Braswell Services Group, Inc., B-278521, February 9, 1998

B-278521 Feb 09, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that solicitation for ship repair services is defective for failing to specify the location of required work and interferences that must be moved in order to perform the work. Is denied where (1) nature of emergent repairs and variable nature of shipboard conditions make it impossible to specify location of repairs in advance. Agency is permitted. Arguing that the RFP is defective because it fails to identify the amount and shipboard location of required work under six CLINs. [2] The agency proceeded with the closing. Four proposals were received. Offerors will be unable to determine what interferences will be involved in repairs. Thus will not be able to prepare their prices intelligently and on an equal basis. View Decision Matter of: Braswell Services Group, Inc. File: B-278521 Date: February 9, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Braswell Services Group, Inc. protests the terms of Department of the Navy's request for proposals (RFP) No. N62670-97-R-0007, for ship repair work of an emergent, time-critical nature on FFG-7 (frigate) class vessels homeported at the Mayport Naval Station in Jacksonville, Florida. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplates the award of a fixed-price, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for a base year, with four 1-year options, to the responsive, responsible offeror with the lowest evaluated price for the base and option years. The RFP's pricing schedule contains numerous contract line item numbers (CLIN) and subline item numbers (subCLIN) that require submission of unit and extended prices. An enclosure to the RFP set forth the exact work required under each subCLIN and stated that the location and quantity of the work would be identified after award, as per delivery order. The schedule provides further as follows: The determination of the type, nature, and extent of any interference [1] removal required to be accomplished in order to complete work required by each individual CLIN or SUBCLIN, shall be the responsibility of the contractor. Accordingly, the contractor shall price any anticipated interference removal/reinstallation costs in CLIN pricing. Braswell protested to the agency 2 days prior to the closing date, arguing that the RFP is defective because it fails to identify the amount and shipboard location of required work under six CLINs. [2] The agency proceeded with the closing. Four proposals were received, with prices for the base year ranging from $2,998,190 to $9,183,268. Braswell submitted a proposal without pricing the anticipated removal and reinstallation costs of the interferences in the CLIN pricing. The agency subsequently denied Braswell's agency-level protest, and Braswell then filed this protest with our Office. Braswell argues that, without more information as to the location of the work under the six CLINs (which comprise more than 35 percent of the required work), offerors will be unable to determine what interferences will be involved in repairs, and thus will not be able to prepare their prices intelligently and on an equal basis. In this regard, it is undisputed in the record that the cost of certain otherwise relatively inexpensive repairs may become very expensive depending on the interferences and the exact location on the ship. For example, work located in areas that are difficult to reach--behind a bulkhead, in a tank, in the bilge, or under the main engine--is more expensive than work located in open spaces. Braswell asserts that the RFP, by leaving offerors to develop average prices covering all eventualities, exposes the contractor to unwarranted risk, and will result in inflated prices for all of the work. Braswell maintains that this unacceptable level of risk is reflected in the wide disparity in base year prices received (from $2,998,190 to $9,183,268). Braswell suggests that the Navy eliminate the problem by listing the removal and reinstallation of interferences as a separate RFP work item and including an additional government requirement (AGR) clause, which would allow the agency to pay the contractor separately for removal of interferences, in addition to its proposed fixed price for a repair. [3] The Navy responds that the variable nature of shipboard conditions associated with emergent repairs makes the location of repair or replacement work for these CLINs impossible to establish in the RFP; needed pipe repairs, for example, could occur anywhere on the ship where pipes are located. The Navy maintains that the resulting contractor risk is mitigated to the extent possible by the information made available to offerors in the RFP and the opportunity for an extended ship inspection prior to the closing time.