[Protest of Navy Contract Award for Missile Repairs]

Two firms protested a Navy contract award for repairs and alterations to a guided missile cruiser, contending that the: (1) Navy improperly awarded the contract to the awardee; (2) solicitation was restricted to firms holding a current Agreement for Boat Repair (ABR) and the awardee was ineligible because it holds both an ABR and a Master Ship Repair Agreement; and (3) awardee had an unfair competitive advantage because it had information regarding the solicitation in advance of other bidders. GAO held that: (1) Navy's inadvertent inclusion of emerging small business set-aside notice in solicitation did not prohibit award to large businesses, since the solicitation otherwise indicated that no set-aside was intended, there was no legal requirement that the contract be set aside for emerging small business concerns, and no bidder was prejudiced as a result; (2) Navy properly awarded contract to awardee possessing both a Master Ship Repair Agreement and an ABR, since the solicitation was restricted to ABR holders; (3) Navy reasonably determined that adequate safeguards were in place to mitigate or neutralize any conflict and also properly executed a waiver of the possible organizational conflict of interest as being in the best interest of the government; and (4) protest that submission of an allegedly below-cost offer constituted a buy-in did not provide a valid basis to challenge the award. Accordingly, the protests were denied.