Delphinus Engineering, Inc.

B-423203.4 Dec 19, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Delphinus Engineering, Inc., a small business of Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to Prism Maritime, LLC, of Chesapeake, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6339422R0510, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, for alteration installation team (AIT) services and in-service engineering support. Delphinus argues that the Navy unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the technical and cost factors, engaged in misleading discussions, and made an unreasonable best-value tradeoff determination. 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: Delphinus Engineering, Inc. File: B-423203.4 Date: December 19, 2025 Lucas T. Hanback, Esq., Cindy Lopez, Esq., and Timothy A. Wieroniey, Esq., Rogers Joseph O'Donnell, PC, for the protester. Jacob D. Noe, Esq., J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., and Kenneth M. Hyde, Esq., Reaves GovCon Group, for Prism Maritime, LLC, the intervenor. Andrea Maglasang-Miller, Esq., and Julianne Surane, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency disparately evaluated proposals and unreasonably failed to assign additional strengths to protester's proposal is denied where agency evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. 2. Protest that agency conducted unreasonable cost realism analysis is denied where agency increased protester's proposed labor rates to account for escalation in accordance with the solicitation. 3. Protest that agency conducted misleading discussions is denied where the discussions identified the agency's primary concern that the protester's proposed escalation rates were unrealistically low, and it had adjusted the rates for all positions accordingly. 4. Protest that agency conducted an unreasonable best-value tradeoff determination is denied where agency reasonably concluded that awardee's proposal was technically superior to protester's proposal and worth a small price premium. DECISION Delphinus Engineering, Inc., a small business of Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to Prism Maritime, LLC, of Chesapeake, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6339422R0510, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, for alteration installation team (AIT) services and in-service engineering support. Delphinus argues that the Navy unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the technical and cost factors, engaged in misleading discussions, and made an unreasonable best-value tradeoff determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division (NSWC PHD), supports a variety of programs in its mission as the in‑service engineering agent. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, RFP at 24. The instant requirement is for AIT services to NSWC PHD onboard ships and land‑based facilities, including government laboratories. Id. AIT services include installation and engineering support, removal and modification of equipment or systems, welding, rigging, and fire watch. Id. at 24‑25. On October 28, 2021, the Navy issued the RFP as a small business set‑aside under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. RFP at 1; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. The solicitation contemplated the award of a cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee contract with a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year option periods. RFP at 6‑18, 149. The solicitation provided for award on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering the following evaluation factors: (1) technical capability; (2) management approach; (3) past performance; and (4) cost. Id. at 155. Relevant here, in evaluating the technical capability factor, the agency considered the following three elements: technical approach; staffing plan; and key personnel. Id. at 155‑157. The technical capability factor was considered more important than the management approach and past performance factors, and significantly more important than cost, with the importance of cost increasing as the proposals became more equal under the non-cost factors. Id. at 156. Under the management approach and past performance factors proposals would be rated acceptable or unacceptable. The agency would evaluate proposals under the technical capability factor only if the proposal was rated acceptable for management approach and past performance.