B-311245.5, Metro Machine Corporation--Reconsideration and Modification of Recommendation, August 4, 2008

B-311245.5 Aug 04, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Metro Machine Corporation requests that we reconsider and modify our recommendation for corrective action as reflected in our decision, MCT JV, B-311245.2, B-311245.4, May 16, 2008, 2008 CPD para. 121, in which we sustained the protest of MCT JV1 against the award of a contract to Metro under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-07-R-4006, issued by the Department of the Navy for maintenance and modernization work on Navy amphibious assault ships. We deny the request for reconsideration and modification of our recommendation for corrective action. View Decision B-311245.5, Metro Machine Corporation--Reconsideration and Modification of Recommendation, August 4, 2008 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: Metro Machine Corporation--Reconsideration and Modification of Recommendation File: B-311245.5 Date: August 4, 2008 Michael R. Katchmark, Esq., Willcox & Savage, for the requester. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration and modification of recommendation for corrective action--tailored to address prejudicial flaws in the agency's conduct of the procurement--is denied where the awardee/requester showed no error in, but simply disagreed with, our recommendation that the agency conduct meaningful discussions (1) with the protester concerning the inconsistent allocation of labor hours between its cost and technical proposals and (2) with the awardee/requester concerning its unrealistically low capped indirect rates and the effect of its proposed cost cap in terms of performance risk which, while not set forth in the solicitation as a separate evaluation factor, was nevertheless reasonably related to, and encompassed by, the solicitation's cost realism evaluation requirement and the solicitation's caution to offerors that the agency had concerns with the potential for post-award performance problems if an offeror proposed unrealistically low costs. DECISION Metro Machine Corporation requests that we reconsider and modify our recommendation for corrective action as reflected in our decision, MCT JV, B'311245.2, B'311245.4, May 16, 2008, 2008 CPD para. 121, in which we sustained the protest of MCT JV[1] against the award of a contract to Metro under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-07-R-4006, issued by the Department of the Navy for maintenance and modernization work on Navy amphibious assault ships. We deny the request for reconsideration and modification of our recommendation for corrective action.[2] MCT JV's Labor Hour Allocation The RFP provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract on a best-value basis; the contract was awarded to Metro, which submitted a higher technically rated, higher proposed and evaluated cost proposal (as compared to MCT JV's proposal). As relevant here, in their technical proposals, offerors were required to describe –manpower— and workload estimates, specifically providing current and projected workload estimates for all team members and/or significant subcontractors. In their cost proposals, offerors were required to submit proposed estimated data based upon a sampling of specific work items expected to be performed under the contract, as well as a non-specific work item consisting of a specified number of labor hours for –other work.— RFP at 127. With respect to this latter item, offerors were advised to ensure that their cost proposals were in accordance with their proposed technical approaches, including any current or proposed work sharing agreements. Further, offerors were advised that the agency would evaluate the realism of an offeror's proposed estimated costs; offerors were warned not to propose unrealistically low estimated costs. With respect to MCT JV's proposal, during discussions, the agency questioned MCT JV's distribution of work among the members of the joint venture and asked MCT JV to explain why it did not allocate work among the joint venture members in accordance with a resource agreement submitted by MHI as a prime contractor as part of a separate proposal.[3] In its revised proposal, among other things, MCT JV explained, and the cost evaluators agreed, that the resource agreement did not apply to the joint venture as this agreement was part of MHI's separately submitted proposal as a prime contractor.