Clearwater Instrumentation, Inc., B-286454.2, September 12, 2001

B-286454.2 Sep 12, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Which are designed to be deployed from aircraft and are oceanographic drifters that provide near real-time surface current data during search and rescue missions. The RFP stated that the award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government. The technical and past performance evaluation factors were more important than price. These drawings were required to show complete manufacturing and engineering design data. Were to become the property of the Coast Guard. That it was prejudiced because it was not afforded an opportunity to revise its price in light of the agency's decision to eliminate the CLIN B.0.11 requirement. The GAO attorney found that MetOcean appeared to have been prejudiced by the agency's failure to give that firm an opportunity to consider how the decision not to procure the drawing package corresponding to CLIN B.0.11 would affect its price. View Decision Clearwater Instrumentation, Inc., B-286454.2, September 12, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Clearwater Instrumentation, Inc. protests the award of a contract to MetOcean Data Systems Limited under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG40-00-R-50012, issued by the Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, for self-locating datum marker buoys, which are designed to be deployed from aircraft and are oceanographic drifters that provide near real-time surface current data during search and rescue missions. Clearwater challenges the award to MetOcean, which submitted a technically equal, lower-priced proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Prior Protest The RFP, issued on May 19, 2000, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract. The RFP stated that the award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government, considering technical evaluation factors (which included, in descending order of importance, technical description; quality factors; facilities/equipment; key personnel; corporate experience; and projected workload), past performance, and price. The technical and past performance evaluation factors were more important than price. The RFP price schedule included contract line item No. (CLIN) B.0.11 for one separately priced "approval drawing package in accordance with specification P-420-0349, paragraph 3.8.3." RFP at 3. These drawings were required to show complete manufacturing and engineering design data, and were to become the property of the Coast Guard. RFP at 31. On September 22, the agency awarded a contract to Clearwater, which submitted a technically equal, lower-priced proposal. On September 27, the agency modified Clearwater's contract by deleting the requirement corresponding to CLIN B.0.11, after basically concluding that the drawings would provide no useful information for future acquisitions by the Coast Guard of more technologically advanced buoys. MetOcean subsequently protested the award to Clearwater, arguing, among other things, that it was prejudiced because it was not afforded an opportunity to revise its price in light of the agency's decision to eliminate the CLIN B.0.11 requirement. The General Accounting Office (GAO) attorney handling the MetOcean protest conducted an "outcome prediction" alternative dispute resolution (ADR) conference with the parties. See Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc.; CASS, a Joint Venture--Costs, B-284534.7, B-284534.8, Mar. 14, 2001, 2001 CPD Para. 54 at 2 n.1 (description of "outcome prediction" ADR). During this conference, the GAO attorney expressed concern with the agency's conduct of the procurement. Specifically, after reviewing the record, including the parties' arguments, the GAO attorney found that MetOcean appeared to have been prejudiced by the agency's failure to give that firm an opportunity to consider how the decision not to procure the drawing package corresponding to CLIN B.0.11 would affect its price. As a result of the ADR conference, the agency decided to terminate for convenience Clearwater's contract, to amend the RFP to delete the CLIN B.0.11 requirement, and to reopen discussions with MetOcean and Clearwater. GAO dismissed MetOcean's protest as academic based on the corrective action. MetOcean Data Sys. Ltd., B-286454, Jan. 4, 2001. Current Protest On March 8, 2001, the agency issued amendment No. 6, which specifically deleted from the RFP price schedule CLIN B.0.11, as described above. The amended RFP stated that overall cost to the government would become the determining factor for award as proposals became more equal based on non-price factors. In addition, by letters dated March 8, the agency advised MetOcean and Clearwater that it was reopening discussions. (By this point, MetOcean and Clearwater were aware of each other's proposed unit prices.