Owl International, Inc- dba Global 1st Flagship Company (N00024-23-R-4304)

B-423281,B-423281.2 Apr 25, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Owl International Inc., doing business as Global, a 1st Flagship Company, of Irvine, California, protests the award of a contract to PCCI, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-23-R-4304, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for services to manage, operate, and maintain the emergency ship salvage material (ESSM) system and support the Navy's oil and hazardous substance spill response program worldwide. The incumbent contractor is a joint venture named Global PCCI JV, whose majority owner at 51 percent is the protester, Owl, and the awardee, PCCI, is the minority owner at 49 percent. Owl contends that the Navy misevaluated both firms' proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. View Decision Decision   Matter of: Owl International Inc., d/b/a Global, a 1st Flagship Company File: B-423281; B-423281.2 Date: April 25, 2025 John R. Prairie, Esq., Cara L. Sizemore, Esq., Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Teresita A. Regelbrugge, Esq., and Morgan Huston, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Amy C. Hoang, Esq., Edward V. Arnold, Esq., Erica L. Bakies, Esq., Sarah E. Barney, Esq., and Zachary F. Jacobson, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for PCCI, Inc., the intervenor. J. Gregory Lennon, Esq., Rizlane Riahi, Esq., and Stuart J. Anderson, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Todd C. Culliton, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency misevaluated proposals by failing to assess professional compensation plans as provided in Federal Acquisition Regulation provision 52.222‑46 is sustained where solicitation required offerors to submit information necessary to perform an evaluation and agency did not perform the required evaluation. 2. Protest that agency misevaluated technical and past performance proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria. 3. Protest that agency misevaluated proposed costs by considering capped indirect costs to be realistic is denied where the solicitation provided for that treatment, and the evaluation was thus consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Owl International Inc., doing business as Global, a 1st Flagship Company, of Irvine, California, protests the award of a contract to PCCI, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-23-R-4304, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for services to manage, operate, and maintain the emergency ship salvage material (ESSM) system and support the Navy’s oil and hazardous substance spill response program worldwide. The incumbent contractor is a joint venture named Global PCCI JV, whose majority owner at 51 percent is the protester, Owl, and the awardee, PCCI, is the minority owner at 49 percent. Owl contends that the Navy misevaluated both firms’ proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the RFP on September 28, 2023, to obtain proposals to provide services under an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for five years, with a maximum value of $315 million. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Consolidated RFP at 1‑3. Offerors were directed to price services on a cost-plus-award-fee basis for operational efforts, and on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis for nonoperational efforts. Id. at 2. The RFP included a statement of work (SOW) that described the general scope of the contract as providing engineering and technical services to support the ESSM system, provide operational and nonoperational support to the Navy’s oil and hazardous substance spill response program. Additionally, the contractor would provide equipment operation, maintenance, and related support at remote sites for a range of operations. Id. at 15. The RFP instructed offerors to submit proposals in three volumes: technical (volume I), cost/price (volume II), and solicitation package (volume III). Id. at 72. The RFP anticipated the award of a single IDIQ contract to the offeror whose proposal was evaluated as offering the best value to the government. The evaluation of proposals would utilize three factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical capability, past performance, and cost/price. Id. at 109. When combined, the technical capability and past performance factors were significantly more important than cost/price in determining which proposal provided the best value; in other words, the RFP indicated that the source selection would be based on a tradeoff among the technical capability, past performance, and cost/price factors.