TITLE:  Surface Technologies Corporation, B-288317, August 22, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-288317
DATE:  August 22, 2001
**********************************************************************
Surface Technologies Corporation, B-288317, August 22, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Surface Technologies Corporation

File: B-288317

Date: August 22, 2001

Mary C. Sorrell, Esq., for the protester.

Veronica E. Murtha, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Contracting officer's determination to solicit proposals for the awards of
cost-reimbursement, as opposed to fixed-price, contracts for the performance
of shipboard preservation services was reasonable where, given the
unpredictable nature of the variables associated with this type of work,
cost-reimbursement contracts will allow the agency to work with contractors
to achieve the solicitation's preservation requirements with maximum
flexibility and minimal delays.

DECISION

Surface Technologies Corporation (STC) protests the cost-reimbursement terms
of request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-01-R-4050, issued by the
Department of the Navy for shipboard preservation services. STC maintains
that the contracting officer's determination to solicit proposals for the
awards of cost-reimbursement, as opposed to fixed-price, contracts was
unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on May 4, 2001, contemplated multiple awards of
cost-plus-incentive fee/level-of-effort contracts for the base period and
four 1-year option periods. Under the RFP, contractors will be required to
perform state-of-the-art preservation services (coating removal, surface
preparation, and coating application) on commissioned naval vessels
(strategic and attack submarines, carriers, and other surface ships) in ten
designated ports. [1] The preservation services will be performed in
interior and exterior shipboard spaces and on shipboard equipment in
accordance with naval and industrial specifications and standards, as well
as all applicable safety, security, health, and environmental laws and
regulations. Any space or equipment within a ship, or above the exterior
waterline, may be considered within the scope of a firm's contract (for
example, tight and limited access spaces, spaces with access only up or down
vertical ladders, a ship's superstructure, and masts). The services will be
performed while a ship is in port, but is otherwise considered operational.
The typical duration of a ship's port availability is approximately 3 weeks,
although this time could vary greatly. RFP at 79.

The RFP stated that the awards would be made to the responsible offerors
whose proposals were determined most advantageous to the government,
technical evaluation factors and cost considered. The RFP required each
offeror to have an accounting system adequate for determining costs
applicable to a particular contract. The RFP advised that an offeror could
be determined ineligible for award if its accounting system could not
determine applicable contract costs.

Just prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals on July 9, STC filed
this protest.  (While STC did not submit a proposal, the agency's
administrative report reveals that there was considerable competition in
terms of the number of offerors participating in the procurement and the
number of proposals received by the closing time.) STC, "an experienced firm
fixed-price contractor . . . [which does not have] a proven cost accounting
background," Protest at 2, argues that the award of fixed-price contracts is
required here because the "risk involved [in performing shipboard
preservation services] is minimal or can be predicted with an acceptable
degree of certainty." Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 16.103(b). In
making this argument, STC refers to prior fixed-price contracts, which it
states included the same preservation requirements as contained in the
current RFP.

The selection of the appropriate contract type is committed to the sound
judgment of the contracting officer. FAR sect. 16.103(a). We will review the
contracting officer's determination as to contract type to ascertain whether
that decision was reasonable. United Food Servs., Inc., B-220367, Feb. 20,
1986, 86-1 CPD para. 177 at 6. As relevant to this protest, FAR sect. 16.301-2
provides that "[c]ost-reimbursement contracts are suitable for use only when
uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be
estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-price contract."

In reaching his conclusion that cost-reimbursement, as opposed to
fixed-price, contracts will provide the necessary flexibility to enable the
agency to work with contractors to accomplish the RFP's preservation
requirements in a timely manner, the contracting officer considered, as
described above, that the specific conditions of a ship and its equipment
often are not known until after the work actually begins and that the time
during which a ship is in port and available for preservation work is
subject to change. For example, under the RFP, contractors are required to
handle and dispose of hazardous materials (asbestos, lead, and other toxic
materials). The types of hazardous materials generated and the appropriate
methods of disposal cannot be known until a specific job has begun. As
another example, preservation priorities, including the assignment of
particular labor category personnel, are subject to change should a ship
need to be deployed on a different schedule than originally planned. AR, Tab
13, CO Memorandum to File, at 1-4. [2]

In circumstances such as these, where ship conditions and required work
cannot be predicted in advance and where timely performance is critical, the
contracting officer concluded that the award of fixed-price contracts would
not be appropriate since the risks involved are not predictable with any
acceptable degree of certainty and the costs of the work cannot be estimated
with sufficient accuracy. Instead, the contracting officer concluded that
cost-reimbursement contracts will allow the agency to work with contractors
to achieve the RFP's preservation objectives with maximum flexibility and
minimal delays. Id.

Other than disagreeing with the contracting officer's rationale, STC has
offered no meaningful basis to question the reasonableness of the
contracting officer's determination. In this respect, while STC, which
concedes that it does not have a proven cost accounting background, argues
that prior preservation requirements have been procured on a fixed-price
basis and therefore risks can be predicted and costs can be estimated, we
are unpersuaded by this argument since each procurement must stand alone.
United Food Servs., Inc., supra, at 6. On this record, we have no basis to
question the reasonableness of the contracting officer's acquisition
strategy. [3]

The protest is denied. [4]

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. According to the contracting officer, the RFP requires more than simple
"chipping and painting" as a layman might understand these terms. Rather,
the requirement for private contractors (as opposed to fleet sailors) to
provide shipboard preservation services includes using state-of-the-art
surface preparation and coating application processes, procedures,
equipment, and quality assurance methods. When applied properly, the new
technology coatings are expected to last far longer than the old technology
coatings applied by fleet sailors doing "the mundane tasks of
‘chipping and painting.'" Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, Contracting
Officer's (CO) Memorandum to File, at 1.

2. Contrary to the assertion of STC, the contracting officer's memorandum
documenting his rationale for soliciting proposals on a cost-reimbursement
basis was prepared in February 2001, prior to the issuance of the RFP.

3. In its August 6 comments on the agency's administrative report, STC
argued for the first time that shipboard preservation services are
"commercial items," as defined in FAR sect. 2.101, and, therefore, the agency
was prohibited from procuring these services on anything but a fixed-price
basis. See FAR sect. 16.301-3(b). However, it was clear from the face of the RFP
that the agency was not conducting a "commercial item" acquisition. For
example, the solicitation did not include mandatory provisions and contract
terms for the acquisition of commercial items (i.e., instructions to
offerors, offeror representations and certifications, and contract terms and
conditions). FAR sect. 12.301. Thus, to the extent STC maintains that this
procurement should have been a commercial item acquisition requiring the
awards of fixed-price contracts, STC's post-closing time argument, which
involves an alleged solicitation impropriety, is untimely and will not be
considered by our Office. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1)
(2001).

4. In its initial protest, STC also challenged the RFP's evaluation scheme
(specifically, that this scheme would unfairly favor offerors with prior
experience in performing cost-type contracts) and the sufficiency of the
amount of time afforded offerors to timely submit initial proposals after
the issuance of amendment No. 11. In its administrative report, the agency
addressed these matters. In its comments on the agency report, STC did not
rebut the agency's positions. Accordingly, we deem these grounds for protest
to be abandoned. See Heimann Sys. Co., B-238882, June 1, 1990, 90-1 CPD para.
520 at 4 n.2.