[Protest of Navy Contract Award for Aircraft Maintenance]

A firm protested a Navy contract award for maintenance of fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, contending that the Navy's: (1) method of evaluating proposals was irrational; (2) discussions were not meaningful; (3) assessment of its past performance and price analysis was unreasonable; and (4) selection decision was flawed and improper on its face. GAO noted that the: (1) evaluators performed a reasonable assessment of proposals in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation plan; (2) Navy was not required to advise the protester that its bid was too high, since the protester's initial price was within the middle range of prices, and even as revised, was not so much higher than the prices of other bidders; (3) Navy's evaluators considered the awardee's lack of relevant experience and reflected that in the assigned rating, and reasonably rated the protester's experience as satisfactory, given the protester's problems in performing these services during the predecessor contract; (4) Navy's price analysis was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria; and (5) the protester was not prejudiced by the Navy's failure to conduct an appropriate cost/technical tradeoff, since the protester was not next in line for the award. Accordingly, the protest was denied.