Stay up to date by subscribing to our blog. Add your e-mail address to the Subscribe box on the right (below the post on mobile) to get our timely posts delivered directly to your inbox.
Tech Marine Business, Inc.
B-420872.1, .2, .3
- The protester alleged that it should have been assigned a strength for its transition plan, which exceeded the Navy’s schedule for workload turnover and would be completed “well in advance[] of the 60-day requirement.”
- The Agency argued that, as GAO has held, it is not required to document determinations of adequacy or explain why a proposal did not receive a strength for a particular item. The Agency represented that it reviewed the protester’s transition plan and did not consider the proposed ability to transition faster than the 60-day requirement to be a strength.
- GAO found this insufficient and that the agency “provides no explanation—contemporaneous or otherwise—to support the reasonableness of its evaluation of Tech Marine’s transition plan.”
- GAO stated it failed to see, and the Agency failed to explain, why exceeding the transition schedule would not benefit the Agency.
- GAO recommended the Agency reevaluate Tech Marine’s proposal and make a new source selection determination.