Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC (693JF719R000034)

B-419020,B-419020.2,B-419020.3 Nov 25, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC, of San Rafael, California, protests the award of a contract to Crowley Government Services, Inc., of Jacksonville, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 693JF719R000034, issued by the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (MARAD), to acquire, operate, and maintain replacement vessels for the Ready Reserve Force (RRF). The protester asserts that the agency failed to conduct a proper price realism analysis of Crowley's proposed price, and failed to recognize that the significant difference in proposed prices was due to a latent ambiguity in the solicitation regarding the required crew to operate and maintain the vessels. Pasha also challenges the evaluation of technical proposals and past performance. We sustain 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:  Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC File:  B-419020; B-419020.2; B-419020.3 Date:  November 25, 2020 James J. McCullough, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., Anayansi Rodriguez, Esq., and Christopher H. Bell, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester. James Y. Boland, Esq., Christopher G. Griesedieck, Esq., and Michael T. Francel, Esq., Venable LLP, for Crowley Government Services, Inc., the intervenor. Ryan M. Kabacinski, Esq., Ashley S. Amano, Esq., Gregory A. Harding, Esq., and Mary McAllaster, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s price realism evaluation is sustained where the record provides insufficient evidence that the agency considered the possible risk to contract performance of the awardee’s lowest-priced proposal; to the extent that the agency considered the awardee’s technical approach to comply with the solicitation’s requirements, the analysis was based on incorrect facts. 2.  Protest that the competition was flawed because the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity about the crew requirements for vessels is sustained.  3.  Protest challenging the agency’s past performance evaluation is sustained where the evaluation was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. 4.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals is sustained where the evaluation was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC, of San Rafael, California, protests the award of a contract to Crowley Government Services, Inc., of Jacksonville, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 693JF719R000034, issued by the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (MARAD), to acquire, operate, and maintain replacement vessels for the Ready Reserve Force (RRF).  The protester asserts that the agency failed to conduct a proper price realism analysis of Crowley’s proposed price, and failed to recognize that the significant difference in proposed prices was due to a latent ambiguity in the solicitation regarding the required crew to operate and maintain the vessels.  Pasha also challenges the evaluation of technical proposals and past performance. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND MARAD requires replacement vessels for the RRF, and, to procure those vessels, it issued this solicitation seeking the services of a vessel acquisition manager (VAM).  The agency sought a VAM with experience procuring, reflagging, re-classifying, modifying, and maintaining and operating vessels.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, RFP amend. 0002 at 13.  The solicitation sought proposals for the issuance of a single cost reimbursable and fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 4-year base period, a 2-year option period, and a 6-month extension.  Id. at 21.  The agency advised offerors that proposals would “be compared on the basis of their ratings, strengths, weaknesses, risks, and total evaluated price.”  Id. at 141.  Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the agency, considering the following five evaluation factors:  technical approach, management approach, operations and maintenance approach, past performance, and price.  Id.  The technical approach factor was the most important factor.  The management approach factor and operations and maintenance approach factor were of equal importance; each was less important than the technical approach factor and more important than the past performance factor.  All non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id.