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.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptafzj0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
oComptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision
Matter of: Braswell Services Group, Inc.
File: B-276694
Date: July 15, 1997
William A. Scott, Esq., Pedersen & Scott, for the protester.
Daniel L. Martin, North Florida Shipyard, Inc., an intervenor.
Rhonda Russ, Esq., and Capt. J. L. Biliouris, Department of the Navy, for the
agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Solicitation reasonably reflected the agency's minimum needs and provided
sufficient information for offerors to intelligently prepare technical proposals and to
submit prices which will take into account perceived performance uncertainties and
risks.
DECISION
Braswell Services Group, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP)
No. N62670-97-R-0004, issued by the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and
Repair, Department of the Navy, for repairs to the USS Philippine Sea, a guided
missile cruiser. The protester basically contends that, as drafted, the RFP
requirements involving staff-days for reserve work and specified personnel positions
and the RFP evaluation scheme prevent it from intelligently preparing a proposal.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued on March 5, 1997, contemplated the award of a 3-month firm,
fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined most
advantageous to the government, past performance and price considered.
Concerning the past performance evaluation factor, the RFP listed three subfactors--
quality of product or service, timeliness of performance, and contracting/business
relations. Each subfactor contained several elements, for a total of 18 elements.
Concerning price, the RFP stated that an offeror's price would be evaluated for
reasonableness and whether it reflected the offeror's understanding of the work and
the firm's ability to perform the contract. In determining the proposal most
advantageous to the government, the RFP stated that the [p]ast performance factor
is more important than the [p]rice factor.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptafzj0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)