BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc. (N0002424R4429)

B-423271 Apr 14, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc., of San Diego, California, protests the award of a contract to Continental Maritime of San Diego, LLC (CMSD), of San Diego, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-24-R-4429, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for ship repair and alteration services for the USS Russell. BAE alleges that the agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals and subsequent source selection decision were improper. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc. File: B-423271 Date: April 14, 2025 Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., and Kyung S. Liu-Katz, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester. Stowell B. Holcomb, Esq., Jackson Holcomb, LLP, for Continental Maritime of San Diego, LLC, the intervenor. Rhonda L. Russ, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency’s conclusion that protester did not demonstrate sufficient capacity at its privately-operated dry dock to qualify for an award preference is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 2. Protest alleging that agency evaluated offerors’ manpower proposals unreasonably and unequally is denied where the protester’s assertions are not supported by the record. DECISION BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc., of San Diego, California, protests the award of a contract to Continental Maritime of San Diego, LLC (CMSD), of San Diego, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-24-R-4429, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for ship repair and alteration services for the USS Russell. BAE alleges that the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ proposals and subsequent source selection decision were improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the RFP on May 30, 2024, under Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15, seeking proposals to provide ship maintenance, repair, and modernization services--referred to as a “docking selected restricted availability” (DSRA) or, more generally, as an “availability”--for the naval vessel USS Russell under the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1, 175.[1] The solicitation required the successful contractor to furnish the material, support, and facilities--as well as to provide the management, technical, procurement, production, testing, and quality assurance services--necessary to prepare and accomplish repairs and alterations for the USS Russell in accordance with the solicitation. RFP at 4, 70. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with a 14‑month period of performance. COS/MOL at 2; RFP at 116‑120. Basis for Award and General Evaluation Criteria The solicitation advised that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conformed to the solicitation requirements and represented the best value to the government in a tradeoff considering the following five factors: (1) technical eligibility and physical resource capacity; (2) manpower and small business participation; (3) schedule and execution approach; (4) past performance; and (5) price. RFP at 196. The manpower and small business factor was comprised of two subfactors: (a) manpower; and (b) small business participation. Id. The RFP provided that the agency would first evaluate proposals under the technical eligibility and physical resource capacity factor and the past performance factor as either acceptable or unacceptable. Id. at 197. If a proposal was found to be unacceptable under either factor, the agency reserved the right to not further evaluate that proposal. Id. For the evaluation under the remaining non-price factors and subfactors, the agency would use the adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. Id. at 197, 204‑205. For the purpose of a tradeoff, the manpower and small business participation factor and the schedule and execution approach factor were equal in importance. Id. at 197. Under the manpower and small business participation factor, the manpower subfactor was more important than the small business participation subfactor. Id. The non-price factors, when combined, were considered significantly more important than price.