HSV Consulting (N0018923Q0418)

B-422013 Nov 21, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights HSV Consulting, of Rochester, New York, protests the terms of, and the award of a contract under, request for quotations (RFQ) No. N0018923Q0418, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for ship piloting and maneuvering consulting services in support of Littoral Combat Ship Squadron Two (LCSRON-2). HSV contends that the solicitation terms are unreasonable and reflect bias, and also that the award was unreasonable as a result of the awardee's lack of understanding of the contract requirements and failure to comply with a mandatory solicitation requirement. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: HSV Consulting File: B-422013 Date: November 21, 2023 Henrick Hollesen for the protester. Philip Rappmund, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest arguing that awardee’s quotation was noncompliant with a solicitation requirement is denied where the agency reasonably waived the requirement and the protester was not prejudiced as a result of the waiver. DECISION HSV Consulting, of Rochester, New York, protests the terms of, and the award of a contract under,[1] request for quotations (RFQ) No. N0018923Q0418, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for ship piloting and maneuvering consulting services in support of Littoral Combat Ship Squadron Two (LCSRON-2). HSV contends that the solicitation terms are unreasonable and reflect bias, and also that the award was unreasonable as a result of the awardee’s lack of understanding of the contract requirements and failure to comply with a mandatory solicitation requirement. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on July 27, 2023, seeking commercial services required by LCSRON-2 to assist with the navigation of the USS Marinette, a littoral combat ship (LCS), through the Great Lakes. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ at 8. The solicitation sought to award a fixed-price contract pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and FAR part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures. Id. at 3. The Navy required these services for two missions to be conducted by the USS Marinette in October of 2023. Id. at 8. The solicitation provided for a two-phase consideration of quotations using the following evaluation factors: technical certifications, past performance, and price. Id. at 3-4. In phase 1, vendors’ quotations would be evaluated under the technical certifications factor on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. at 5. Quotations that received an unacceptable rating under this factor would “no longer be considered for award and no further evaluation [would] be conducted.” Id. The solicitation stated that price was “not the most important evaluation factor” but would increase in importance “with the degree of equality of the quotes in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based.” Id. at 6. Ultimately, the agency would award a contract to “the vendor whose quote represents the best value to the [g]overnment, considering price and other factors when compared to other vendors.” Id. at 7. As relevant here, the solicitation provided that quotations would be evaluated under the technical certifications factor to assess each vendor’s “ability to demonstrate experience navigating the LCS Freedom Variant, or identical waterjet driven ships, in the Great Lakes while completing at least one transit of the associated locks and canals between Marinette, [Wisconsin] and Quebec City, Quebec within the last five (5) years, and prior completion of the Navy’s sponsored LCS course.” Id. at 5. In addition, the solicitation required vendors to “demonstrate that they have completed at least two transits of the associated locks and canals between Marinette, [Wisconsin], Escanaba, [Michigan] and Quebec City, Quebec within the last five (5) years.” Id. at 3. In response to the solicitation, the agency received two timely quotations, from HSV and Seasmoke respectively. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1. Following the receipt of quotations, the Navy evaluated vendors under the non-price factors as follows:   HSV Seasmoke Technical Certifications Unacceptable Acceptable Past Performance Not Evaluated Relevant/Substantial Confidence[2]   Id. at 4. As HSV’s quotation was found to be technically unacceptable, Seasmoke was the only remaining acceptable vendor. Id. at 6. Accordingly, the agency determined that Seasmoke’s quotation represented the best value to the government and awarded it the contract.