Avondale Industries, Inc.

B-271510 Jul 15, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency evaluation of the protester's proposal and subsequent decision not to grant the protester a waiver of a safe working area requirement was unobjectionable where the waiver determination was entirely a matter of agency discretion and there were other offerors. The protester alleges that the Navy failed to conduct meaningful discussions and that its proposal was improperly evaluated. To provide layberth facilities for two Fast Sealift Ships (FSS). [1] The RFP provided that the technical factors were more important than price. The technical factors were. (2) such deviation(s) is accepted at the time of contract award.". Award was made to Diversified after the agency determined that Diversified's proposal was the most advantageous to the government. View Decision Matter of: Avondale Industries, Inc. File: B-271510 Date: July 15, 1996 Agency conducted meaningful discussions regarding proposed noncompliance with a safe working area requirement in the solicitation through discussion questions which explicitly advised the protester of the agency's concern in this respect. Agency evaluation of the protester's proposal and subsequent decision not to grant the protester a waiver of a safe working area requirement was unobjectionable where the waiver determination was entirely a matter of agency discretion and there were other offerors, including the awardee, that met the requirement. Attorneys DECISION Avondale Industries, Inc. protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Diversified Group, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62387-95-R-4007. The protester alleges that the Navy failed to conduct meaningful discussions and that its proposal was improperly evaluated. We deny the protest. The Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command (MSC) issued the RFP on July 25, 1995, seeking proposals for a firm, fixed-price contract for a 3-year base period with 2 option years, to provide layberth facilities for two Fast Sealift Ships (FSS). [1] The RFP provided that the technical factors were more important than price, but that price would increase in importance as the difference in the technical scores of the highest-rated offerors decreased. The technical factors were, in descending order of importance: (1) "Layberth Safety"; (2) "Layberth Location"; (3) "Facility Services"; and (4) "Past Performance." The RFP contained a statement of work (SOW) which listed the requirements for the layberth facilities and the services to be provided under this contract. Section C-5.3. of the SOW, entitled "Safe Working Area," provided that: "A safe working area of one hundred feet (100) at 34' MLLW fore, aft, and outboard of the moored ships shall be provided. The berth or slip must be of sufficient width to facilitate safe docking and undocking without interference to other shipping and adequate to permit safe working of and training room for tugboats, barges, lighters, and floating cranes." The RFP provided that the agency could permit deviations from the SOW at the government's sole discretion so long as the deviations "(1) provide the same level of safety and security, and (2) such deviation(s) is accepted at the time of contract award." MSC received four proposals. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated the initial proposals, conducted a site survey of each proposed site, and established a competitive range of three proposals, including Avondale's. MSC then held discussions with the competitive range offerors and received best and final offers (BAFO). Avondale's proposal received a technical rating of red (unacceptable) based on the failure to offer an acceptable safe working area. Award was made to Diversified after the agency determined that Diversified's proposal was the most advantageous to the government. Avondale first argues that the agency did not conduct meaningful discussions in that it did not adequately explain that the 100-foot safe working area requirement was a minimum, mandatory requirement. The requirement for meaningful discussions with offerors is satisfied by pointing out weaknesses that, unless corrected, would prevent an offeror from having a reasonable chance for award, Department of the Navy -- Recon., 72 Comp.Gen. 221 (1993), 93-1 CPD para. 422, and an agency need only lead offerors generally into the areas of their proposals that require improvement. TM Sys., Inc., B-228220, Dec. 10, 1987, 87-2 CPD para. 573. Under this standard, the discussions with Avondale concerning its proposed safe working areas were meaningful. Avondale's initial proposal provided a safe working area of under 50 feet and its alternate layberthing plan appeared to provide a safe working area of only a few feet.