• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Matter of BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair, Inc.

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • January 4, 2022
  • Changes ClauseFixed Price ContractTerms of the Solicitation
  • 0 Comments

Matter of BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair, Inc.

Decided: November 19, 2021

Agency: Department of the Navy

Disposition: Protest Denied

Keywords: Changes Clause; Fixed Price Contract; Terms of the Solicitation

General Counsel, P.C. Protest Insight: 

The key takeaway here is that the Government expects offerors to sufficiently cost unspecified work included in solicitations; either using Government provided metrics, the offeror’s past performance, or business judgment.  GAO noted that a solicitation doesn’t have to be drafted so as to eliminate all performance uncertainties.  Offerors have the responsibility in submitting a proposal on a fixed-price contract, to project costs and to include in their proposed fixed prices a factor covering any projected increase in costs.  GAO found that agencies can reasonably expect offerors to use their business judgment, including their experience with similar prior contracts, in preparing their proposals to reflect the risk of being asked to perform reserve work, which might be required after the performance of basic work.

 

Summary of Facts 

BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair, Inc. (“BAE”) protested the terms of request for proposals (“RFP”) No. N00024-21-R-4490, issued by the Department of the Navy. On June 8, 2021, the Navy issued the RFP, seeking proposals for the maintenance, repair and modernization of the USS MITSCHER and the USS IWO JIMA on a fixed-price basis.  The resulting award granted be two contracts, one for each ship. The solicitation included two base contract line-item numbers (“CLINs”), one for availability preparation and one for advanced material procurement.  Additionally, several option CLINs included detailed work item specifications within a defined work package.  The RFP also included multiple level-of-effort-to-completion (“LOETC”) CLINs, representing growth in the workload that is expected but has not yet been fully defined. Each LOETC CLIN related expressly to one of the defined option CLINs and consisted of a certain number of pre-priced labor hours and material dollars.  The solicitation directed offerors to propose a fully burdened labor rate and a material burden rate to be applied to the LOETC labor hours and material dollars, which were a number based on detailed historical data collected from past ship repair efforts.

The solicitation provided when growth work is identified, the contractor will provide an estimate of labor hours and material dollars to accomplish the effort.  If the contractor’s estimate is in line with the agency’s estimate, the agency will sign a growth management record authorizing the work with the hours and materials costs to be subtracted from the pool of pre-priced LOETC hours and materials agreed upon in the contract.  If the contractor’s estimate differs from the agency’s estimate, the parties will negotiate an agreement.  If the parties cannot reach agreement, the government may unilaterally direct the contractor to perform using the contractor’s proposed contract labor and material rates, with any dispute regarding the hours and materials costs to be resolved via the FAR disputes clause, FAR 52.233-1.  The solicitation also indicated that the USS IWO JIMA would be available to offerors for a “ship check.”

Basis of Protest 

BAE argued that the solicitation did not provide sufficient information on the work required under the LOETC and new work CLINs that would enable offerors to compete intelligently and on a common basis.  BAE also argued that the solicitation’s growth work provisions improperly deviate from mandatory FAR and DFARS clauses (the Changes clause and the Over and Above Work clause) by permitting the agency to unilaterally direct the completion of work under pre-set LOETC labor and material rates once such work is identified.

Protest Denied

GAO noted that “there is no legal requirement that a solicitation be drafted so as to eliminate all performance uncertainties; the mere presence of risk does not render a solicitation improper.”  GAO stated that, when submitting a proposal on a fixed-price contract, offerors have the responsibility to project costs and to include in their proposed fixed prices a factor covering any projected increase in costs.  Since risk is inherent in most types of contracts, offerors are expected to allow for that risk in computing their offers.  However, GAO explained that a contracting agency “must provide sufficient detail in the solicitation to enable offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis.”

BAE argued that the Navy retains “absolute discretion” over how and when to use the large pools of growth work labor hours and material dollars, making the likely volume, mix, and scheduling of the growth work impossible to predict. BAE claimd that since each offeror will essentially have to guess at what the growth work will entail, and when it will be ordered, the offerors are not competing on a common basis.  However, GAO found that the Navy provided offerors with: (1) growth work hours and material dollars that were based on historical data from prior ship repair contracts for similar ships; (2) direct work CLINs associated with each growth work CLIN, along with detailed work item specifications for the direct work; (3) an opportunity to observe some of the ship’s equipment and talk with knowledgeable ship personnel; (4) the process the agency would use to schedule the LOETC work and meaningful scheduling limitations applicable to that process; and (5) the labor function categories that would be used in performing the LOETC work. GAO determined this information was sufficiently detailed to permit potential offerors to prepare their prices.

GAO also compared the matter to a similar solicitation challenge, in which GAO stated: “we think the agency could reasonably expect offerors, like the protester, to use their business judgment, including their experience with prior ship repair contracts, in preparing their proposals to reflect the risk of being asked to perform reserve work which might be required after the performance of basic work to address unforeseen additional and necessary repairs.” Here, GAO found that even though the growth work remains subject to considerable uncertainty, offerors could have compiled a burdened labor rate that factored in this uncertainty in forecasting the scope of the growth work.

BAE also argues that the solicitation improperly deviates from the FAR and the DFARS by authorizing the agency to unilaterally direct growth work, without permitting the contractor to request an equitable adjustment. GAO noted that the FAR contains a mandatory changes clause which permits the agency to order within scope changes to the contract work and prescribes a mechanism for a contractor to receive an equitable adjustment where appropriate. Additionally, the DFARS includes a mandatory contract clause specifically addressing “over and above work” that is necessary to complete maintenance and repair efforts but is not covered by the work specified in the contract. 

Our Government Contracts Practice Group has extensive experience in the area of government contract law, helping clients solve their government contract problems relating to the award or performance of a federal government contract, including bid protests, contract claims, small business concerns, and teaming and subcontractor relations. If you need more guidance or information, contact the Government Contracts law experts at General Counsel, PC today at 703-266-1865.

Tagged

BAE Systems Norfolk Ship RepairChanges ClauseFixed Price ContractTerms of the Solicitation

Share

Related Posts

Agency Arguing the Futile in Pre-Award Bid Protest

November 17, 2022

In the Matter of: CR/ZWS LLC

November 3, 2017

Qwest Government Services, Inc. dba CenturyLink QGS, B-407835, March 7, 2013

April 3, 2013

Harmonia Holdings, LLC, B-407186.2; B-407186.3, March 5, 2013

March 20, 2013

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411