Apex Marine Ship Management Company, LLC; American V-Ships, B-278276.25; B-278276.28, September 25, 2000

Apex Marine Ship Management Company, LLC; American V-Ships, B-278276.25; B-278276.28, September 25, 2000 TITLE: Apex Marine Ship Management Company, LLC; American V-Ships, B-278276.25; B-278276.28, September 25, 2000 BNUMBER: B-278276.25; B-278276.28 DATE: September 25, 2000 ********************************************************************** Apex Marine Ship Management Company, LLC; American V-Ships, B-278276.25; B-278276.28, September 25, 2000 Decision Matter of: Apex Marine Ship Management Company, LLC; American V-Ships Marine, Ltd. File: B-278276.25; B-278276.28 Date: September 25, 2000 Marc J. Fink, Esq., Anne E. Mickey, Esq., and Heather M. Spring, Esq., Sher & Blackwell, for Apex Marine Ship Management Co., LLC; and Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., Robert A. Mangrum, Esq., Scott A. Schipma, Esq., Paul S. Ebert, Esq., and Adam B. Walker, Esq., Winston & Strawn, for American V-Ships Marine, Ltd., the protesters. Kevin M. Kordziel, Esq., Laura K. Kennedy, Esq., and David A. Leib, Esq., Jenner & Block, for American Overseas Marine Corporation; Robert G. Fryling, Esq., and Edward J. Hoffman, Esq., Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley, for Keystone Shipping Services, Inc.; Bradley Gilman, Esq., and Carl Winner, Esq., Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, for Ocean Duchess, Inc.; Timothy F. Noelker, Esq., Michael G. Roberts, Esq., Linda L. Shapiro, Esq., and Steven E. Kellogg, Esq., Thompson Coburn, for Crowley Liner Services, Inc., intervenors. Janis P. Rodriguez, Esq., Michael Rose, Esq., and J. Patrick Wiese, Esq., Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's comprehensive technical evaluation report, which summarizes individual evaluators' comments and assessments and explains the evaluated strengths of each proposal on a factor-by-factor basis, provides an adequate basis for GAO to review the agency's evaluation and determine that it was not arbitrary. 2. Where proposals are considered acceptable and within the competitive range, the agency is not obligated to discuss every aspect of a proposal that receives less than the maximum score; here, agency satisfied its obligation to provide meaningful discussions. 3. Price/technical tradeoffs in best value determination, based on combined technical/risk scores, evaluators' recommendations, limits to numbers of awards, and economy of scale pricing are reasonably supported by the record as a whole, which includes comments of evaluators and reasoning of selection board, as verified by consideration of a price-per-technical-point calculation. DECISION Apex Marine Ship Management Company, LLC, and American V-Ships Marine Ltd., protest the award of contracts to other offerors under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTMA91-97-R-00002, issued by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), Department of Transportation, for the operation and maintenance of ships in the Ready Reserve Force (RRF). [1] The protesters assert that the agency improperly evaluated technical/management proposals, failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and failed to make a proper best value determination. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND This procurement has a long and tortured history. The solicitation was first issued in August 1997, and has now been amended 32 times; as amended, it seeks proposals for the operation and management of 74 RRF vessels. [2] The RFP contemplated award of multiple fixed-price contracts, with certain cost-reimbursable line items, at an estimated total cost in excess of $1 billion during a 5-year performance period. Each of the ships is to be maintained within a designated readiness status, as specified by the Department of Defense (DOD), which ranges from 4 to 30 days. Twenty-three offerors submitted initial proposals by the original October 1997 closing date; eighteen proposals were included in the competitive range. [3] In June 1998, the agency announced contract awards to 10 offerors. After various protests were filed, the agency determined that errors had been made in the source selection process. As a result of this determination, the agency rescinded the contract awards and reopened discussions with the competitive range offerors. [4] As part of its corrective action, the agency issued RFP amendment No. 0012, which reflected various revisions and clarifications regarding the proposal evaluation process. Among other things, section M of the RFP, as amended, advised offerors as follows: Technical/Management proposals will be evaluated quantitatively under Technical/Management Evaluation Factors for understanding and compliance with the requirements.