Daniel Fung | Shutterstock

Protest challenging Navy’s best value determination is denied. The protester argued that the best value analysis was unreasonable because the protester had a technically capable solution at a lower price than the awardee. But the RFP provided that the past performance and technical factors were significantly more important than price. The awardee had much higher ratings on past performance and technical factors. In light of this, the agency did not abuse its discretion in selecting the awardee’s higher-priced proposal.

The Navy issued an RFP for barge overhaul and inspection services. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated under three factors: past performance, technical, and price. Past performance was more important than technical, and combined past performance and technical were significantly more important than price.

The Navy received proposals from Colonna’s Shipyard, Inc. and Lyon Shipyard, Inc. The Navy found that Lyon’s ratings under the past performance and technical factors were better than Colonna’s. While Lyon’s price was 13% higher than Colonna’s, the Navy determined that Lyon’s proposal represented the best value to the government. Colonna’s protested.

Colonna’s argued that the best value tradeoff was unreasonable. Colonna’s contended that there was little substantive evidence to suggest that Lyon had more technical capability than Colonna’s. Indeed, the Navy had found that the Colonna’s offered a technically capable alternative. There was not need, Colonna’s contended, for the Navy to pay a price premium.

GAO rejected Colonna’s argument. The RFP clearly provided that past performance and technical capability were more significantly more important than price. Lyon had a much higher past performance and technical ratings than Colonna’s. An agency may select a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal as reflecting the best value were, as here, that decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria, and the agency reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher-priced proposal outweighs the price benefits of a lower-priced proposal.

Colonna’s also complained that the Navy had failed to adequately explain its reasons for the award to Lyon. But GAO found that not only was the Navy’s explanation sufficient, the adequacy of a debriefing or a post-award notice is procedural matter that GAO does not consider in a protest.

Finally, Colonna’s asserted that the Navy should have conducted discussions to resolve minor deficiencies in the company’s proposals. The Navy had conducted limited discussions with offerors to give them an opportunity to revise price proposals, but it had not allowed offerors to address other issues. GAO failed to see how these limited discussions were unfair to Colonna’s or how the company had been prejudiced the Navy’s actions.

Colonna is represented by Yuki Haraguchi and Chidinma Okogbue of Holmes Pittman & Haraguchi LLP. The intervenor, Lyon, is represented by Shomari B. Wade, Michael J. Gardner, and Danielle K. Muenzfeld of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The agency is represented by William R. James and James M. Metcalfe of the Navy. GAO attorneys Kasia Dourney and Evan C. Williams participated in the preparation of the decision.