Cascade General, Inc.

B-272271 Aug 01, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that solicitation's provisions for evaluation of foreseeable costs to the agency (based on bidder's place of performance) unduly restrict competition and are ambiguous is denied where they provide for the proper evaluation of actual cost to the agency and. Cascade contends that the solicitation's provisions for the evaluation of certain foreseeable costs to the agency are improper because they are unduly restrictive of competition and are ambiguous. Identified in section M of the IFB as certain foreseeable costs to the agency "that will vary with the location of the commercial shipyard to be used by offerors of services under this solicitation." [1] Section M includes the following elements generally challenged by the protester: operating costs (including transportation costs at $172.30 per nautical mile for one round-trip by the cutter from its home moorage at the USCG Support Center. View Decision Matter of: Cascade General, Inc. File: B-272271 Date: August 1, 1996 Protest that solicitation's provisions for evaluation of foreseeable costs to the agency (based on bidder's place of performance) unduly restrict competition and are ambiguous is denied where they provide for the proper evaluation of actual cost to the agency and, as amended, provide sufficient information to allow bidders to intelligently prepare their bids. Attorneys DECISION Cascade General, Inc. protests certain provisions in invitation for bids (IFB) No. DTCG85-96-B-625L00, issued by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for drydocking and vessel repairs for the USCG cutter Polar Star. Cascade contends that the solicitation's provisions for the evaluation of certain foreseeable costs to the agency are improper because they are unduly restrictive of competition and are ambiguous. We deny the protest. The IFB, as amended, provides for the evaluation of bids on the basis of price and price-related factors, identified in section M of the IFB as certain foreseeable costs to the agency "that will vary with the location of the commercial shipyard to be used by offerors of services under this solicitation." [1] Section M includes the following elements generally challenged by the protester: operating costs (including transportation costs at $172.30 per nautical mile for one round-trip by the cutter from its home moorage at the USCG Support Center, Pier 36, Seattle, Washington, to the place of performance); and crew member travel (to be computed for 50 eligible personnel whenever the location of contract performance is beyond the "area" (defined by geographical boundaries provided in the IFB) from which personnel customarily commute daily to the home berth, calculated for a certain amount of round-trips (at government rates) from the location of the commercial shipyard to the home moorage at Pier 36). The protester, located in Portland, Oregon, contends that the evaluation of foreseeable costs as provided in the IFB unduly restricts competition since it favors shipyards located closer to the cutter's Seattle, Washington berth. Cascade submits a 1986 Department of Transportation (DOT) homeport policy letter which it contends supports its position that its bid should not be subject to the application of certain additional foreseeable costs. However, while the DOT letter permits Portland shipyards to compete for ship repair contracts for vessels based in Seattle, it does not prohibit the use of foreseeable costs to evaluate bids. Under Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 14.201-8, the evaluation of price-related factors, including foreseeable costs "to the [g]overnment resulting from such factors as differences in inspection, locations of supplies, and transportation," is a proper basis for award in a sealed bid procurement. Marlen C. Robb & Son, Boatyard & Marina, Inc., B-256516, June 28, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 392. While higher transportation costs are associated with facilities that are further away from the home berth, those costs reflect actual cost to the government. Thus, consideration of such costs in the evaluation of bids does not confer an unfair competitive advantage and is not otherwise improper. See GE Am. Communications, Inc., B-233547, Feb. 17, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 172. [2] Cascade also asserts that the foreseeable cost factors stated in the IFB are ambiguous and that the firm's requests for explanation of those terms have not been adequately answered by the agency. Specifically, the protester contends that the IFB, as originally issued, contained varying terms such as "homeport," "home moorage," "cutter's mooring," and "homeport mooring area" without providing sufficient definition or distinction among the terms.