Washington, DC 20548

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of:

B&N Capital Suppliers, d/b/a B&N Inspection

File:

B-424214.6

Date:

September 17, 2026

Nick Lamm for the protester.

James Garcia, Esq., and Justin V. Briones, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the

agency.

Heather Weiner, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esbq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO,

participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal as technically

unacceptable, and therefore ineligible for award, is denied where the agency’s

evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.

2. Protest that agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions during corrective

action is denied where the record shows that the agency’s discussions led the protester

into the area of its proposal that required revision.

DECISION

B&N Capital Suppliers, doing business as B&N Inspection (B&N), a small business of

Chesterfield, Missouri, protests the issuance of a task order to Elzly Technology

Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP)

No. N0016725R3008, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare

Center, for subject matter experts (SMEs) in support of the Navy’s corrosion control

assistance team (CCAT) program. B&N alleges that the Navy improperly evaluated its

proposal as unacceptable, and therefore ineligible for award, based on two deficiencies

assessed to its proposal under the technical factor. The protester also asserts that the

Navy engaged in misleading discussions, challenges the agency’s evaluation of past

performance, and contends the best-value tradeoff was unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On June 13, 2025, the Navy issued the RFP, as a small business set-aside, to holders

of the Navy’s SeaPort Next Generation (SeaPort NxG) multiple-award,

indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. Agency Report (AR), Tab C,

RFP at 33, 37, 43-44, 92; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 22. 1 The solicitation

seeks an offeror to provide corrosion control assistance, training, and technical support

to U.S. Navy vessels at various locations. RFP at 43-44. The RFP contemplates the

issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort task order for a 1-year base period and

eight 1-year option periods. RFP at 32-33; COS at 22.

The solicitation provides for award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the

following evaluation factors: technical; past performance; and cost. RFP at 102-103.

Relevant here, in evaluating the technical factor, the agency considered the following

three elements: technical approach; management approach; and personnel

approach. Id. at 103. The solicitation also provided for the evaluation of contract

documentation on a pass/fail basis. Id. at 106-107. The technical factor was

considered more important than the past performance factor, and these two factors

combined were significantly more important than cost, with the importance of cost

increasing as the proposals became more equal under the non-cost factors. Id. at 103.

The solicitation provided for the evaluation of proposals under the technical factor as:

outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Id. at 104. As relevant here,

the solicitation defined unacceptable as a “[p]roposal [that] does not meet requirements

of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable,

and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high” and advised that a deficiency is a

“material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of

significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract

performance to an unacceptable level.” Id. at 102, 104

As relevant to this protest, with regard to the technical approach element of the

technical factor, the RFP required that each offeror “describe its specific understanding,

capability, experience, and technical approach with regards to the following

requirements: [statement of work] SOW Section 5 and all subsections.” RFP at 95.

The solicitation explained that the Navy would “evaluate the extent to which the

proposal demonstrates specific understanding, capability, and experience to

successfully perform the requirements, and the soundness of the proposed technical

approach.” Id. at 103.

1 The solicitation was amended 3 times and citations to the RFP are to the version

provided as exhibit B, unless otherwise noted. COS at 24-25. Citations to the record

use the Adobe PDF pagination of the documents produced.

Page 2

B-424214.6

The Navy received timely proposals from five offerors, including B&N and Elzly. COS

at 25. After evaluating proposals, the contracting officer, who is also the source

selection authority (SSA) for this procurement, made the initial source selection decision

and issued the task order to another offeror, Secise, LLC, on January 8, 2026. Id.

On January 20 and January 23, respectively, B&N and Elzly each filed a protest with

our Office arguing the agency misevaluated several aspects of the proposals and made

an unreasonable award decision. B&N Capital Suppliers, LLC d/b/a B&N Inspection,

B-424214, Feb. 5, 2026 (unpublished decision); Elzly Tech. Corp., B-424214.2, Feb. 4,

2026 (unpublished decision). We dismissed both protests because the Navy notified

our Office of its intent to take corrective action that included the issuance of a new

award decision, and thus, rendered the challenges to the initial evaluation academic.

B&N Capital Suppliers, supra at 1; Elzly Tech., supra at 1. Specifically, the Navy

advised that it: would reevaluate proposals and revise the source selection decision;

may enter into discussions and allow offerors to submit revised proposals; and would

conduct a new best-value tradeoff analysis and make a new award decision. B&N

Capital Suppliers, supra at 1; Elzly Tech., supra at 1.

In implementing its corrective action, the contracting officer established a competitive

range of three offerors, including B&N and Elzly, and opened discussions with these

three offerors. COS at 26. The agency sent discussion letters to all three offerors

addressing deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses identified in the

proposals, and requesting submission of final proposal revisions (FPRs) by March 6,

2026. Id. In addition, the agency issued and included as an enclosure to the discussion

letters a copy of amendment 3 to the RFP, which revised the period of performance

dates to align with the estimated timeline for award. Id. The discussion letters also

included as enclosures a copy of each respective offeror’s source selection evaluation

board (SSEB) technical evaluation report, as well as a copy of the offeror’s SSEB past

performance evaluation report (if applicable). Id. The discussion letters specified that

“changes shall be limited to the items provided in the enclosures . . . , inclusive of any

aspect of the proposal impacted by such changes.” AR, Tab G, B&N Discussions Letter

at 640; COS at 26. In response to an inquiry from B&N regarding the extent of revisions

that could be made in its FPR, the agency clarified that those enclosures for B&N are

amendment 0003 to the solicitation and B&N’s technical evaluation report and past

performance evaluation. AR, Tab H, Email Clarification at 658; COS at 26.

As relevant to this protest, B&N’s discussions letter and enclosed technical evaluation

report advised the company that its proposal was rated unacceptable under the

technical factor. AR, Tab G, B&N Discussions Letter at 639, 644. Specifically, the

technical evaluation report explained that, under the technical factor, B&N’s proposal

“contains three deficiencies, one significant weakness, and one weakness, which

outweighs the three strengths and one significant strength.” Id. at 644. Based on this

finding, the report stated that B&N’s “proposal does not meet requirements of the

Solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk

of performance is unacceptably high, resulting in an overall Factor 1 rating of

UNACCEPTABLE.” Id.

Page 3

B-424214.6

As noted above, in evaluating the technical factor, the agency considered three

elements: technical approach, management approach, and personnel approach. Id.

at 644, 646, 648. All three deficiencies were assessed to B&N’s proposal under the

technical approach element. In the technical evaluation report provided to B&N during

discussions, the agency described the deficiencies as follows: (1) the failure of B&N’s

proposal to “correlate [its specified] infrastructure experience to ship or maritime

experience or provide any insight into how such infrastructure experience is of value, or

would translate to an effort that solely focuses on US Navy and US Coast Guard ships”;

(2) B&N described its “use of LIDAR [light detection and ranging] to geographically map

spaces, and assess corrosion severity” as well as “proposed use of drones” but the RFP

restricts “efforts for supporting corrosion control/preservation work [to that]

accomplished through the issuance of Government furnished equipment,” and the

“LIDAR equipment . . . is not Government furnished,” and “the proposed use of drones

is not permitted in the air space surrounding US Navy ships (CNRSW 3052.1”; and

(3) in light of the solicitation requirement (Section C.5.1.4.7) that the contractor “train SF

[Ships’ Force] in the mixing of shipboard coatings, including nonskid” and that the

“mixing and application of nonskid is a Navy-specific process, which the Offeror does

not demonstrate in its proposal that it possesses knowledge or experience with the

process.” See id. at 645-646.

All three offerors submitted timely FPRs. COS at 27. As relevant here, in evaluating

B&N’s FPR, the agency determined that, although one of the three assessed

deficiencies (concerning the use of LIDAR and drones) had been adequately addressed

and resolved during discussions, the proposal was unacceptable under the technical

factor based on the remaining two deficiencies, which the agency found had not been

resolved. AR, Tab F, B&N’s FPR Tech. Eval. Report at 631 (“B&N’s FPR proposal

contains two deficiencies, one significant weakness, and one weakness, which

outweighs the three strengths and one significant strength.”). As a result, the

contracting officer found that that B&N’s FPR “does not meet the requirements of the

[s]olicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable,” resulting

in an overall rating under the technical factor of unacceptable. Id.

Ultimately, the SSA concluded that Elzly’s proposal represented the best value to the

government, and on May 22, the Navy notified B&N that that task order had been

issued to Elzly. COS at 28. After requesting and receiving a debriefing from the Navy,

which concluded on June 10, B&N filed this protest with our Office. 2 AR, Tab K,

Debriefing Letter; COS at 28.

2 The value of the task order is $64 million and is therefore within our jurisdiction to

review protests related to the issuance of orders exceeding $35 million under multipleaward IDIQ contracts issued under the authority of title 10 of the United States Code.

10 U.S.C. § 3406(f)(1)(B).

Page 4

B-424214.6

DISCUSSION

B&N challenges the Navy’s evaluation of its proposal as unacceptable under the

technical factor and contends that the Navy failed to conduct meaningful discussions

regarding the areas of concern that rendered its proposal unacceptable. B&N also

argues that the agency improperly evaluated past performance and asserts that the

agency’s award decision was unreasonable. For the reasons discussed below, we find

that the agency reasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal as unacceptable--and

thus ineligible for award--based on two deficiencies in the protester’s proposal that were

reasonably assessed in accordance with the RFP’s evaluation criteria under the

technical approach element of the technical factor. 3 We also find that the agency’s

discussions with B&N were meaningful. Because we conclude that the agency

reasonably found B&N’s proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award, the protester is

not an interested party to assert its other protest grounds regarding the past

performance evaluation and agency’s best-value tradeoff analysis.

The evaluation of proposals in a task order competition, including the determination of

the relative merits of proposals, is primarily a matter within the contracting agency’s

discretion, because the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best

method of accommodating them. Engility Corp., B-413120.3 et al., Feb. 14, 2017,

at 15. Our Office will review evaluation challenges to task order procurements to

ensure that the competition was conducted in accordance with the solicitation and

applicable procurement laws and regulations. Logis-Tech, Inc., B-407687, Jan. 24,

2013, at 5. A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment, without more, is not

sufficient to establish that an agency acted unreasonably. Engility Corp., supra. at 16.

Evaluation of Deficiencies

The protester contends that the agency improperly found its proposal unacceptable

based on the assessment of two deficiencies under the technical approach element of

the technical factor because, in the protester’s view, the deficiencies were based on

unstated evaluation criteria. Protest at 4. Specifically, the agency assessed the

following two deficiencies to B&N’s FPR: (1) failure to understand or demonstrate

experience and knowledge with Navy shipboard corrosion control and preservation; and

(2) failure to demonstrate an understanding that the relevant mixing and application of

nonskid coating is a ship and submarine specific process with which B&N failed to

demonstrate any experience. AR, Tab I, FPR Tech. Eval. Report at 671-673. The

agency argues that its evaluation of B&N’s proposal as unacceptable was reasonable

because these requirements--experience and knowledge with Navy shipboard corrosion

control and preservation, and experience with the mixing and application of nonskid

3 Although we do not address all of the protester’s arguments in this decision, we have

considered them all and find that none provides a basis upon which to sustain the

protest.

Page 5

B-424214.6

coatings specific to ships and submarines--were reasonably encompassed in the

solicitation criteria.

Under the technical approach element, the RFP required that each offeror “shall

describe its specific understanding, capability, experience, and technical approach with

regards to the following requirements: SOW Section 5 and all subsections.” RFP at 95.

The solicitation provided that each offeror “should organize its technical approach by

grouping together capability, understanding, experience, and approach by specific SOW

requirements[.]” Id. The RFP further advised offerors that they “shall clearly

demonstrate [their] ability to meet the requirements” and “shall provide explanatory

details assuming that the Government has no prior knowledge of [their] facilities,

capabilities, or experience.” Id.

Relevant here, SOW section 5 included a requirement that the contractor “perform inprocess quality checks on each corrosion control/preservation work item in the ship’s

work package, and provide feedback to the ship’s crew on correct processes and

procedures, in accordance with the technical documents outlined in SOW Section 3.0

Applicable Documents/References.” AR, Tab C, SOW § 5.1.4.6 at 45. The SOW also

required the contractor to “train [ships force] SF to mix coating and nonskid systems

correctly and adhere to required film thickness, application requirements, environmental

requirements, and curing times, in accordance with [Naval Ships’ Technical Manual]

NSTM Chapter 631, NSTM Chapter 634, NAVSEA Standard Item 009-032, and all

applicable NAVSEA-Reviewed [American Society for Testing and Materials] ASTM

F718 Product Data Sheets.” Id., SOW § 5.1.4.7 at 45. The solicitation explained that,

for the technical approach element, the Navy would “evaluate the extent to which the

proposal demonstrates specific understanding, capability, and experience to

successfully perform the requirements, and the soundness of the proposed technical

approach.” Id. at 103.

In evaluating B&N’s FPR under the technical approach element, the evaluators

identified two deficiencies, which rendered B&N’s proposal unacceptable. AR, Tab I,

FPR Tech. Eval. Report at 671-673. With regard to the first deficiency--regarding Navy

shipboard corrosion control and preservation--the evaluators noted that “[o]n pages

16-26 of [B&N’s] FPR proposal, the Offeror discusses prior experience that it believes

demonstrates sufficient US Navy and US Coast Guard ship experience to support the

CCAT Program.” Id. at 671. The evaluators found, however, that “[a]lthough the

Offeror references its acquisition of FeO, Inc. in 2023, for purposes of demonstrating its

experience with the CCAT program (‘FeO previously performed the CCAT contract’),

the specific projects that the Offeror highlights in its FPR proposal reveal that the

Offeror does not possess the type of experience and knowledge with US Navy

shipboard corrosion control and preservation that is contemplated in the Solicitation.”

Id.

For example, the evaluators stated that “in discussing its prior experience on page 23 of

[B&N’s] FPR proposal, the Offeror states, ‘While [the National Bio and Agro-Defense

Facility (NBAF)] installation occurred in a biomedical containment environment rather

Page 6

B-424214.6

than aboard a naval vessel, the inspection controls and performance expectations are

directly analogous to military-grade nonskid deck systems governed by

MIL-PRF-24667, which establishes requirements for epoxy nonskid deck coatings

including aggregate distribution, film thickness control, impact resistance, abrasion

durability, and sustained slip resistance under demanding service conditions.’” Id.

The evaluators found, however, that this statement in B&N’s FPR “is misplaced” as “the

Offeror’s statement does not take into account the difference between a qualification

requirement and an in-service application requirement.” Id. In this regard, the

evaluators explained that “[m]ilitary performance specifications, such as MILPRF-24667, are qualification requirements documents, not in-service application

requirements, to which the coating system would be inspected during and after

application.” Id. The evaluators noted that “[t]his means that a coating system is tested

and qualified to the military specification’s requirements before the coating system is

used in service, and then after the coating system is approved for qualification by

NAVSEA, neither the applicator of the coating system nor an inspector overseeing

coating system application is responsible for ensuring that all qualification requirements

of the military specification are met by the coating system at every application.” Id.

With regard to B&N’s FPR, the evaluators noted that the “in-service application

requirements document for MIL-PRF-24667 nonskid is NAVSEA Standard Item (NSI)

009-032,” but that NSI 009-032 “is not specifically mentioned in [B&N’s] FPR proposal

for this particular example of prior experience, nor for any of the other projects the

Offeror highlights.” Id. at 671-672. In this regard, the evaluators explained that “[B&N’s]

FPR proposal contains four references to ‘NAVSEA Standard Items,’ none of which

include any reference to inspecting or overseeing work being performed to the

requirements of NSI 009-032.” Id. at 672.

In addition, the evaluators pointed to “SOW Section 3.0 Applicable Documentation/

References,” which the agency explained “requires a comprehensive demonstration of

technical expertise regarding US Navy shipboard corrosion control and preservation,

specifically governed by NSTM Chapters 631 (Preservation of Ships In Service) and

634 (Deck Coverings).” Id. The evaluators found that “[a]lthough the Offeror’s FPR

proposal includes five references to these NSTM chapters and states an intent to

adhere to their requirements, it fails to provide substantive evidence of technical

mastery or practical application/experience.” Id. The evaluators concluded that “[a]

statement of intent is not a substitute for demonstrated proficiency” and that “[t]he

proposal lacks specific technical examples from prior performance that validate a

functional understanding of these NSTM standards in a shipboard environment.” Id.

Ultimately, the evaluators found that “[t]his absence of demonstrated Subject Matter

Expertise regarding critical preservation protocols indicates a fundamental lack of

understanding of US Navy requirements” and “[c]onsequently, this creates an

unacceptably high risk of unsatisfactory performance.” Id.

With regard to the second deficiency--concerning the mixing and application of nonskid

coating--the evaluators cite to SOW section 5.1.4.7, which “requires the Contractor to

Page 7

B-424214.6

train Ships’ Force (SF) in the mixing of shipboard coatings, including nonskid.” AR,

Tab I, FPR Tech. Eval. Report at 672. The evaluators explained that “[r]elevant to this

requirement is MIL-PRF-24667, the NAVSEA-prepared military standard for nonskid,

which states that ‘[t]his specification covers nonskid systems, coatings, and coverings

for application to weather decks, flight decks, and hangar decks of aircraft carriers,

surface combatants, and amphibious, auxiliary, and sealift ships, and submarines.’” Id.

The evaluators found that “[a]lthough [B&N] cites to prior experience involving nonskid

and non-slip coatings at a biomedical containment environment, as well as at a US

Coast Guard Air Station, the standard set forth in MIL-PRF-24667 contemplates that the

relevant mixing and application of nonskid is a ship and submarine-specific process, of

which the Offeror does not demonstrate with the referenced prior experience.” Id. In

this regard, the evaluators noted that “[B&N’s] past work inspecting application of

non-slip and slip-resistant coatings provides no specific examples of experience with

MIL-PRF-24667 and nonskid aboard ships or submarines.” Id.

The evaluators also explained that “[d]ue to its use in shipboard aviation operations, the

requirements for the mixing and application of nonskid are unique, as armed forces

ship-specific, [International Traffic in Arms Regulations] ITAR-restricted technology

whose application requirements are dictated by NAVAIR.” Id. at 672-673. The

evaluators stated that “[f]urther, the nonskid contemplated with this Solicitation is not

comparable to slip-resistant or non-slip coatings used in non-US Navy applications,

such as the [o]fferor’s prior experience with NBAF (Page 23 of the Offeror’s FPR

proposal).” Id. The evaluators found that while “[B&N’s] FPR proposal frequently draws

parallels between nonskid and non-slip coatings from its prior experience and the

requisite CCAT support,” the “process and techniques utilized in the Offeror’s prior

experience involves a vastly different mixing and application technique than that

contemplated with MIL-PRF-24667 nonskid.” Id. In addition, the evaluators noted that

B&N’s “FPR proposal contains nine instances of using the term ‘broadcast’ in regard to

the distribution of aggregate in a non-slip coating.” Id. The evaluators explained that

“[t]he aggregate in nonskid is qualified to defined requirements in MIL-PRF-24667, as

part of the nonskid system, and is mixed into the liquid coating components before

application, and as such, is not ‘broadcast’ as a component of the coating system

separate from the liquid coating.” Id. The evaluators found that B&N’s “use of this term

indicates its inexperience with MIL-PRF-24667 nonskid as a coating system” and that

“[t]his lack of knowledge and experience with MIL-PRF-24667 nonskid in shipboard

applications creates an unacceptable level of risk that the Offeror will not fulfill the

contract’s requirements to the satisfaction of the Government.” Id.

The protester disagrees with the agency’s assessment of both deficiencies. B&N does

not contest the substance of each deficiency but argues that they are based on

unstated evaluation criteria. Specifically, the protester contends that the RFP’s

evaluation criteria “recognized broader categories of acceptable qualifications,

experience, demonstrated capability, technical understanding, and industry expertise”

than accepted by the agency during its evaluation. Comments at 12-13. In this regard,

the protester contends that the evaluation criteria did not include a “requirement that an

offeror previously have performed identical corrosion-control assistance services aboard

Page 8

B-424214.6

U.S. Navy vessels” or “previously executed Navy shipboard nonskid operations.”

Comments at 13. The protester maintains that “[w]hatever comparative value the

[a]gency might reasonably assign to more directly analogous experience, the

[s]olicitation did not advise offerors that prior performance of identical Navy shipboard

work constituted the benchmark against which technical acceptability would be

measured.” Id.

As a general matter, when evaluating proposals in a task order competition, an agency

properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that

are logically encompassed by, or related to, the stated evaluation criteria. M.A.

Mortenson Co., B-413714, Dec. 9, 2016, at 5. While a solicitation must inform offerors

of the basis for proposal evaluation by identifying the evaluation factors and their

relative importance, a solicitation need not specifically identify each and every element

an agency considers during an evaluation where such elements are intrinsic to, or

reasonably subsumed within, the stated evaluation factors. FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv)(C);

Horizon Indus., Ltd., B-416222, B-416222.2, July 11, 2018, at 6.

Here, as noted above, the RFP provided that, for the technical approach element, the

Navy would “evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates specific

understanding, capability, and experience to successfully perform the requirements, and

the soundness of the proposed technical approach” and required offerors to describe

their understanding, capability, experience, and technical approach with regard to the

requirements of SOW section 5. RFP at 95, 103. The tasks set forth in SOW section 5

(Task Requirement) expressly required performance of the requisite support services in

the context of Navy and Coast Guard vessels, and emphasized a need for offerors to

possess direct Navy nonskid execution experience and familiarity with Navy-specific

shipboard preservation processes and methodologies in performance of those tasks.

Id. at 44-47.

For example, as noted above, SOW section 5.1.4.6 (Technical Assistance) states that

“[t]he Contractor shall . . . provide feedback to the ship’s crew on correct processes and

procedures, in accordance with the technical documents outlined in SOW Section 3.0

Applicable Documents/ References.” Id. at 45. Section 3.0 of the SOW lists numerous

documents, processes and standards pertaining to Navy shipboard preservation

requirements and nonskid execution methodology, such as NAVSEA Standard Item

(NSI) 009-032 (Cleaning and Painting Requirements), which specifies the standard

found at MIL-PRF-24667. RFP at 43-44. Additionally, SOW section 5.1.4.7 (Coating

and Nonskid Mixing Training) states that the “[c]ontractor shall train SF to mix coating

and nonskid systems correctly and adhere to required film thickness, application

requirements, environmental requirements, and curing times, in accordance with NSTM

Chapter 631, NSTM Chapter 634, NAVSEA Standard Item 009-032, and all applicable

NAVSEA – Reviewed ASTM F718 Product Data Sheets.” Id. at 45.

The agency argues that “[t]he multiple references to the Navy-specific standards,

processes, and methodologies regarding Navy corrosion-control and preservation” in

the SOW, provided offerors with “proper notice that this type of experience and

Page 9

B-424214.6

familiarity was material to the Navy’s evaluation of assessing an offeror’s capability to

meet the Solicitation’s objectives.” Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 12. We agree.

While the solicitation did not specifically state that the agency would evaluate

experience and understanding of Navy shipboard corrosion control and preservation, or

direct Navy nonskid execution experience and familiarity with Navy-specific shipboard

preservation processes and methodologies, we find that such considerations are

intrinsic to--or reasonably subsumed within--the stated evaluation criteria noted above.

See Horizon Indus., Ltd., supra. The language in the solicitation contemplates that the

agency would evaluate the entirety of the proposed technical approach to determine

how it demonstrates the offeror’s specific understanding, capability, and experience to

successfully perform the SOW requirements. Navy shipboard corrosion control and

preservation, as well as direct Navy nonskid execution experience and familiarity with

Navy-specific shipboard preservation processes and methodologies, such as

knowledge of MIL-PRF-24667, were requirements specifically included in the SOW. As

such, based on the record, we find the agency’s consideration of Navy shipboard

corrosion control and preservation, and understanding of Navy nonskid coating

execution specific to ships and submarines to be logically encompassed in the

evaluation criteria.

To the extent B&N maintains that the Navy improperly evaluated its proposal as

unacceptable based on a “requirement that an offeror previously have performed

identical corrosion-control assistance services aboard U.S. Navy vessels” or “previously

executed Navy shipboard nonskid operations,” Comments at 13, the record does not

support the protester’s allegation that the agency concluded its proposal was

unacceptable based solely on the lack of identical experience. Rather, the record

reflects that the deficiency ratings assigned to B&N’s proposal were a product of the

protester’s failure to provide sufficient detail demonstrating it possessed the necessary

experience and understanding of Navy corrosion-control and preservation standards,

processes, and methodologies, as well as the protester’s failure to provide sufficient

detail demonstrating it possessed the necessary experience and understanding

concerning Navy nonskid coating execution to warrant higher ratings. See, e.g., AR,

Tab I, FPR Tech. Eval. at 672 (concluding that B&N’s proposal fails to “validate a

functional understanding of [the] NSTM standards in a shipboard environment,” which

“indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of US Navy requirements” and “creates

an unacceptably high risk of unsatisfactory performance.”); id. at 673 (finding that B&N’s

“lack of knowledge and experience with MIL-PRF-24667 nonskid in shipboard

applications creates an unacceptable level of risk that the [o]fferor will not fulfill the

contract’s requirements to the satisfaction of the Government.”).

It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit an adequately written proposal that

demonstrates the merits of its approach, and an offeror that fails to do so runs the risk

that its proposal will be evaluated unfavorably. Olympus Bldg. Servs., Inc.,

B-416599 et al., Oct. 24, 2018, at 3. Here, the protester failed in this respect. To the

extent B&N maintains that the agency should have evaluated its proposal differently, the

Page 10

B-424214.6

protester’s disagreement with the agency’s evaluation, without more, is insufficient to

render the evaluation unreasonable.

In sum, we find the agency’s assessment of the deficiencies to B&N’s proposal for a

material failure to meet the government’s requirements was reasonable. RFP at 102

(defining deficiency as a material failure to meet a government requirement and/or risk

of performance is unacceptably high). In addition, as noted above, the RFP provided

that a “[p]roposal [that] does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus,

contains one or more deficiencies [ ] is unawardable[.]” RFP at 104. In light of the

reasonably assessed deficiencies, the agency properly found B&N’s proposal to be

unacceptable and ineligible for award. This protest ground is denied.

Discussions

The protester challenges the agency’s conduct of discussions related to the deficiencies

assessed to B&N’s FPR for Navy shipboard corrosion control and preservation and

understanding of Navy nonskid coating execution. Protest at 14. The protester alleges

that “the Navy failed to meaningfully disclose the full nature and scope of the concerns

that ultimately became central to the corrective action evaluation.” Id. at 13-14.

Specifically, the protester argues that Navy failed to meaningfully disclose any

deficiencies related to nonskid execution methodology, such as MIL-PRF-24667,

NAVSEA Standard Item 009-032 familiarity, or prior Navy shipboard operational

familiarity standards. Id. The agency responds that its discussions were conducted

appropriately and provided B&N with sufficient information to allow it to correct the

deficiencies. MOL at 20-21. We agree.

The regulations concerning discussions under FAR part 15, which pertain to negotiated

procurements, do not as a general rule, govern task and delivery order competitions

conducted under FAR subpart 16.5, such as the procurement at issue here. M.A.

Mortenson Co., supra at 8. In this regard, section 16.505 of the FAR does not establish

specific requirements for discussions in a task order competition; nonetheless, when an

agency conducts exchanges with offerors in a task order competition, those exchanges

must be fair, meaningful, and not misleading. Verizon Bus. Network Servs., Inc.,

B-419271.5 et al., Apr. 26, 2021, at 10-11. In the context of both FAR part 15 and 16

procurements, our decisions have explained that for discussions to be meaningful an

agency need not “spoon-feed” an offeror as to each and every item that could be

revised to improve an offeror’s proposal. Abacus Tech. Corp.; SMS Data Prods. Group,

Inc., B-413421 et al., Oct. 28, 2016, at 7. Rather, agencies need only lead offerors into

the areas of their proposals that require amplification or revision. Id.; Engility Corp., B413120.3 et al., Feb. 14, 2017, at 6. Further, the exact content of discussions largely is

a matter of the contracting officer’s judgment. Id. at 8.

Relevant here, during discussions, the agency notified B&N of three deficiencies it

assessed to B&N’s proposal under the technical approach element of the technical

approach factor (only two of which are relevant to this discussion). AR, Tab G, B&N

Discussions Letter at 639-641. The record shows that during discussions, the agency

Page 11

B-424214.6

provided B&N with a discussion letter and copy of the agency’s technical evaluation

report that identified the deficiencies. Id.

For example, regarding the ship/maritime experience deficiency, the technical

evaluation report stated:

Across pages 18-23 of the [B&N’s] proposal, [B&N] makes numerous

references to ‘infrastructure’ and ‘various asset types,’ including pipelines,

bridges, and military/DoD facilities, but at no point in these instances does

the Offeror correlate this infrastructure experience to ship or maritime

experience or provide any insight into how such infrastructure experience

is of value, or would translate to an effort that solely focuses on US Navy

and US Coast Guard ships.

Id. at 645.

Additionally, the technical evaluation report explained the following regarding the

nonskid deficiency:

Solicitation Section C.5.1.4.7 requires the Contractor to train SF in the

mixing of shipboard coatings, including nonskid. The mixing and

application of nonskid is a Navy-specific process, which the Offerer does

not demonstrate in its proposal that it possesses knowledge or experience

with the process. A keyword search in the Offerer’s technical approach

produced no references to “nonskid” or the military specification for

nonskid (i.e., “MIL-PRF-24667”).

Id. at 646.

Our review of the record finds that the agency’s discussions properly led B&N to the

areas of concern with its proposal--that is, (1) demonstrating how its prior experience in

infrastructure would correlate to ship or maritime experience or provide any insight into

how such infrastructure experience is of value, or would translate to an effort that solely

focuses on U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard ships; and (2) demonstrating it possesses

knowledge or experience with the Navy-specific process of mixing and application of

nonskid (e.g., MIL-PRF-24667). Id. at 645-646. Indeed, as the record reflects and the

protester acknowledges, “[i]n response to the [a]gency’s concerns regarding shipboard

preservation methodology and nonskid systems, B&N substantially expanded its

discussion of MIL-PRF-24667, Navy nonskid mixing procedures, classroom instruction,

waterfront training, quality assurance, environmental controls, and the practical

application of Navy coating systems.” Comments at 35. In addition, the protester states

that its FPR “added detailed discussion concerning Navy-specific coating requirements,

instructor qualifications, training methodology, and preservation procedures that had not

been included in the original proposal. Id., citing AR, Tab E, B&N FPR at 24-32; Tab G,

B&N Discussion Letter at 3-6.

Page 12

B-424214.6

As such, in response to the discussions letter, B&N made a business judgment as to

how it would “substantially expand” the information in its FPR to address the agency’s

concerns--including with regard to MIL-PRF-24667, Navy nonskid mixing procedures,

the practical application of Navy coating systems, Navy-specific coating requirements

and preservation procedures that had not been in its initial proposal. Comments at 35.

The fact that the evaluators reasonably concluded, as discussed in detail above, that

B&N’s FPR did not adequately address the concerns raised during discussions and still

warranted deficiencies does not reflect any improper action on behalf of the agency

regarding discussions. Rather, the agency’s concerns were the result of the business

judgment of the protester in how it opted to revise its proposal. Ultimately, the Navy

accurately conveyed to the protester the assessed deficiencies and left it to B&N’s

discretion on how to respond. As noted above, an agency is only required to lead an

offeror into the areas of its proposal requiring amplification or revision. Abacus Tech.

Corp.; SMS Data Prods. Group, Inc., supra at 9. Accordingly, we deny B&N’s challenge

to the agency’s conduct of discussions.

Interested Party Status

Finally, B&N challenges the agency’s past performance evaluation and argues the

agency’s best-value tradeoff analysis was unreasonable. As discussed below, because

the agency reasonably found B&N’s proposal ineligible for award due to its material

failure to meet the solicitation’s requirements, the protester is not an interested party to

bring its other protest allegations.

In order for a protest to be considered by our Office, a protester must be an interested

party, that is, an actual or prospective offeror whose direct economic interest would be

affected by the award or failure to award a contract. 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(a)(1). A protester

is not an interested party where it would not be in line for contract award if its protest

were sustained. BANC3, Inc., B-416486, B-416486.2, Sept. 10, 2018, at 9. Here, as

discussed above, the agency reasonably determined that the protester’s proposal

was unacceptable and ineligible for award because of a material failure of its proposal

to meet a government requirement. Since B&N is not eligible for award given the

deficiencies assigned to its proposal, B&N would not be in line for award even if we

were to sustain its other challenges concerning the reasonableness of the agency’s past

performance evaluation or best-value tradeoff decision. Accordingly, the protester is not

an interested party to raise these other protest challenges, and we will not consider

them. See Tetra Tech Tesoro, Inc., B-403797, Dec. 14, 2010, at 6.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez

General Counsel

Page 13

B-424214.6