About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

B-291760 1 (2003-02-11)

handle is hein.gao/gaobacyfe0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 


   I

          G    A    0Comptroller General
A-      Accountability * Integrity * Reliability                    of the United States
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548



          Decision


          Matter of:  Honolulu Shipyard, Inc.

          File:       B-291760

          Date:       February 11, 2003

          Bruce A. Young for the protester.
          Kelly M. Calahan, Esq., Katherine A. Andrias, Esq., and Dawn M. Gingerich, Esq.,
          Department of the Navy, for the agency.
          Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
          GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal with
          respect to past performance is denied where the record shows that the evaluation
          was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria.
          DECISION

          Honolulu Shipyard, Inc. (HSI) protests the award of a contract to Marisco, Ltd.,
          under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62791-02-R-0093, issued by the Department
          of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, to obtain miscellaneous topside and
          interior repairs to the Barge YRBM-52. HSI argues that the Navy's evaluation of its
          past performance was unreasonable.

          We deny the protest.

          On July 16, 2002, the Navy's Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair,
          (SUPSHIP) in San Diego, California issued this solicitation to obtain miscellaneous
          topside and interior repairs on the Barge YRBM-52 at the contractor's facility in
          Hawaii. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for these
          services over a performance period of approximately 6 months. RFP at 13(rl).
          Award was to be made to the firm whose proposal represented the best value to the
          government, considering two evaluation factors, past performance and price. The
          past performance factor was approximately equal in importance to the price factor,
          with the former being more important than the latter. Id. at 32. The past
          performance factor was comprised of three equally important subfactors: technical
          (quality of product), schedule, and management. Id. at 31-32.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most