The protester requested protest costs, arguing that the Navy had unjustly delayed corrective action regarding a flawed best-value analysis. The issue in the underlying protest was whether the Navy properly evaluated the proposals based on technical strengths. GAO determined that the protest was meritorious, granting the request for reimbursement due to the agency’s delay in taking corrective action.
Delphinus Engineering, Inc.–Costs, GAO, B-423203.3
- Background – The Navy issued a request for proposals for alteration installation team services, which included tasks like engineering support and installation on ships. The Navy awarded the contract to the awardee based on a best-value tradeoff. The protester believed this decision misrepresented its proposal’s strengths. After a complicated procedural battle, GAO sided with the protester, finding a clear legal error in the Navy’s evaluation.
- Best-Value Tradeoff Flaw – The protester argued that the Navy’s assessment of the best-value tradeoff was fundamentally flawed. It claimed the Navy failed to adequately differentiate between the strengths in their proposal and those of the awardee, especially since both were credited with similar experience. GAO agreed with the protester, finding that the Navy’s decision to favor the awardee acked a reasonable basis since it did not appropriately justify discernible advantages.
- Undue Delay in Corrective Action – The protester contended that the Navy unduly delayed in correcting the award decision despite clear protest strengths. GAO found that the Navy should have promptly acknowledged its flawed evaluation before Delphinus expanded its protest with further comments and supplemental arguments. This failure was significant, as it compounded the protester’s costs and efforts while delaying the proper resolution.
- Severable Issues – Although GAO acknowledged the merit in the protester’s challenge to the best-value tradeoff, it separated other issues related to the technical evaluation and misleading discussions, concluding that these claims were not clearly meritorious. In these areas, GAO determined that the agency’s legal positions were defensible and supported by sufficient rationale, thus not warranting reimbursement.
The protester was represented by Lucas T. Hanback, Esq. of Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, PC. The intervenor, Prism Maritime, LLC, was represented by Andrea Maglasang-Miller, Esq., and Julianne M. Surane, Esq. of the Department of the Navy. The government was represented by Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq. of GAO’s Office of General Counsel. GAO attorneys Edda Emmanuelli Perez participated in the decision.
