Cashman Dredging & Marine Contracting Company, LLC

B-417213.3,B-417213.4 Jul 19, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cashman Dredging and Marine Contracting Company, LLC (Cashman), of Quincy, Massachusetts, protests the terms of solicitation No. W912HP18B0004, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for dredging services near Charleston, South Carolina. Cashman contends that the solicitation did not provide sufficient geotechnical data, did not allow sufficient time for firms to perform test digs at the dredging site, and that the agency failed to reasonably accommodate Cashman's requests to perform a test dig. Cashman also argues that the solicitation contains an ambiguity with respect to the basis for award. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. View Decision 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: Cashman Dredging & Marine Contracting Company, LLC File: B-417213.3; B-417213.4 Date: July 19, 2019 Jonathan M. Baker, Esq., Zachary H. Schroeder, Esq., and Christian N. Curran, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. John P. Kassebaum, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's failure to provide adequate geotechnical data and sufficient time and accommodation to conduct test digs at project site is dismissed where the protester failed to timely challenge improprieties in the solicitation prior to bid opening. 2. Protest challenging an alleged ambiguity with the solicitation's basis for award is denied where the protester's interpretation of the solicitation is unreasonable. DECISION Cashman Dredging and Marine Contracting Company, LLC (Cashman), of Quincy, Massachusetts, protests the terms of solicitation No. W912HP18B0004, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for dredging services near Charleston, South Carolina. Cashman contends that the solicitation did not provide sufficient geotechnical data, did not allow sufficient time for firms to perform test digs at the dredging site, and that the agency failed to reasonably accommodate Cashman's requests to perform a test dig. Cashman also argues that the solicitation contains an ambiguity with respect to the basis for award. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on September 6, 2018, as an invitation for bids (IFB), pursuant to the sealed bidding procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 14. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, IFB, at 1, 16. The IFB contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for maintenance and new dredging work of approximately 11 million cubic yards of material from the Charleston Lower Harbor Channel and the Wando River in Charleston and Berkeley counties, South Carolina. Id. at 1. On September 26, a prospective bidder submitted a request for information to the agency, seeking permission to dredge test pits to assess the characteristics of the material to be dredged. AR, Tab 20, Bidder Inquiries, at 6. On September 28, the Corps responded that, consistent with the site inspection clause in the solicitation, it was the contractor's responsibility to ascertain site conditions, but that an independent party may be able to conduct test dredging activities if the appropriate permissions and permits were received. Id. The Corps received five timely bids by the November 1 bid opening, including a bid from Cashman. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2. Following a determination that all bids exceeded the independent government estimate (IGE) by more than 25 percent,1 the agency notified bidders, on November 6, that it was considering cancelling the IFB and completing the acquisition as a negotiated procurement. AR, Tab 8, Letter to Bidders, at 1. The agency's notice requested that bidders identify areas of risk in the solicitation, and ways in which the IFB could be amended to minimize those risks, thereby resulting in potentially lower bid prices. Id. Four of the five bidders, including Cashman, submitted information for the agency's consideration. Protest at 6-7. Cashman, among other things, stated that while it used the agency's provided geotechnical information (i.e., core boring and vibra-core data), such information was not useful for a quantitative analysis of the project. AR Tab 6, Cashman's Response to Agency Nov. 6 Request, at 1. Accordingly, Cashman provided that if the government actively assisted, Cashman could conduct a test dredge to reduce its risk in bidding on the project. Id. Following multiple revisions to the IGE, the contracting officer determined that all bids still remained unreasonably high.