Knights' Piping, Inc.; World Wide Marine & Industrial, B-

Knights' Piping, Inc.; World Wide Marine & Industrial, B- BNUMBER: B-280398.2; B-280398.3 DATE: October 9, 1998 TITLE: Knights' Piping, Inc.; World Wide Marine & Industrial, B- 280398.2; B-280398.3, October 9, 1998 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Knights' Piping, Inc.; World Wide Marine & Industrial Services File: B-280398.2; B-280398.3 Date:October 9, 1998 Brian K. Knight for Knights' Piping, Inc., and A.J. Hammond for World Wide Marine & Industrial Services, the protesters. Sharon Hershkowitz, Esq., Frank A. Putzu, Esq., and Paul W. Tyler, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Contracting agency's inadvertent inclusion of emerging small business set-aside notice in solicitation does not prohibit award to large business where solicitation otherwise indicated that no set-aside was intended, there is no legal requirement that the contract be set aside for emerging small business concerns, and no bidder was prejudiced as a result. 2. Contracting agency properly awarded contract to firm possessing both a Master Ship Repair Agreement and an Agreement for Boat Repair (ABR) where solicitation was restricted to ABR holders. 3. Protest that a conflict of interest exists where agency awarded a contract for the planned availability of the USS THOMAS S. GATES to the contractor who is the planning yard for this class of ship and who prepared the availability analysis is denied where agency reasonably determined that adequate safeguards were in place to mitigate or neutralize any conflict and also properly executed a waiver of the possible organizational conflict of interest as being in the best interest of the government. 4. Protest that submission of an allegedly below-cost offer constitutes a "buy-in" does not provide a valid basis to challenge an award. DECISION Knights' Piping, Inc. and World Wide Marine & Industrial Services protest the award of a contract to Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62795-98-R-0023, issued by the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, Department of the Navy, Pascagoula, Mississippi (SUPSHIP) for the performance of certain repairs and alterations to a guided missile cruiser, USS THOMAS S. GATES. Both protesters argue that the award to Ingalls, a large business, was improper because the RFP was set aside for emerging small businesses (ESB); that the RFP was restricted to firms holding a current Agreement for Boat Repair (ABR) and Ingalls was ineligible because it holds both an ABR and a Master Ship Repair Agreement (MSRA); and that Ingalls had an unfair competitive advantage because, as the planning yard for guided missile CG-47 class ships, it had information regarding the RFP in advance of other offerors. We deny the protests. The RFP, issued April 15, 1998, stated that it was restricted to those firms having a current ABR and also stated that in "accordance with Department of Navy policy competition is restricted to ABR/MSRA holders within a 75 mile radius of vessel's homeport. Firms which do not possess a MSRA/ABR (as applicable) are ineligible for award unless adequate time exists to permit the Navy to perform an assessment of their MSRA/ABR application and to execute the applicable MSRA/ABR without impacting the vessel's availability dates." RFP sec. A-6. The RFP also contained Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec. 52.219-20, Notice of Emerging Small Business Set-Aside which provides that the procurement was restricted to ESB concerns. RFP sec. L-2-7. The RFP provided for award of a firm, fixed-price contract using a best value determination based upon the evaluation factors of past performance and price. RFP sec. M-6. The past performance evaluation factor consisted of the following subfactors: technical (quality of product); schedule; and management. Past performance was to be rated as exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal or unsatisfactory. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance was not available were to receive a neutral rating. The RFP stated that "Past Performance is approximately equal to Price, with Past Performance being more important than Price." RFP sec. M-6(c)(1). The agency received four offers by the May 15 closing date. The past performance evaluation team (PPET) rated each offeror's past performance using existing relevant past performance information. Ingalls was rated neutral because no relevant past performance data was available at this SUPSHIP and Knights' Piping was rated satisfactory based on available relevant past performance data. World Wide Marine was rated unsatisfactory based on relevant past performance data.