Tech Marine Business, Inc.
B-420872.1, .2, .3

• The protester alleged that it should have been assigned a strength for its transition plan, which exceeded the Navy’s schedule for workload turnover and would be completed “well in advance[] of the 60-day requirement.”

• The Agency argued that, as GAO has held, it is not required to document determinations of adequacy or explain why a proposal did not receive a strength for a particular item. The Agency represented that it reviewed the protester’s transition plan and did not consider the proposed ability to transition faster than the 60-day requirement to be a strength.

• GAO found this insufficient and that the agency “provides no explanation—contemporaneous or otherwise—to support the reasonableness of its evaluation of Tech Marine’s transition plan.”

• GAO stated it failed to see, and the Agency failed to explain, why exceeding the transition schedule would not benefit the Agency.

• GAO recommended the Agency reevaluate Tech Marine’s proposal and make a new source selection determination.