Marlen C. Robb & Son, Boatyard & Marina, Inc., B-279393, June

B-279393 Jun 09, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sixty-calendar-day performance period is not arbitrarily short. Is unobjectionable. There is significant expense to agency in keeping the vessel at the contractor's yard. Vessel is considered to be of relatively low complexity for repair and modification purposes. 2. 000 pounds of steel for plate renewal is not excessive or otherwise unreasonable. Increased contractor risk in the event that less plating work is required. Where record shows that agency's estimate properly was based on the amount of steel actually ordered for plate renewal under recent prior contracts for modification and repair of similar vessels. 3. Evaluation scheme which accords greater weight to definite item prices than to indefinite item prices is unobjectionable. View Decision Matter of: Marlen C. Robb & Son, Boatyard & Marina, Inc. File: B-279393 Date: June 9, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Marlen C. Robb & Son, Boatyard & Marina, Inc. (Robb) protests certain provisions of Department of the Army request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT57-98-R-0008, for the repair and modification of U.S. Army Reserve Vessel LCM-8289, stationed at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract for all labor, materials, equipment and appropriate plant site to accomplish the programmed drydocking, cleaning, painting, and repairs. The RFP states that award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is the best value to the government, based on two evaluation factors--past performance (more important) and price. RFP section M.2. The RFP's pricing schedule contains both definite and indefinite contract line items (CLIN) that require submission of unit and extended prices. All services are required to be completed no later than 60 calendar days after commencement of the performance period. RFP section F.5(c). With regard to the performance period, the RFP further provides as follows: The performance period includes time to perform both the Definite and Indefinite Items. It is estimated that 65% of the performance period is required to perform the Indefinite Items. No additional time will be granted for new items or items performed in lieu of Definite or Indefinite Items unless the time required to perform the additional work exceeds the time required to perform the Indefinite Items. RFP section F.5(c). With regard to price, the RFP provides as follows: The Government will evaluate definite and indefinite items by adding a weighted amount to the offeror's total for indefinite items. A significantly higher weighted amount will be added to the offeror's total price for definite items. Since the prices submitted for known definite items are considered significantly more important than prices submitted for [in]definite items, it is imperative that the offeror submit a reasonable price for the definite items in order to be competitive. RFP section L.9, II.B. SIXTY-CALENDAR-DAY PERFORMANCE PERIOD Robb argues that the RFP's 60-calendar-day duration for completing all the required work is improper because it was set arbitrarily, without consideration of the amount of tasks to be performed on the vessel. Procuring agencies are responsible for defining and determining how best to meet their needs. See CardioMetrix, B-270701, Mar. 13, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 149 at 3. We will review such determinations only to ensure that they are reasonable. G.H. Harlow Co., Inc., B-254839, Jan. 21, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 29 at 3. The 60-day performance period is reasonable. The Army reports that the LCM-8289 is a small, low complexity vessel, and that most contractors questioned in a 1996 market survey stated they had no difficulty completing work on this type of vessel within a 60-day time frame; in fact, the Army reports, 2 of 12 recently completed contracts for vessel repair work were completed ahead of the 60-day schedule. The Army further explains that there is significant expense to the agency in keeping the vessel at the contractor's yard, since the ship surveyor must be present with the vessel while it is being repaired, thus requiring the agency to incur hotel, travel and salary costs for a contracting officer's representative unavailable to perform his normal duties. Finally, the Army states that the vessel must be returned as quickly as possible to Fort Belvoir, since reserve training on the vessel is tightly scheduled and the military's readiness posture is impaired when the vessel is out of service. The agency's need for 60-day performance clearly is supported by the above considerations, and the protester has not brought those considerations into question. There thus is no basis to object to the 60-day performance period. Robb asserts that the RFP should clearly define the time frame for all required tasks, rather than merely establish a total 60-day performance period.