Colonna's Shipyard, Inc. (N4215820QS031)

B-418896 Sep 29, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Colonna's Shipyard, Inc. (Colonna), a small business of Norfolk, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Lyon Shipyard, Inc., a small business of Norfolk, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N4215820PS154, issued by the Department of the Navy for barge overhaul and inspection services at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Virginia. The protester challenges the agency's best-value determination, and contends that the agency failed to provide an adequate explanation for its award decision. In addition, Colonna alleges that the Navy should have held discussions to clarify minor deficiencies in its proposal. We dismiss the protest in part, and deny it in part. 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:  Colonna's Shipyard, Inc. File:  B-418896 Date:  September 29, 2020 Yuki Haraguchi, Esq., and Chidinma Okogbue, Esq., Holmes Pittman & Haraguchi LLP, for the protester. Shomari B. Wade, Esq., Michael J. Gardner, Esq., and Danielle K. Muenzfeld, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for Lyon Shipyard, Inc., the intervenor. William R. James, Esq., and James M. Metcalfe, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s best-value determination is denied where the agency reasonably determined that the awardee’s higher-rated, higher-priced proposal represented the best value to the agency. DECISION Colonna’s Shipyard, Inc. (Colonna), a small business of Norfolk, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Lyon Shipyard, Inc., a small business of Norfolk, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N4215820PS154, issued by the Department of the Navy for barge overhaul and inspection services at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Virginia.  The protester challenges the agency’s best-value determination, and contends that the agency failed to provide an adequate explanation for its award decision.  In addition, Colonna alleges that the Navy should have held discussions to clarify minor deficiencies in its proposal. We dismiss the protest in part, and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on March 27, 2020, as a small business set-aside, anticipating award of a fixed-price contract, on a best-value tradeoff basis, for a period of performance between September 25, 2020 and November 9, 2020.  Agency Report (AR), Encl. 3, RFP at 1, 18; Encl. 4, RFP amend. 0002 at 1.  Although not clearly stated in the solicitation, the agency advises and the protester does not dispute that the procurement was conducted using the simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 13.5.[1] Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The RFP sought proposals for overhaul and inspection services of barge YD 257 at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, including management and disposal of all hazardous wastes; inspection and repair of underwater hull and freeboard; inspection, repair and preservation of watertight bulkhead frames; and other related services.[2]  Id.  Offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated under three factors, in descending order of importance:  past performance; technical capability; and cost/price.  RFP at 18.  The solicitation stated that past performance was more important than technical capability, and when combined, they were significantly more important than cost/price.  Id. The RFP instructed that the past performance factor would be evaluated in two aspects:  relevancy and a performance confidence assessment.  RFP at 19-20.  Under relevancy, the agency was to assess whether past performance references were similar in scope and magnitude to the current requirement.  Id. at 20.  For the performance confidence assessment, the Navy would considerhow well the contractor performed on the identified past performance references.  Id.  With respect to cost/price, the RFP stated that the agency would evaluate proposals for price reasonableness.  Id.