Delphinus Engineering, Inc. (B-423203.4)

Delphinus Engineering, Inc. (B-423203.4)
Photo by Pawel Czerwinski / Unsplash

You should not care.

Categories: Disparate treatment, cost realism, best-value tradeoff

Date: 19 December 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423203.4

Delphinus protested a Navy award to Prism Maritime for alteration installation team and in-service engineering support, challenging the technical evaluation, cost realism analysis, discussions, and best value tradeoff.

GAO denied the protest. It found the agency reasonably distinguished between the two proposals when assigning strengths and did not treat Delphinus unequally. On cost realism, GAO upheld the Navy’s upward adjustments to Delphinus’s labor rates to account for escalation, finding the analysis consistent with the solicitation and reasonably explained. GAO also rejected the claim of misleading discussions, concluding the Navy sufficiently identified its concern that Delphinus’s proposed escalation rates were unrealistically low.

With both offerors rated good technically, GAO found the Navy reasonably determined Prism’s proposal was technically superior in ways worth a small price premium. The protest is denied.

Digest

  1. Protest that agency disparately evaluated proposals and unreasonably failed to assign additional strengths to protester's proposal is denied where agency evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation.
  2. Protest that agency conducted unreasonable cost realism analysis is denied where agency increased protester's proposed labor rates to account for escalation in accordance with the solicitation.
  3. Protest that agency conducted misleading discussions is denied where the discussions identified the agency's primary concern that the protester's proposed escalation rates were unrealistically low, and it had adjusted the rates for all positions accordingly.
  4. Protest that agency conducted an unreasonable best-value tradeoff determination is denied where agency reasonably concluded that awardee's proposal was technically superior to protester's proposal and worth a small price premium.