[Protest of Navy Contract Award for Roof Replacement and Repair]

A firm protested a proposed Navy contract award for roof replacement and repair, contending that: (1) the awardee was ineligible for award, since it did not meet the solicitation's experience requirement; (2) the awardee's predecessor firm's experience was irrelevant, since the awardee did not assume its obligations; and (3) the resumes the awardee provided were not those of its principal officers. GAO held that: (1) the awardee provided sufficient evidence of its experience based on its acquisition of a predecessor firm's assets and employees; (2) the awardee provided the resumes of several current supervisory employees with more than 79 years of combined experience; (3) the predecessor firm's experience was relevant and useful in predicting the awardee's performance; (4) consideration of principal officers was not necessary to determine the awardee's experience, since they may not perform the actual work required; and (5) the Navy reasonably determined that the awardee was responsible, since its experience was equivalent to the solicitation's requirement. Accordingly, the protest was denied.