Protest of Any Contract Award Under Naval Sea Systems Command RFP

A firm protested any contract award under a Navy request for proposals (RFP) for the overhaul of two destroyers. The protester contended that, since detailed specifications for such work existed, procurement by negotiation could not be justified and that, even if negotiation could be justified, the use of a cost-reimbursement contract rather than a fixed-priced contract was not warranted. The protester further argued that combining the work on two destroyers in a single procurement restricted competition. Finally, it contended that the lack of proper evaluation criteria in the RFP made it impossible to determine how to structure a proposal to meet the Government's needs. Negotiated procurement is allowed when it is determined that it is impractical to obtain competition. The Navy claimed that it was not possible to draft adequate specifications for the solicitation of bids on this contract. Moreover, because of the unique problems of the Navy's past experience with formally advertised procurements for this work, it decided to experiment with competitively negotiated procurements. A GAO review of an agency's determination to negotiate contracts due to the impracticability of securing competition is limited to ascertaining whether there is a reasonable basis for the determination. GAO found no basis upon which to object to the Navy's determination to negotiate. In addition, GAO will not question an agency's determination of its minimum needs unless there is a clear showing that it is unreasonable. In this case, GAO concluded that the Navy's determination to combine the overhauls had not been shown to be unreasonable or unduly restrictive of competition, because the agency anticipated that such combination would reduce costs and increase the standardization of the ships. The selection of evaluation factors and the relative weight assigned to them are primarily for consideration by the contracting agency, and GAO will not substitute its judgment for that of the agency unless a protester can clearly show that the agency's actions were arbitrary or not reasonably supported by facts. GAO saw nothing improper in the RFP as issued and did not find that the stated evaluation criteria were insufficient. Accordingly, the protest was denied.