TITLE:  Halter Marine, Inc., B-289303, December 12, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-289303
DATE:  December 12, 2001
**********************************************************************
Decision

Matter of: Halter Marine, Inc.

File: B-289303

Date: December 12, 2001

David S. Bland, Esq., James W. Noe, Esq., and Julie M. Araujo, Esq., King,
LeBlanc & Bland, for the protester.

Robert A. Mangrum, Esq., and Paul S. Ebert, Esq., Winston & Strawn, for
Marinette Marine Corporation, an intervenor.

Keith A. Moore-Erickson, Esq., United States Coast Guard, 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 awardee fails to meet past performance standards, because it
does not possess certificates from industry classification society, is
denied where solicitation called only for demonstrated experience and
responsibility for society's requirements and did not require offerors to
possess or obtain certificates.

DECISION

Halter Marine, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Marinette Marine
Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG23-01-R-AGL001, issued
by the
U. S. Coast Guard for design and construction of a Great Lakes Ice Breaker
(GLIB) ship. Halter asserts that the awardee's proposal does not meet the
past performance requirements of the RFP.

We deny the protest.

The RFP set forth performance specifications for the GLIB, including the
integrated ship control system (ISCS) for automatic and manual control of
the GLIB and its machinery systems. RFP sect. 3.5.7. The ISCS includes an
integrated bridge system (IBS) and is required to comply with DNV W1, an
industry design and construction standard. [1] RFP sect. 3.5.7.1. Offerors were
required to select and propose a single system integrator (the SSI-B) for
the IBS, which would be responsible for ensuring that integration and
interface requirements were met. RFP sect. 3.2.15. The proposed SSI-B was also
required to possess past performance related to the requirements of DNV W1.
Id.

Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal complied with the RFP
requirements and was considered most advantageous to the government. RFP
sect. M.2. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of technical/management
and past performance which, combined, were more important than price. RFP
sect. M.3. The past performance evaluation was to be based on a past performance
questionnaire and information obtained from previous or current customers.
RFP sect. M.5. Based on its evaluation of Halter's and Marinette's proposals,
the source selection authority concluded that Marinette's proposal, which
was lower in price, represented the best value to the government. After
receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, Halter filed this protest.

Halter asserts that Marinette does not meet the DNV W1 past performance
requirements set forth in RFP section 3.2.15. According to Halter, DNV W1 is
"governed by three DNV certificates," and Marinette's proposed SSI-B has
only one of the three certificates. Protest at 3. Halter asserts that only
its proposal was acceptable because it proposed an SSI-B that meets the
DNV W1 past performance requirements. [2]

In reviewing a protest against a procuring agency's proposal evaluation, our
role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and
regulations. National Toxicology Labs., Inc., B-281074.2, Jan. 11, 1999,
99-1 CPD para. 5 at 3.

The Coast Guard's evaluation here was reasonable. Halter's protest is based
on an erroneous interpretation of the RFP's requirements; nothing in the RFP
required that an SSI-B possess DNV certificates to establish its past
performance. In this regard, under the RFP, the SSI-B was to be the vendor
of the major bridge system components to be installed on the GLIB and had to
be

an organization that has demonstrated successful past performance in the
same capacity on design and construction projects utilizing an [IBS] of
equal or greater complexity. Specifically, past performance must demonstrate
single system integration experience and responsibilities for the Integrated
Bridge requirements of DNV W1.

RFP sect. 3.2.15. While this provision clearly required relevant experience
under the requirements of DNV W1, it did not require that the vendor possess
certificates from DNV to establish that experience, and nothing else in the
RFP set forth such a requirement. In fact, the RFP's design and construction
standards (DCS) specifically stated that certificates were not required. [3]
According to the DCS, where "classification society rules" are cited, "the
GLIB shall be designed and constructed to comply with the cited rule or
regulation [but] the Contractor is not required to obtain Classification
Certificates or Certificates of inspection" in meeting the DCS. RFP sect. J. We
conclude that there was no requirement that the proposed SSI-B be certified
by DNV. [4]

In its response to the agency's motion to dismiss its protest, Halter for
the first time asserts that the equipment itself, not the SSI-B, must
possess the certificates. Response at 3. According to Halter, the equipment
must be "type approved" in order to comply with DNV W1 Rules and, absent
these approvals, an SSI-B cannot demonstrate the required past performance.
Our Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate the piecemeal presentation or
development of protest issues. QualMed, Inc., B-257184.2, Jan. 27, 1995,
95-1 CPD para. 94 at 12-13. This includes the identification of more specific
information concerning flaws in the evaluation generally alleged in the
initial protest. Id. Such information must be filed within 10 calendar days
after the protester knew or should have known the basis for its protest. 4
C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2001). Since Halter did not assert that type approval
was required until it filed its comments on the dismissal request, more than
10 days after its protest was filed, this argument is untimely. [5]

Halter also asserts that Marinette's SSI-B cannot properly have been found
to meet the past performance requirement because it has never previously met
the DNV W1 requirements. However, Halter has provided nothing in support of
this assertion. Marinette's proposal does not take exception to any of the
DNV W1 requirements and, in fact, indicates that the proposed SSI-B system
is "DNV Watch 1 Certified." Agency Motion to Dismiss, Encl. 8. In addition,
the agency had ample information from which it could reasonably conclude
that Marinette's SSI-B has the requisite demonstrated experience "of equal
or greater complexity." RFP sect. 3.2.15. For example, Marinette's proposal
included spreadsheets of its SSI-B's prior IBS experience with some 200
ships, at least 38 of which were classed to DNV W1 and
3 of which were icebreakers. Agency Motion to Dismiss, Encl. 7. Its proposal
also provided detailed descriptions of its SSI-B's past projects, four of
which identified the classing/certification as "DNV Watch 1." Id. Based on
this information, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we
conclude that Halter's allegation is purely speculative, see Hornet Joint
Venture, B-258430.3, B-258430.4, Feb. 22, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 110 at 4, and
that the agency reasonably found that Marinette's SSI-B met the RFP's past
performance requirements.

Finally, Halter asserts that Marinette proposed to perform some of the tasks
reserved to the SSI-B, in violation of the RFP's requirements. However, the
agency states that it is unaware of any proposal by Marinette to undertake
SSI-B tasks in violation of the RFP, and Halter has not explained the basis
for its unsupported assertion in this regard. As with its challenges to the
SSI-B's past performance, Halter's assertions here amount to mere
speculation, and provide no basis for questioning the award. Hornet Joint
Venture, supra.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. The DNV W1 or "Watch 1" standard is promulgated by Det Norske Veritas
(DNV), an industry classification society.

2. Halter states that only one firm possesses all three certificates. Halter
proposed one of this firm's authorized factory representatives as its SSI-B
and will have the "certified" firm act as a subcontractor. Protest at 4.

3. The DCS are defined as "standards, policies, criteria and margins . . .
to be applied as applicable throughout the design and construction of the
GLIB . . . and are identified to permit the assessment of the ship, systems
and equipment as the design develops." RFP sect. J.

4. Moreover, even where a solicitation requires a product to conform to the
standards of a particular testing or classification organization, the
absence of a certification does not automatically exclude a noncertified
product that in fact conforms to such standards. Haz-Stor Co., B-251248,
Mar. 18, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 242 at 2.

5. In any case, the argument is without merit. Contrary to Halter's reading
of the DNV rules, we find nothing requiring that type approval be obtained.
The provision cited by Halter simply states that, because "reliable figures
for all aspects of equipment performance/accuracy cannot be established" by
on-board testing, "shipowners are advised to choose equipment that is type
approved by [DNV]." Rules for Ships--July 1991, pt. 6, ch. 8, sect. 10, para. 102.
While this provision seems to recommend that shipowners select equipment
that is type approved, it contains no language that would make equipment
type approval a precondition to an SSI-B's performing a contract in
accordance with DNV W1 standards; thus, IBS type approval was not necessary
for the SSI-B to meet the DNV W1 past performance requirement.