South Bay Sand Blasting and Tank Cleaning, Inc.

B-416822 Dec 20, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights South Bay Sand Blasting and Tank Cleaning, Inc., a small business of National City, California, protests the exclusion of its proposal from competition by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N4523A18R0826 for preservation services for aircraft carriers, submarines, and other surface vessels. South Bay alleges that the agency failed to properly evaluate its proposal under the technical capabilities factor of the RFP. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  South Bay Sand Blasting and Tank Cleaning, Inc. File:  B-416822 Date:  December 20, 2018 Clinton L. Hubbard, Esq., Law Offices of Clinton D. Hubbard, for the protester. Lisa N. Foster, Esq., and David J. Kelly, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal under the technical capabilities factor is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.  DECISION South Bay Sand Blasting and Tank Cleaning, Inc., a small business of National City, California, protests the exclusion of its proposal from competition by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N4523A18R0826 for preservation services for aircraft carriers, submarines, and other surface vessels.  South Bay alleges that the agency failed to properly evaluate its proposal under the technical capabilities factor of the RFP.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 8, 2017, the agency awarded two 5-year multiple-award, fixed-price, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for preservation services with a $260.1 million maximum ordering ceiling.  Agency Report (AR), Contracting Officer’s Statement /Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2.  The multiple-award contracts included provisions for on-ramping additional preservation contractors during the ordering period, depending on government resources and market conditions.  Id.  On February 23, 2018, using the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, the agency issued the instant solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website seeking to on-ramp additional contractors through the award of additional multiple-award IDIQ contracts. [2]  Id.; AR, Tab 3, RFP at 1, 100.  The solicitation requires offerors to provide all management, labor, staging, containment, material, support services, and equipment necessary to perform preservation services, as well as provide personnel for certain positions.  RFP at 5-6.  Award was to be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, considering technical capabilities, past performance and price.  Id. at 100.  The RFP provided that the technical capabilities and past performance factors would be rated as either acceptable or unacceptable, and that an unacceptable rating for any factor would render a proposal ineligible for award.  Id. at 100-101.  With regard to the technical capabilities factor, the solicitation required that an offeror’s proposal meet minimum requirements, including, that the “[t]he offeror provide[ ] a resume and certifications for the Safety and Health Manager as referenced and IAW [in accordance with] section C.”  Id. at 101.  In this regard, the RFP required that the contractor provide “a Safety and Health Manager” for orders issued under this contract.  Id. at 6.  Section C of the RFP specified that the contractor safety and health manager have “at least 5 years of experience in marine preservation efforts in a U.S. Navy shipyard environment with two (2) or more years of direct experience with standards and specifications for application of coating systems and shall be able to ensure the requirements of federal, state, local laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations are met.”  Id.    The agency received seven proposals by the March 26 closing date, including that of South Bay.  COS/MOL at 4.  The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated proposals and presented its findings to the source selection advisory committee (SSAC), which recommended to the source selection authority (SSA) that it was in the best interest of the government to enter into discussions with all offerors.  The SSA established a competitive range of all seven offerors. AR, Tab 4, SSEB Initial Consensus Rating Summary; COS/MOL at 5.  The agency notified South Bay, via email, that despite its inclusion in the competitive range its technical proposal was rated as unacceptable.  The agency also provided South Bay an evaluation notice (EN) explaining the deficiency in its proposal.