Gulf Copper Ship Repair, Inc., B-293706.5, September 10, 2004

B-293706.5 Sep 10, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Gulf Copper Ship Repair, Inc. protests the Department of the Navy's award of separate contracts to Anteon Corporation and Southwest Marine, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62678-03-R-0051, for the maintenance and repair of mine countermeasures (MCM) and coastal minehunter (MHC) class ships. Gulf Copper protests, among other things, that the agency improperly favored Anteon when, in taking corrective action in response to a prior protest, it conducted discussions only with Anteon. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-293706.5, Gulf Copper Ship Repair, Inc., September 10, 2004 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. Decision Matter of: Gulf Copper Ship Repair, Inc. File: B-293706.5 Date: September 10, 2004 Robert E. Korroch, Esq., Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq., Megan E. Burns, Esq., and K. Lee Westnedge, Esq., Williams Mullen, for the protester. John R. Tolle, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon, Hildebrant & Tolle, for Anteon Corporation, and Peter B. Jones, Esq., and Brian J. Donovan, Esq., Jones & Donovan, for Southwest Marine, Inc., the intervenors. Craig L. Kemmerer, Esq., and Rhonda L. Russ, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., John L. Formica, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency acted improperly when, in taking corrective action in response to a prior protest, it conducted discussions only with one of the previously selected awardees, rather than with all offerors whose proposals had been in the competitive range and had been considered by the agency in performing its best value analysis. DECISION Gulf Copper Ship Repair, Inc. protests the Department of the Navy's award of separate contracts to Anteon Corporation and Southwest Marine, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62678-03-R-0051, for the maintenance and repair of mine countermeasures (MCM) and coastal minehunter (MHC) class ships. Gulf Copper protests, among other things, that the agency improperly favored Anteon when, in taking corrective action in response to a prior protest, it conducted discussions only with Anteon. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP provided for the award of two cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts for material, services, and facilities, as required, to perform scheduled maintenance, continuous maintenance and emergent repairs on 14 MCM and 12 MHC class ships over a 5-year period. [1] Award was to be made to the two offerors whose proposals represented the best value to the government, considering the evaluation factors of technical, past performance, and cost. Proposals were to be evaluated under the technical factor on a pass/fail basis, and under the past performance factor, which was approximately equal to but more important than cost, on a qualitative basis. [2] The RFP provided that the past performance factor was comprised of the following four subfactors: technical performance, schedule control, cost control and management. Specifically, offerors' proposals were to be evaluated under the past performance factor to determine the offeror's "expected risk of successfully" performing the contract's technical requirements, meeting the contract's schedule requirements, forecasting, managing and controlling the contract's costs, and managing the contract. RFP at M-3, M-4. Offerors were "encouraged" to furnish "any information regarding its past performance of contracts similar to the Government's requirement that [the offeror] would like the Government to consider," including "information which the offeror considers essential" to the agency's evaluation of proposals under the past performance factor, and "explanatory information of substandard or poor performance and the corrective actions taken to prevent a recurrence." RFP at L-10. The RFP cautioned that the information provided "must be in sufficient detail with points of contact to enable the Government to do an evaluation in accordance with the Past Performance subfactors." RFP at L-10. In addition, the solicitation stated that the "Government intends to review Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings and other existing past performance ratings on relevant contracts," and "may also review other relevant past performance information" in possession of the contracting agency, other government agencies, and commercial sources.