Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of the Navy
Disposition: Protest denied.
General Counsel P.C. Highlight:
GAO denied the protest of DaeKee Global Co. Ltd. based on the award of a contract, by the Department of the Navy, to Glenn Defense Marine-Asia PTE, Ltd. (GDMA), under a request for proposals (RFP) for maritime husbanding support to United States Navy and other ships visiting ports in East Asia, including services in support of Operations Other Than War (OOTW).
The RFP was issued for the award of four separate fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for a base year, with four one-year options. The RFP provided that award would be based on a best-value basis, considering: technical approach; past performance; and price. Regarding past performance, offerors were required to submit a past performance matrix listing and describing all “directly related or similar Government or commercial contracts or subcontracts currently being performed, or completed in the past three years which are similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to that which is detailed in this solicitation.” Four equally-weighted areas to be evaluated were level of capability, efficiency, and effectiveness in providing service; (2) conformance to the terms and conditions of the contract; (3) “level of reasonableness and cooperation;” and (4) level of commitment to good customer service.
The protester challenged the evaluation of GDMA’s past performance. The protester first argued that GDMA submitted past performance reference information sheets (PPRISs) for more than five contracts, including some outside the three-year range allowed. The record showed that GDMA submitted only five PPRISs, all within the timeframe allowed by the solicitation.
The protester also argued that the agency improperly considered GDMA’s reference to the employment history of its manager as part of the past performance evaluation for GDMA. The agency, in discussions with GDMA, stated that it “[did] not appear to have any experience in South Korea,” and asked the firm to state its plans or infrastructure that it would put into place to satisfactorily perform in South Korea’s “frequently used ports.” However, GAO found that there was no indication in the record that the PPET considered this response to the discussion question as part of its past performance evaluation of GDMA. Moreover, the declaration from the TEB chairman indicates that the TEB considered the response as part of its evaluation of GDMA’s technical approach. GAO, therefore, concluded that it had no basis to conclude that the agency evaluated the past performance of GDMA in a manner inconsistent with the solicitation.
Finally, the protester argued that GDMA’s past performance should have received a lower rating, given its lack of experience in the region, and specifically in the Republic of Korea. However, a review of the record showed that the PPET found that GDMA’s past performance under relevant contracts met or exceeded most of the agency’s requirements, and that it documented why GDMA’s past performance warranted a better rating.