Metro Machine Corporation, B-281872; B-281872.2; B-281872.3;

Metro Machine Corporation, B-281872; B-281872.2; B-281872.3; BNUMBER: B-281872; B-281872.2; B-281872.3; B-281872.4 DATE: April 22, 1999 TITLE: Metro Machine Corporation, B-281872; B-281872.2; B-281872.3; B-281872.4, April 22, 1999 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Metro Machine Corporation File: B-281872; B-281872.2; B-281872.3; B-281872.4 Date:April 22, 1999 Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., Esq., James J. Regan, Esq., John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., and Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for the protester. James A. Kelly, Esq., Donald A. Tobin, Esq., and Lori Ann T. Lange, Esq., Bastianelli, Brown & Kelley, for Atlantic Dry Dock Corporation, an intervenor. Susan P. Raps, Esq., Craig L. Kemmerer, Esq., Stephen P. Anderson, Esq., Catherine Rubino, Esq., Lisa L. Hare, Esq., Frank A. Putzu, Esq., and Jannika E. Cannon, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where source selection authority considered protester's proposed approach to perform production shop work at a remote location to be unacceptable, and believed that the solicitation requirements established that only a proposal to perform production shop work on-site would be acceptable, agency misled protester during discussions by effectively communicating that modifications or enhancements to the protester's proposal to perform production shop work at the remote location would be sufficient to make proposal of that location acceptable. DECISION Metro Machine Corporation protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Atlantic Dry Dock Corporation (ADD) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62678-98-R-0025 for drydocking operations and ship repair work for four classes of Navy ships homeported at the Mayport Naval Station in the Jacksonville, Florida area. Metro raises a number of protest issues, most significantly that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On March 4, 1998, the Navy issued the RFP at issue for drydocking facilities and repair services for four classes of Navy ships over a 5-year period. The solicitation provided that offerors could propose to use, as government-furnished property, a Navy floating drydock with the designation "AFDM-7" and the name Sustain which is currently in the Navy's inactive fleet, or alternatively, a contractor-furnished drydock. The RFP contained multiple contract line item numbers (CLIN), each of which specified certain contract requirements. CLIN 0001 called for preparing the site, towing, setting up the dry dock, and obtaining certification. CLIN 0002 (and corresponding option year CLINs) called for operation and normal maintenance of the proposed dry dock. CLIN 0003 (and corresponding option year CLINs), which was applicable only to offerors proposing to use the Sustain, called for repairs to the Sustain which exceeded the normal maintenance contemplated under CLIN 0002. CLINs 0004 through 0007 (and corresponding option year CLINs) called for specific work to be performed on each of the four different classes of Navy ships to be serviced at the dry dock.[1] RFP attachment J-5 listed 22 ships which the Navy contemplated would be drydocked and repaired under this procurement, stating: Twenty-two (22) ships make up this requirement. Currently, there are twelve (12) CNO drydocking availabilities scheduled for FY-99 [fiscal year 1999] thru FY-03 [fiscal year 2003]. All of these vessels are subject to unscheduled, emergent drydockings. Section M of the RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of six non-price evaluation factors which, taken together, were significantly more important than price. RFP sec. M.1.B. The RFP provided that two of the non-price evaluation factors--facility site requirements and contractor-furnished drydock requirement--would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.[2] Id. sec. M.2.1, M.2.2. The four remaining non-price evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, were: technical;[3] earliest date able to commence drydock operations; environmental impact; and past performance. RFP sec.