Matrix International Logistics, Inc., B-277208; B-277208.2,

Matrix International Logistics, Inc., B-277208; B-277208.2, BNUMBER: B-277208; B-277208.2 DATE: September 15, 1997 TITLE: Matrix International Logistics, Inc., B-277208; B-277208.2, September 15, 1997 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Matrix International Logistics, Inc. File: B-277208; B-277208.2 Date:September 15, 1997 Timothy Sullivan, Esq., Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Martin R. Fischer, Esq., Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, for the protester. Raymond S.E. Pushkar, Esq., and Michael A. Hopkins, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for Sea-Land Logistics, Inc., an intervenor. Charna J. Swedarsky, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the contracting agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's and awardee's competing proposals under certain of the technical evaluation factors is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable; the protester's mere disagreement does not render the agency's judgment unreasonable. DECISION Matrix International Logistics, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Sea-Land Logistics, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62387-96-R-9602, issued by the Military Sealift Command (MSC), Department of the Navy, for transportation services in support of the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. Matrix contends that the agency's evaluation of its and Sea-Land's technical proposals, and the selection of Sea-Land's higher-priced proposal for award, were unreasonable. We deny the protest. The CTR program assists the former Soviet Union (FSU) countries of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan in the elimination of their nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction and of other weapons. CTR program support includes, to the extent feasible, the use of United States technology and technicians, and has resulted in the provision of equipment and services to the FSU. The successful contractor under the RFP will be required to provide multifaceted transportation and shipping support services to the CTR program, including shipment planning, material handling, shipment, reporting, and security. Essentially, the objective of the contract is to provide the CTR program with door-to-door intermodal services for the transportation of containerized and breakbulk cargoes between the United States, Europe, and certain points within the FSU. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract, for a base and 1 option year. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best overall value to the government, price and other factors considered, and listed the following technical evaluation factors and subfactors: 1. Proposed Services for CTR Shipments A. Procedures and Method for Shipment Planning B. Shipment Execution C. Reporting and In-Transit Visibility (ITV) D. Security E. Sample Problem Solution 2. Experience and Past Performance A. Corporate Performance (i) Resources (ii) Program Management (iii)ITV (iv) Security B. Government Assessment of Performance 3. Corporate Capabilities A. Personnel experience/resumes B. Program management C. Facilities, transportation assets D. Computer systems, databases, etc. E. Financial Capability 4. Material Handling A. Container and less-than-trailerload shipments B. Breakbulk and Rolling Stock C. Oversize Breakbulk The RFP informed offerors that the evaluation factors and subfactors were listed in descending order of importance, with certain exceptions; within evaluation factor one, subfactors A, B and C were of equal importance, and subfactors D and E were of equal importance, but were less important than subfactors A, B and C; the subfactors of evaluation factor four were of equal importance. The RFP also provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals and requested that offerors organize their technical proposals to respond to the evaluation factors and subfactors. The agency received five proposals by the RFP's closing date. The proposals were evaluated by the agency, and three proposals, including Sea-Land's and Matrix's, were included in the competitive range. Discussions were held, and best and final offers (BAFO) were requested and received.