P&R Water Taxi, Ltd., B-279014, April 23, 1998

B-279014 Apr 23, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Compliance with this general provision is a matter of contract administration. P&R maintains that the low-priced proposal of Admiral was not eligible for award. The owner was to warrant that the tug was as described in Attachment J2. The owner was to warrant that the tug "shall be in full compliance with . . . all applicable laws. The agency stated that "these submissions are warranties of the tug['s] performance and must be met when the tug is delivered. . . . The basis for this inspection requirement was a USCG memorandum stating that the carriage of 16 persons would require the use of USCG-inspected tugs. Their respective management plans were determined adequate. The agency determined that the proposals of Admiral and P&R were essentially technically equal. View Decision Matter of: P&R Water Taxi, Ltd. File: B-279014 Date: April 23, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION P&R Water Taxi, Ltd. protests the award of a contract to Admiral Towing and Barge Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00033-97-R-1005, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command, for the charter of three tractor-like tugs /1/ to provide ocean towing services.. P&R maintains that the low-priced proposal of Admiral was not eligible for award. We dismiss the protest. The RFP, issued on July 23, 1997, provided that the award would be made to the responsible offeror whose technically acceptable proposal represented the best overall value to the government. In determining the best value, the RFP stated that an offeror's evaluated price would be considered more important than technical merit. In determining technical acceptability, the RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated based on the minimum technical requirements as contained in the solicitation. Section C of the RFP contained the statement of work and specifications. Section C3 provided that the tug "[o]wner warrants that the Tug performing under this Charter shall be in full conformity with the following specifications, in addition to all other requirements of this Charter from the time of delivery and during the currency of this Charter." Among the listed specifications, under section C3.1(a), the owner was to warrant that the tug was as described in Attachment J2, captioned "Tug Particulars." Under section C3.1(c), the owner was to warrant that the tug "shall be in full compliance with . . . all applicable laws, regulations, and other requirements of the United States including all U.S.C.G. [United States Coast Guard] regulations." The RFP, as initially issued, required tugs to be capable of transporting a maximum of 16 persons. /2/ In amendment No. 0002, in response to an offeror's question concerning the issue of tug inspection at the time of award for newly constructed tugs, the agency stated that the tug characteristics submitted in an offeror's technical proposal would be reviewed to ensure that they met the RFP requirements. Referencing section H1.1 of the RFP, the agency stated that "these submissions are warranties of the tug['s] performance and must be met when the tug is delivered. . . . Upon completion of the tug['s] construction, and at any time after delivery, the Government may elect to conduct an inspection of the tugboat to ensure its compliance with the warranties offered." This amendment also directed offerors to contact the appropriate Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection to ensure that the proposed tugs satisfied USCG requirements. Amendment No. 0003, section C3.1(e)2, required that "[t]ugs shall be USCG inspected vessels." The basis for this inspection requirement was a USCG memorandum stating that the carriage of 16 persons would require the use of USCG-inspected tugs. Subsequently, amendment No. 0005 reduced the personnel carriage requirement from 16 to 12 persons and removed the USCG inspection requirement. Amendment No. 0005 now required that proposed tugs be classed by a recognized classification society and reminded offerors of the regulatory compliance requirement in section C3.1(c) (offeror's warranty that the tug shall be in full compliance with all applicable USCG regulations). Several firms, including P&R and Admiral, submitted proposals. P&R proposed newly constructed, USCG-inspected tugs. Admiral proposed newly constructed tugs which would not be USCG-inspected. The proposals of P&R and Admiral received overall highly satisfactory technical ratings for meeting the minimal technical requirements of the RFP; their respective management plans were determined adequate; and each firm received an outstanding past performance rating. Admiral submitted the low evaluated price and P&R submitted the second low evaluated price. The agency determined that the proposals of Admiral and P&R were essentially technically equal.