance of Ohmsett, the National Oil Spill Response Research and Renewable Energy Test Facility, located on the grounds of the Naval Weapons Station Earle.  The principal asset at Ohmset is a 2.6 million gallon saltwater test tank where full-scale oil spill response equipment testing, research and training can be performed in a marine environment with oil under controlled environmental conditions, and where research and testing of wave energy conversion devices also may be performed.[2]  The successful offeror will be required to operate and maintain the Ohmsett facility, and to conduct testing and training on behalf of government, academic, and industry customers. The RFP contemplates the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for a base year and four 1-year options, considering price and several non-price considerations, with the non-price considerations deemed more important than price.  RFP at 71.  Proposals were submitted by the protester and ARA.  The agency evaluated the proposals, engaged in discussions, and solicited, obtained, and evaluated revised proposals.  The agency’s actions during the procurement, and the results of the agency’s evaluation under the non-price evaluation factors are not in dispute, and the record shows that ARA was rated technically superior to MAR under every non-price evaluation factor except past performance, where MAR was rated slightly superior to ARA.  Agency Report (AR) exh. 17, Initial Source Selection Document (SSD), at 10.  ARA’s evaluated price was higher than MAR’s, but the agency selected the ARA proposal, finding that its technical superiority merited the cost premium associated with award to that firm.[3]  Id.