Patriot Contract Services -- Advisory Opinion, B-294777.3, May 11, 2005

B-294777.3 May 11, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Patriot Contract Services (PCS) challenges the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to American Overseas Marine Corporation (AMSEA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00033-03-R-5556 for the operation and maintenance of nine large, medium speed, roll-on/roll-off ships (LMSR) to move cargo in support of United States military forces worldwide. PCS, the incumbent contractor, filed a protest with our Office in September 2004, challenging various aspects of the procurement, including the assertion that AMSEA's proposal contained misrepresentations regarding the availability of certain key personnel it proposed. In December 2004, Patriot withdrew its protest with our Office and filed a similar action with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In March 2005, the Court requested that our Office issue an advisory opinion regarding Patriot's protest. See 4 C.F.R. 21.11(b) (2005). Our opinion here is issued in response to the Court's request, and is presented in the same general format as we normally employ to issue decisions responding to bid protests. We find the protest meritorious. View Decision B-294777.3, Patriot Contract Services -- Advisory Opinion, May 11, 2005 Decision Matter of: Patriot Contract Services -- Advisory Opinion File: B-294777.3 Date: May 11, 2005 Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Thomas L. Mills, Esq., Bryant E. Gardner, Esq., and Nathan C. Guerrero, Esq., Winston & Strawn, for the protester. David A. Churchill, Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., and David B. Dashefsky, Esq., Jenner & Block, for American Overseas Marine Corporation, an intervenor. David Townsend, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where solicitation required that offerors provide letters of commitment for key personnel and further required that such commitment letters "reflect mutually agreed position, salary, and benefits," and record establishes that, contrary to the awardee's representations, awardee did not discuss salary, benefits or location of employment with certain key personnel it proposed, GAO finds, in an advisory opinion, that the protest is meritorious. DECISION Patriot Contract Services (PCS) challenges the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to American Overseas Marine Corporation (AMSEA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00033-03-R-5556 for the operation and maintenance of nine large, medium speed, roll-on/roll-off ships (LMSR) to move cargo in support of United States military forces worldwide. PCS, the incumbent contractor, filed a protest with our Office in September 2004, challenging various aspects of the procurement, including the assertion that AMSEA's proposal contained misrepresentations regarding the availability of certain key personnel it proposed. In December 2004, Patriot withdrew its protest with our Office and filed a similar action with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In March 2005, the Court requested that our Office issue an advisory opinion regarding Patriot's protest. See 4 C.F.R. 21.11(b) (2005). Our opinion here is issued in response to the Court's request, and is presented in the same general format as we normally employ to issue decisions responding to bid protests. As explained below, our Office finds the protest meritorious. BACKGROUND The agency issued RFP No. N00033-03-R-5556 in December 2003, seeking proposals for the worldwide operation and maintenance of nine LMSRs. [1] The solicitation provided that the ships will be maintained at various layberth ports in "reduced operational status," but requires that the contractor be able to transition the ships to fully operational status within 96 hours. Agency Report, Tab 3, RFP at 8. Offerors were advised that award would be based on the proposal offering the best overall value to the government, as measured against the following evaluation factors: technical, past performance and price. [2] With regard to the technical evaluation factor, the solicitation established four subfactors, one of which was management organization. Agency Report, Tab 3, RFP, at 135. With regard to the management organization subfactor, the solicitation required each offeror to identify the key personnel being proposed, including proposed port engineers for each layberth port. [3] Agency Report, Tab 3, RFP, at 12, 128. With regard to key personnel, the solicitation required each offeror to submit resumes and signed commitment letters for each individual proposed. Specifically, the solicitation stated: The offeror is required to submit up-to-date resumes of all "Key Personnel" to be employed in accomplishing the stated requirements . . .