Mustang Survival Manufacturing, Inc.

B-424336 Jun 04, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mustang Survival Manufacturing, Inc. (Mustang), of LaFayette, California, protests the award of a contract to RFD Beaufort, Inc., of Sharon Center, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00104-25-R-ZD83, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for submarine escape and surface survival personnel equipment (SESSPE) suits. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of RFD Beaufort's proposal, as well as the award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Mustang Survival Manufacturing, Inc. File: B-424336 Date: June 4, 2026 Andrew Branagh for the protester. Thomas E. Daley, Esq., and Frederick W. La Violette, Esq., DLA Piper LLP US, for RFD Beaufort, Inc., the intervenor. Susan Whitley-Newburg, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Michelle Litteken, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging various aspects of the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal and the award decision is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with applicable regulations and the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Mustang Survival Manufacturing, Inc. (Mustang), of LaFayette, California, protests the award of a contract to RFD Beaufort, Inc., of Sharon Center, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00104-25-R-ZD83, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for submarine escape and surface survival personnel equipment (SESSPE) suits. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of RFD Beaufort's proposal, as well as the award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The SESSPE suit is a life-saving device used to evacuate submariners from a submerged submarine in the event of an emergency. Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1.[1] The agency states that in every submarine, there must be a SESSPE suit for every submariner, and there are two prequalified sources for SESSPE suits: Mustang and RFD Beaufort. Id. On October 1, 2025, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15,[2] the Navy issued the RFP, seeking 998 SESSPE suits.[3] COS/MOL at 1, 3; AR, Tab 6, RFP at 2; AR, Tab 9, RFP amend. 3 at 6-9. The solicitation contemplated a fixed-price contract, with an option to purchase up to 100 percent of the base quantity of SESSPE suits. COS/MOL at 1-2. The agency reserved the right to award multiple contracts if doing so was determined to be in the government's best interests. RFP amend. 3 at 8. The RFP established that award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis. RFP at 59. In addition, and relevant here, the RFP incorporated Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) provision 252.204-7024, Notice on the Use of the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS).[4] Id. The relevant section of this provision, describing use of the SPRS, states that the contracting officer will consider information regarding item, price, and supplier risks from the SPRS in the evaluation. DFARS provision 252.204-7024(c). The Navy received proposals from Mustang and RFD Beaufort prior to the solicitation's February 2, 2026 closing date. COS/MOL at 3. The agency evaluated the offerors' proposals and determined that both of the proposals were technically acceptable. Id. The contracting officer also evaluated the offerors' pricing, with Mustang proposing a base quantity unit price of $3,875, and RFD Beaufort proposing a base quantity unit price of $3,706. AR, Tab 15, Business Clearance Memo at 1. The contracting officer found there was adequate price competition, compared the prices proposed by the offerors,[5] and then compared RFD Beaufort's proposed pricing to the most recent contract for SESSPE suits. Id. at 1-2. The contracting officer observed that RFD Beaufort's proposed unit price for the base quantity was approximately 20 percent lower than the unit price under the prior contract. Id. at 2. The agency concluded the price evaluation as follows: “R[F]D Beaufort's proposed price is determined fair and reasonable based on adequate competition and the comparison to historical unit prices paid that were determined Fair and Reasonable.” Id. The agency then reviewed data from the SPRS for each offeror and found that Mustang had a score of 333, and RFD Beaufort had a score of 303.[6] AR, Tab 14, SPRS Report for Mustang at 1; AR, Tab 13, SPRS Report for RFD Beaufort at 1. The agency concluded that neither offeror presented a performance risk. COS/MOL at 8.