Surface Technologies Corporation, B-288317, August 22, 2001

B-288317 Aug 22, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contracts for the performance of shipboard preservation services was reasonable where. Cost-reimbursement contracts will allow the agency to work with contractors to achieve the solicitation's preservation requirements with maximum flexibility and minimal delays. Contracts was unreasonable. Contractors will be required to perform state-of-the-art preservation services (coating removal. Other surface ships) in ten designated ports. /1/ The preservation services will be performed in interior and exterior shipboard spaces and on shipboard equipment in accordance with naval and industrial specifications and standards. The services will be performed while a ship is in port. Is otherwise considered operational. View Decision Surface Technologies Corporation, B-288317, August 22, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Surface Technologies Corporation (STC) protests the cost-reimbursement terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-01-R-4050, issued by the Department of the Navy for shipboard preservation services. STC maintains that the contracting officer's determination to solicit proposals for the awards of cost-reimbursement, as opposed to fixed-price, contracts was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on May 4, 2001, contemplated multiple awards of cost-plus-incentive fee/level-of-effort contracts for the base period and four 1-year option periods. Under the RFP, contractors will be required to perform state-of-the-art preservation services (coating removal, surface preparation, and coating application) on commissioned naval vessels (strategic and attack submarines, carriers, and other surface ships) in ten designated ports. /1/ The preservation services will be performed in interior and exterior shipboard spaces and on shipboard equipment in accordance with naval and industrial specifications and standards, as well as all applicable safety, security, health, and environmental laws and regulations. Any space or equipment within a ship, or above the exterior waterline, may be considered within the scope of a firm's contract (for example, tight and limited access spaces, spaces with access only up or down vertical ladders, a ship's superstructure, and masts). The services will be performed while a ship is in port, but is otherwise considered operational. The typical duration of a ship's port availability is approximately 3 weeks, although this time could vary greatly. RFP at 79. The RFP stated that the awards would be made to the responsible offerors whose proposals were determined most advantageous to the government, technical evaluation factors and cost considered. The RFP required each offeror to have an accounting system adequate for determining costs applicable to a particular contract. The RFP advised that an offeror could be determined ineligible for award if its accounting system could not determine applicable contract costs. Just prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals on July 9, STC filed this protest. (While STC did not submit a proposal, the agency's administrative report reveals that there was considerable competition in terms of the number of offerors participating in the procurement and the number of proposals received by the closing time.) STC, "an experienced firm fixed-price contractor . . . [which does not have] a proven cost accounting background," Protest at 2, argues that the award of fixed-price contracts is required here because the "risk involved [in performing shipboard preservation services] is minimal or can be predicted with an acceptable degree of certainty." Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 16.103(b). In making this argument, STC refers to prior fixed-price contracts, which it states included the same preservation requirements as contained in the current RFP. The selection of the appropriate contract type is committed to the sound judgment of the contracting officer. FAR Sec. 16.103(a). We will review the contracting officer's determination as to contract type to ascertain whether that decision was reasonable. United Food Servs., Inc., B-220367, Feb. 20, 1986, 86-1 CPD Para. 177 at 6. As relevant to this protest, FAR Sec.