[Protest of Navy Contract Award]

A firm protested a Navy contract award issued under a request for proposals (RFP) for the repair and alteration of an aircraft carrier. The protester contended that it should have scored higher than the awardee under several solicitation evaluation criteria, because it had previous experience in performing aircraft carrier repairs and the awardee did not. It also asserted that neither the notice of award nor the Navy debriefing identified any weaknesses or deficiencies in its proposal. It therefore argued that the Navy lacked a rational basis for selecting the awardee over the protester. GAO held that: (1) the protester's superior experience in aircraft carrier repair did not entitle it to a higher score than the awardee under experience and past performance evaluation criterion in the RFP, because the aircraft carrier experience was only one of five subcriteria under the experience criterion, and the awardee's experience in other areas, as well as its superior past performance score, outweighed the protester's superior aircraft carrier experience; (2) the fact that the protester had more experience in one area than the awardee did not render the agency's superior evaluation of the awardee's overall management capability unreasonable, since the evaluation of management capability clearly included the consideration of many factors other than experience; and (3) the fact that the agency found no major weaknesses or deficiencies in the protester's proposal did not preclude award to another offerer if that proposal was judged to be superior to the protester's proposal. Accordingly, the protest was denied.