W&D Ships Deck Works, Inc. v. United States

The federal government (defendant), through the Military Sealift Command, Atlantic (MSCLANT), issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a negotiated fixed-price contract to paint navy ships and apply non-skid surfaces to ship decks. The RFP stated that all proposals must contain technical information responsive to each evaluation factor, including (1) a demonstration the offeror understood all work items; (2) information about control of the materials used and discarded; (3) a detailed list of the tools and facilities the offeror had to complete the work; (4) the identity of all subcontractors and the offeror’s plan to oversee the subcontractors’ work; (5) detailed descriptions of all quality control plans; and (6) the offeror’s relevant past experience. The RFP stated that proposals that failed to provide adequate technical information would be rejected. W&D Ships Deck Works, Inc. (W&D) (plaintiff) submitted a timely but technically and substantively deficient proposal. W&D’s proposal was deemed technically inadequate because: (1) W&D’s proposal only discussed the deck work, not the paint work, thereby leaving out a significant component of the project; (2) W&D’s material control discussion was vague and cursory; (3) W&D did not list its equipment and facilities; (4) W&D did not describe how it would ensure the quality of its subcontractors’ work; (5) W&D did not include any detailed quality control plans; and (6) W&D did not provide sufficient past experience information. The government’s contracting officer rejected W&D’s proposal, stating that it was outside the competitive range because it was technically inadequate. W&D petitioned the Court of Federal Claims to enjoin the government from awarding the MSCLANT contract until W&D’s proposal was reinstated into the competitive negotiation process.