United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 Decision

Matter of: Ocean Services, LLC

File: B-406087; B-406087.2

Date: February 2, 2012

Wayne A. Keup, Esq., for the protester.

Fred Kopatich, Esq., Ashley Powers, Esq., and Mark Langstein, Esq., Department 

of Commerce, for the agency.

Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester’s proposal was reasonably excluded from the competitive range where the 

agency found that the proposal was technically unacceptable and would require 

major revisions to be made acceptable.

DECISION

Ocean Services, LLC, of Seattle, Washington, protests the elimination of its 

proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. QA133W-10-RP-0023, issued by the Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for marine vessels for the 

National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) to service weather buoys world-wide.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The NDBC is an agency within NOAA that provides meteorological and 

environmental monitoring data from buoys and other systems to NOAA. Among the 

Center’s responsibilities is the operation and maintenance of the national data buoy 

network, a system of weather buoys of differing sizes and mooring configurations. 

The procurement at issue here will provide for the transportation and berthing of 

technicians and other personnel to perform scheduled maintenance and “nonroutine activities” (that is, repairs of “discrepancies”) of the buoys. Agency Report 

(AR), Tab 2, Statement of NDBC Operations Branch Chief, at 1-2.

The RFP, issued as small business set-aside, provided for the award of multiple 

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for marine vessels to transport 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to 

a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has 

been approved for public release.
Page 2 B-406087, B-406087.2 

personnel to service buoys world-wide. The solicitation identified five contract line 

items (CLIN) for vessels of differing type or size.1

 As relevant here, CLIN A was for 

intermediate class vessels, CLIN B for global class vessels, and CLIN C1 for 

vessels under 125 feet in length to perform discrepancy services and other tasks. 

Offerors were permitted to submit proposals for any or all of the CLINs. RFP at 9. 

The RFP required offerors to identify specific vessels under each CLIN. Id.

A detailed Statement of Work (SOW) was provided that identified general 

requirements that all vessel classes must meet and specific requirements for each 

vessel class. SOW at 10-46. As relevant here, intermediate class vessels (CLIN A) 

were required to “be outfitted with . . . a shipboard working deck crane . . . [with a] 

minimum lifting capacity of 60,000 lbs., and located in the immediate vicinity of the 

buoy working deck area . . . [and] capable of reaching the edge of the ship.” SOW 

at 13. Global class vessels (CLIN B) were required to have a crane with a minimum 

capacity of 40,000 lbs. that extends the entire working deck space. Global class 

vessels were also required to have a stern A-frame with a safe working load of 

20,000 pounds, a vertical clearance of 28 feet between cross member and deck, 

and a horizontal clearance of 15 feet between legs at the deck.2 Id. at 14-15.

The RFP provided for awards on a best value basis, considering price and the 

following technical evaluation factors in descending order of importance: corporate 

experience and past performance; vessels’ characteristics and capabilities; 

technical plan and approach; and key personnel. RFP at 89-90. Offerors were 

informed that the technical evaluation factors combined were more important than 

price. The RFP detailed what would be evaluated under each evaluation factor. 

For example, offerors were informed that under the vessels’ characteristics and 

capabilities factor, the agency would evaluate, among other things, the vessels sea 

keeping characteristics and “deck equipment (cranes, A-frames, winches, capstan, 

etc.).” RFP at 89. 

Instructions for the preparation of proposals were provided for each evaluation 

factor. Offerors were informed that they should specifically and completely detail 

their “capabilities and the means to be used to satisfy the requirements of the” 

SOW. RFP at 83.

 1

 The protester’s proposal was not eliminated from the competitive range for CLINs 

C2 and C3.

2 A stern A-frame is a structure on the rear of vessel with a winch for lifting.
Page 3 B-406087, B-406087.2 

NOAA received proposals from five offerors, including Ocean, which were 

evaluated by the agency’s source selection evaluation team (SSET).3

 

Ocean’s proposal was evaluated as follows under CLINs A, B, and C1:4

Experience/ Past 

Performance

Vessel’s 

Characteristic/

Capabilities

Technical Plan 

and Approach

Key 

Personnel OVERALL

CLIN A Very good Unsatisfactory Marginal Very good Unsatisfactory

CLIN B Very good Unsatisfactory Marginal Very good Unsatisfactory

CLIN C1 Very good Unsatisfactory Marginal Very good Unsatisfactory

AR, Tab 31, SSET Technical Evaluation Report, at 4. With respect to 

Ocean’s unsatisfactory ratings under the vessel’s characteristics and 

capabilities factor, the SSET found that, although Ocean proposed a number 

of vessels under these CLINs, Ocean’s proposal omitted required information 

and failed to show that its vessels would satisfy all of the general or specific 

requirements. Id. at 13-14.

With regard to CLIN A, Ocean proposed two vessels, both of which the SSET 

found unsatisfactory because Ocean did not discuss a number of specific 

SOW requirements. The evaluators found that neither vessel satisfied the 

RFP’s crane requirements for this CLIN. Specifically, the evaluators found 

that for one of the vessels Ocean’s proposal indicated that the vessel’s crane 

would not satisfy the required minimum lifting capacity. The evaluators found 

that, for the other proposed vessel, Ocean’s proposal had not identified a 

crane, nor stated any plans for adding one. Id. at 13.

With regard to CLIN B, Ocean proposed four vessels, all of which the SSET 

found unsatisfactory. For each vessel, the SSET noted that Ocean had 

failed to provide required information and/or equipment listed as specific 

requirements in the SOW. One vessel did not have the required crane, the 

others either did not have the required A-frame, or the proposal did not 

contain the necessary technical information to demonstrate compliance with 

the A-frame requirement. Id. at 13-14. 

 3

 Only three offerors submitted proposals for CLIN C1. 

4

 The SSET evaluated proposals as excellent, very good, good, marginal, or 

unsatisfactory. As relevant here, an unsatisfactory technical rating reflected a 

proposal with major errors, omissions or deficiencies that would require major 

revisions to meet program requirements stated in the RFP. See AR, Tab 16, 

Source Selection Plan, at 10.
Page 4 B-406087, B-406087.2 

With regard to CLIN C1, Ocean proposed four vessels, all of which the SSET 

found unsatisfactory. One of these vessels, the [deleted], had an identified 

overall length of 133, which exceeded the 125 foot maximum length identified 

for vessels under this CLIN.5

The agency included a number of technically acceptable proposals in the 

competitive range for CLINs A, B, and C1. See AR, Tab 34, Business Case 

Memorandum, at 21-27. Ocean’s proposal was excluded from the competitive 

range for these factors, because it was found to be technically unacceptable and 

would require major revisions to meet the RFP’s requirement. Id.

 See Ocean Technical Proposal at 59.

Following a debriefing, Ocean protested to our Office.

DISCUSSION

Ocean first protests that the agency unreasonably failed to consider its proposed 

price in deciding to exclude its proposal from the competive range under CLINs A, 

B, and C1. In this regard, Ocean contends that the agency did not determine that 

its proposal was technically unacceptable under these CLINs, only unsatisfactory. 

See Protester’s Comments at 2-5.

There is no merit to Ocean’s contention that its proposal was not found to be 

technically unacceptable. As documented in the contemporaneous record, NOAA 

found that Ocean’s proposal under these CLINs had significant weaknesses and 

deficiencies that would require major revisions to meet the stated minimum 

requirements. See AR, Tab 31, SSET Technical Evaluation Report, at 12-14; 

Tab 34, Business Case Memorandum, at 24, 27, 29; Tab 35, Notification of 

Exclusion from the Competitive Range. A proposal that fails to satisfy a material 

solicitation requirement may not be considered for award, see LifeCare, Inc., 

B-291672, B-291672.2, Feb. 20, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 95 at 6, and is thus technically 

unacceptable. 

There is also no merit to Ocean’s objection that NOAA excluded its proposal from 

the competitive range for these CLINs without consideration of its price. While an 

agency may not exclude a technically acceptable proposal from the competitive 

range without meaningful consideration of that proposal’s cost or price to the 

government, see Kathpal Tech., Inc.; Computer & Hi-Tech Mgmt., Inc., B-283137.3 

et al., Dec. 30, 1999, 2000 CPD ¶ 6 at 9, where, as here, the agency concludes that 

a proposal is technically unacceptable, it is proper to exclude the proposal from the 

competitive range without considering price. TMC Design Corp., B-296194.3, 

Aug. 10, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 158 at 5.

 5

 Ocean Services only challenges the agency’s evaluation of this vessel (the 

[deleted]). See Protest at 12 n. 20. 
Page 5 B-406087, B-406087.2 

Ocean also challenges NOAA’s evaluation of its proposal, arguing that the agency 

should have surmised from its proposal’s general drawings and charts that its 

vessels satisfied the requirements or were readily correctable. See Protest at 6-13; 

Comments at 8-13.

The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter largely within the agency’s 

discretion. Frontline Healthcare Workers Safety Found., Ltd., B-402380, Mar. 22, 

2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 91 at 5. In reviewing a protest that challenges an agency’s 

evaluation of proposals, our Office will not reevaluate the proposals, but, rather, will 

examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable 

and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and 

regulations. Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, 

Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 169 at 3. It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit a 

well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which clearly 

demonstrates compliance with the solicitation and allows a meaningful review by 

the procuring agency. Mike Kesler Enter., Oct. 23, 2009, B-401633, 2009 CPD 

¶ 205 at 2-3. An offeror that does not affirmatively demonstrate the merits of its 

proposal risks rejection of its proposal. HDL Research Lab, Inc., B-294959, 

Dec. 21, 2004, 2005 CPD ¶ 8 at 5. Proposals with significant informational 

deficiencies may be excluded, whether the deficiencies are attributable to either 

omitted or merely inadequate information addressing fundamental factors. 

American Gov’t Servs., Inc., B-292242, Aug. 1, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 163 at 4. A 

protester’s disagreement with the agency’s evaluation provides no basis to question 

the reasonableness of the evaluators’ judgments. Mike Kesler Enter., supra. 

Here, the record supports the agency’s evaluation of Ocean’s proposal as 

unacceptable under CLINs A, B, and C1. As noted above, the RFP identified both 

general and specific requirements that vessels must satisfy under each CLIN. Also, 

offerors were instructed to provide technical proposals that specifically and 

completely detailed their “capabilities and the means to satisfy the requirements of 

the” SOW. RFP at 83. Despite these requirements, Ocean’s proposal provided 

little discussion, apart from pictures, drawings and charts, of how its vessels 

satisfied all of the specified requirements.6

 6

 The protester asserts that all of its deficiencies were “readily correctable,” did not 

need major revisions, and could easily have been explained or made acceptable 

through discussions. Comments at 12-13. We find that these assertions provide no 

basis to object to the agency’s exclusion of Ocean’s proposal from the competitive 

range. As noted above, Ocean provided little information in its proposal to establish 

that it would satisfy the RFP’s requirements. We think that the agency reasonably 

determined that Ocean’s proposal would require major revisions to be made 

 See Ocean Technical Proposal 

at 33-61.

(continued...)
Page 6 B-406087, B-406087.2 

In addition to finding that Ocean failed to provide information demonstrating that its 

vessels would satisfy the agency’s requirements, the evaluators also found that 

some of the information provided by Ocean demonstrated that the protester’s 

vessels did not meet the stated requirements in a number of regards. For example, 

under CLIN A, Ocean indicated that for one of its proposed vessels the vessel’s 

largest crane had a maximum lifting capacity of 40,000 pounds, which would not 

satisfy the SOW requirement for a crane with a minimum lifting capacity of 60,000 

pounds.7

 Id. at 42; SOW at 13. With respect to Ocean’s other proposed vessel 

under this CLIN, Ocean’s proposal did not indicate that a crane was installed on this 

vessel and there was no discussion of how this requirement would be met. 

Similarly under CLIN B, the evaluators found that Ocean’s proposed vessels did 

show compliance with the SOW requirements for a crane and stern A-frame.

We have reviewed Ocean’s complaints with the agency’s evaluation of its proposed 

vessels under CLINs A, B, and C1, and find that the evaluation conclusions are 

supported by the record. While Ocean continues to disagree with NOAA’s 

determination that the firm’s proposal was not acceptable under these CLINs, its 

disagreement does not demonstrate that the agency’s technical judgment was 

unreasonable.8

 

In sum, the record supports the agency’s determination that Ocean’s proposal 

under CLINs A, B, and C1, contained significant weaknesses and deficiencies that 

 

(...continued)

acceptable. Although Ocean argues that it could have corrected all its deficiencies 

if it were provided with discussions, an agency is not required to include such a 

proposal (one that requires major revisions to be made acceptable) in the 

competitive range. See Americom Gov’t Servs., Inc., supra, at 7. 

7 In its protest Ocean argues that this vessel’s crane was structurally designed for a 

capacity of 30 tons and thus could be “rerigged” to satisfy the SOW requirement. 

See Protest at 6. This is not information, however, that was provided in its proposal 

for the agency’s review.

8 Ocean also argues that NOAA evaluated offerors’ proposals disparately. 

Specifically, Ocean complains that the evaluators noted some of the same 

informational concerns with other offerors’ proposals that were found to be 

acceptable, where Ocean’s proposal was found unacceptable. There is no merit to 

this argument. None of the proposals that were found to be acceptable, however, 

had the same kinds of broad informational infirmities and failure to meet minimum 

requirements as Ocean’s proposal.
Page 7 B-406087, B-406087.2 

would require major revisions to be made acceptable. Based upon this evaluation, 

NOAA reasonably excluded Ocean’s proposal from the competitive range.

 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel