Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

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. 

Decision 

Matter of: Keystone Sealift Services, Inc. 

File: B-401526.3 

Date: April 13, 2010 

Andrew W. Dyer Jr., Esq., Brian A. Bannon, Esq., and Brian S. Gocial, Esq., Blank 

Rome LLP, for the protester. 

J. Alex Ward, Esq., Daniel E. Chudd, Esq., and Caroline A. Keller, Esq., Jenner & 

Block LLP, for General Dynamics American Overseas Marine, an intervenor. 

Michelle L. Salter, Esq., Military Sealift Command, for the agency. 

Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that agency unreasonably failed to consider offeror’s conversion and 

re-flagging experience under maintenance and repair (M&R) evaluation subfactor, 

and that it otherwise unreasonably downgraded proposal for specific weaknesses 

under other subfactors, is denied, where proposal lacked detail on conversion/ 

re-flagging experience in M&R section, and evaluation record shows agency in fact 

did not downgrade proposal for other specific weaknesses identified by protester. 

DECISION 

Keystone Sealift Services, Inc. (KSS), of Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, protests the 

award of a contract to General Dynamics American Overseas Marine (AMSEA), of 

Quincy, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00033-08-R-5302, 

issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command (MSC), for the 

operation and maintenance of large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) ships in 

the agency’s surge project. KSS challenges the evaluation of its proposal. 

We deny the protest. 

The surge project, part of the agency’s Sealift Program, involves the quick transition 

of ships from reduced to full operating status to move U.S. forces and military 

equipment to defend and promote vital U.S. interests anywhere in the world. Lot 1 of 

the RFP--the subject of KSS’s protest--concerns seven BOB HOPE class LMSRs. 

Proposals were to include personnel, operational and technical support (ashore and 

afloat), equipment tools, and supplies, necessary to operate and maintain the vessels. 
The RFP contemplated award--on a “best value” basis--of a fixed-price contract with 

reimbursable elements for a base year, with 4 option years. Proposals were to be 

evaluated on the basis of four factors, listed in descending order of importance--

technical (with subfactors for ship operations and manning (O&M), maintenance and 

repair (M&R), contract administration, management of reimbursables and 

purchasing system, and accounting system), past performance, socioeconomic 

program utilization, and price. Non-price factors, combined, were more important 

than price.1

 

Seven offerors submitted proposals and, after the initial evaluation, both KSS’s and 

AMSEA’s were included in the competitive range. After discussions, each submitted 

a final proposal revision. Based on a consensus evaluation, KSS’s proposal was 

rated very good under the technical factor (exceptional for O&M and very good for 

the remaining subfactors), very good under the past performance factor, and 

exceptional under the socioeconomic factor. AMSEA’s proposal was rated 

exceptional under the technical factor (very good for management of reimbursables 

and exceptional for the remaining subfactors), very good under the past 

performance factor, and satisfactory under the socioeconomic factor. KSS’s price 

was approximately 4% lower than AMSEA’s price of $238 million. Based on the 

evaluation results, the source selection authority concluded that AMSEA’s proposal 

was the best value, and made award to that firm for Lot 1. After a debriefing, KSS 

filed this protest. 

DISCUSSION 

KSS challenges the rating of its proposal in four areas under the technical factor--its 

work on the USNS WHEAT under the M&R subfactor; its surge experience under the 

O&M subfactor; and its approaches under the contract administration and property 

management subfactors. In the protester’s view, had the agency properly evaluated 

its proposal, it would have been rated equal or superior to AMSEA’s, and KSS thus 

would have been in line for award of the Lot 1 contract based on its lower price. 

In considering a protest of an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our review is 

confined to determining whether it was reasonable and consistent with the terms of 

the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. See United Def. LP, 

B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 75 at 10-11. We have considered all of 

KSS’s arguments and find that none has merit. 2

 

 

(continued...) 

1

 Adjectival ratings used in the evaluation for the technical factor were exceptional, 

very good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory; for the past performance 

factor, very good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory, and neutral; and for the 

socioeconomic utilization factor, exceptional, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. 

2

 KSS withdrew its assertion that the agency improperly downgraded it for a lack of 

surge experience, since the record showed that the agency in fact considered its 

Page 2 B-401526.3 
M&R Subfactor Evaluation 

Under the M&R subfactor, proposals were to be evaluated for corporate experience, 

planned maintenance, management of repairs, and continuous improvement. RFP 

at 127. Offerors were to provide a synopsis of their last 10 years of experience in 

maintaining and repairing ships that were the same as or similar to those in the RFP; 

describe their experience using various types of maintenance; describe their 

approach to mitigating risks; and describe incorporation of lessons learned. RFP 

at 98-99. KSS asserts that the agency improperly failed to assign its proposal a 

strength under the M&R subfactor concerning its successful completion of the 

conversion and re-flagging of the vessel WHEAT. Specifically, KSS notes that its 

proposal referred to its completion of the reconstruction and commissioning of the 

WHEAT, and its successful operation of the vessel since then, and that some details 

of the conversion work were included in its separate past performance proposal. 

KSS Technical Proposal at 2-3; Past Performance Proposal at 3-4. 

The evaluation was reasonable. KSS’s proposal under this subfactor referred to 

KSS’s experience with the WHEAT, but primarily in terms of M&R work performed 

after the conversion and re-flagging work had been completed; it did not include any 

significant detail addressing the conversion work itself or how that work was 

relevant to the RFP requirements. For example, the proposal identified the WHEAT 

(by size and propulsion system) as 1 of 17 named vessels for which its responsibility 

included manning, maintenance, repair, drydock, and regulatory certification. KSS 

Technical Proposal at 15. It also referred to KSS’s MSC experience with the WHEAT 

and two other MPF(E) (Marine Prepositioning Force (Enhanced)) ships beginning in 

2005. Id. The agency rated KSS’s proposal as very good overall for this subfactor 

based on four planned maintenance strengths and two corporate experience 

strengths--one for operation of large vessels, including the WHEAT, and the second 

for “numerous successful opportunities for dry-docking and voyage repairs” of the 

three MPF(E) ships. Technical Consensus at 11-12; Lead Technical Evaluator (LTE) 

Declaration, ¶ 15. In considering KSS’s experience in converting/re-flagging the 

WHEAT under the M&R subfactor, the agency concluded that an additional 

evaluated strength was not warranted because the proposal lacked detail as to the 

conversion work and how it was relevant to the RFP requirements. LTE Declaration, 

¶ 16. In this regard, the only mention of the WHEAT’s conversion in this section of 

 

(...continued) 

surge experience as a strength. KSS Initial Comments at 5; Technical Consensus 

at 2. KSS’s continued assertion that the agency improperly found a lack of surge 

experience with the BOB HOPE class of ships is unsupported in the evaluation 

record. In any case, KSS’s exceptional rating under the O&M subfactor would render 

any error nonprejudicial. Joint Mgmt. & Tech. Servs., B-294229, B-294229.2, Sept. 22, 

2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 208 at 7 (prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest). 

Page 3 B-401526.3 
KSS’s proposal was as an entry in a matrix of more than 30 recent drydockings and, 

apart from the drydock location, cost, and time, the only detail provided was 

“[r]equested by MSC to complete a 5 year re[-]flagging and conversion project.” KSS 

Drydockings at 1. 

Offerors bear the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal and 

contracting agencies evaluating one section of a proposal are not obligated to go in 

search of additional information that the offeror has omitted or failed to adequately 

present. Sam Facility Mgmt., Inc., B-292237, July 22, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 147 at 5. 

Here, other sections of KSS’s proposal--including past performance (where it 

described some aspects of the conversion process) and O&M (where it simply 

referred to the WHEAT’s conversion without significant detail)--referred to the 

conversion and re-flagging of the WHEAT, and the proposal received the highest 

possible ratings where detailed information was provided. It is not clear why KSS 

did not provide the same detailed information with regard to the M&R subfactor. 

However, to the extent that KSS believed its WHEAT conversion experience was 

relevant to the M&R subfactor--as it now argues--and wanted to ensure that it would 

be properly considered under that subfactor, it should have provided the detailed 

information in that section of its proposal. The agency was not required, essentially, 

to assume responsibility for perfecting KSS’s proposal by reading information into it 

that KSS omitted. Especially given that it already had assigned several strengths to 

the proposal based on KSS’s successful operation of MPF(E) ships which included 

the WHEAT, we think the agency reasonably could conclude that the proposal did 

not warrant an additional strength for this aspect of KSS’s experience. 

Our Office has recognized that in certain limited circumstances, an agency 

evaluating an offeror’s proposal has an obligation (as opposed to the discretion) to 

consider “outside information” bearing on the offeror’s past performance when it is 

“too close at hand” to require offerors to shoulder the inequities that spring from an 

agency’s failure to obtain and consider the information. See, e.g., International Bus. 

Sys., Inc., B-275554, Mar. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 114 at 5. The circumstances here do 

not fall under this exception to the general rule that offerors are responsible for 

submitting an adequately written proposal. Unlike a past performance evaluation 

where an offeror often must rely on the submission of information from third parties, 

here KSS was in control of what it included in each section of its proposal and 

exercised its own judgment not to include details about converting the WHEAT in 

the proposal section devoted to M&R experience. Thus, there was no inequity in the 

LTE’s decision to base his evaluation on KSS’s proposal--as written--instead of 

supplementing it with his understanding of KSS’s WHEAT conversion experience. 

Contract Administration and Property Management Subfactors 

KSS asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the contract 

administration and property management subfactors. As with its other protest 

grounds, KSS’s assertions are based on statements allegedly made by the agency 

Page 4 B-401526.3 
Page 5 B-401526.3 

during the debriefing. Specifically, KSS understood that the agency did not consider 

its proposal to be as “compelling” as AMSEA’s due to unspecified “past problems” 

with contract administration and its failure to provide specific examples of how it 

used its property management system. Protest at 12-13. 

The evaluation record, not the agency’s alleged statements during a debriefing, is the 

basis for our review. We are concerned with the manner in which the evaluation was 

conducted, notwithstanding the protester’s understanding of the agency’s 

subsequent explanation of how it conducted the evaluation. In this regard, a 

debriefing is only an explanation of the agency’s evaluation and source selection 

decision, not the evaluation or decision itself. Del-Jen Int’l Corp., B-297960, May 5, 

2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 81 at 4. 

The agency denies advising KSS that its proposal was downgraded due to contract 

administration and property management system concerns, and the evaluation 

record does not establish otherwise. Specifically, the record shows that KSS’s 

proposal was rated very good under the contract administration subfactor based on 

three strengths, the correction (in the revised proposal) of two deficiencies, and a 

lack of any weaknesses. Technical Consensus at 13-15. Overall, the evaluators 

found that KSS had satisfied all and exceeded some RFP requirements (id. at 13). 

The record contains no mention of any problems with KSS’s administration of prior 

contracts. 

Similarly, the agency denies advising KSS that its proposal was downgraded due to 

specific problems with KSS’s property management system. LTE Declaration ¶ 25. 

Rather, the LTE explains, he advised KSS during the debriefing only that KSS could 

have improved its proposal by elaborating on or providing specific examples of its 

system. Id. Again, the evaluation record supports the agency’s position. KSS’s 

proposal was rated very good under the property management subfactor based on 

one strength (which specifically praised KSS’s government approved property 

control system), the correction of three deficiencies, and the lack of any weaknesses. 

Technical Consensus at 18-20. Overall, the evaluators found that KSS had satisfied 

all and exceeded some RFP requirements. As with the contract administration 

evaluation, there is nothing to indicate that the evaluators downgraded KSS’s 

proposal for failing to mention sufficient property management examples. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel