Team One USA, Inc.

B-272382 Oct 02, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The boat is intended for use in rugged. Of particular relevance are the requirements concerning location of passenger seating (i.e. When craft is at idle or in the reverse mode no water shall be able to pass into the craft.". Amendment 0005 was issued and stated the following prospective offeror question (submitted by Team One) and the agency response: "[Question]: The RFP requires at SOW III-3.7 for the console to be located forward of passenger bolsters. Are these requirements intended to force the design away from locating passenger bolsters forward of the console when the latter design may minimize vertical acceleration. That placing all passengers aft of the console will not result in the least vertical accelerations for all passengers in all conditions. View Decision Matter of: Team One USA, Inc. File: B-272382 Date: October 2, 1996 Agency properly rejected as technically unacceptable a proposal for a special warfare rigid inflatable boat where the proposed boat did not satisfy the material minimum design requirements regarding the seating location and deck drainage. Attorneys DECISION Team One USA, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. USZA22-96-R-0003, issued by the United States Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, for development and production of the Naval Special Warfare Rigid Inflatable Boat and trailer. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on October 26, 1995, contemplated multiple awards and stated that the agency desired a modified nondevelopmental item based on existing rigid inflatable boats. The boat is intended for use in rugged, ship-to-shore transport of Special Operations Forces and their equipment in a low to medium threat combat environment. [1] The RFP statement of work (SOW) set forth both performance and design requirements. Of particular relevance are the requirements concerning location of passenger seating (i.e., bolsters) and water drainage from the deck area. For passenger seating the SOW stated: "III-3.7 Console [[2 "The console shall be located forward of the passenger bolsters. . . ." "III-10.6 Bolsters ". . . Two/three bolsters shall be located aft of the console for the crew and eight/nine additional bolsters shall be provided for the passengers/passengers & engineer. Bolsters for the passengers shall be located to minimize the effects of vertical accelerations. . . ." [3] For deck drainage, SOW I-4 stated that the boat "shall be . . . self- bailing . . . ." The SOW further provided: "III-9.3 Bilge/Drainage System "A minimum of two electric bilge pumps shall be installed to pump out all bilges with the craft at rest with payload. . . . A manual bilge pump(s), taking suction from the same area as the electric bilge pump(s), shall be installed. All compartments shall drain to the location of the bilge pump suction area(s). "The deck shall be drained through the transom by two large capacity freeing ports sized so as to completely drain the entire deck in the minimum time practicable, and fitted with flapper type closures or elephant trunks. When craft is at idle or in the reverse mode no water shall be able to pass into the craft." Prior to the submission of initial proposals, the agency issued several amendments to the RFP, including written responses to questions from prospective offerors. On December 20, 1995, amendment 0005 was issued and stated the following prospective offeror question (submitted by Team One) and the agency response: "[Question]: The RFP requires at SOW III-3.7 for the console to be located forward of passenger bolsters, while SOW III-10.6 requires passenger bolsters to be located to minimize the effects of vertical accelerations. Are these requirements intended to force the design away from locating passenger bolsters forward of the console when the latter design may minimize vertical acceleration, as well as provide superior conformance to other requirements? "[Response]: The Government recognizes that the locations of least vertical acceleration on planing craft vary, depending on longitudinal center of gravity (LCG), wetted area, speed, and sea state, and that placing all passengers aft of the console will not result in the least vertical accelerations for all passengers in all conditions. In our experience, however, a console forward of the passengers is the best combatant craft configuration, yielding best visibility for the crew and ensuring that passengers are not subject to unsustainable accelerations when it becomes necessary for the crew to operate the craft at speed in extreme conditions. Accordingly, Amendment 0005 changes this requirement. See paragraph 3.d. of this amendment." Paragraph 3.d. of amendment 0005 deleted from SOW III-10.6 the sentence concerning minimization of vertical accelerations and revised the requirement as follows: ". . .