Thames Towboat Company, Inc., B-282982, September 9, 1999

B-282982 Sep 09, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Submission of representative technical information along with statements of compliance with minimum requirements is sufficient to meet the requirement for submission of "adequate technical information." 2. Is unobjectionable where solicitation provided for best value award and explicitly indicated that payment of a cost premium was contemplated for increased mission capability and early delivery date. Both of which were gained with the awardee's tug. Offers were solicited for a base period of 17 months with two. The RFP was a best value solicitation with price as important as all technical factors. The four equally weighted technical factors were: tug utility and flexibility. Minimum requirements were set forth in RFP Sec. View Decision Matter of: Thames Towboat Company, Inc. File: B-282982 Date: September 9, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Thames Towboat Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Alpha Marine Services, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00033-99-R-1004, issued by the Military Sealift Command (MSC), Department of the Navy, for time charter of a tugboat. Thames challenges the agency's technical evaluation and best value determination. We deny the protest. MSC issued the solicitation on January 13, 1999 for the charter of up to two U.S.-flag tractor tugs for use at the Naval Submarine Base in New London, Connecticut, to service a variety of naval vessels including nuclear submarines. Services included towing, mooring, berthing, docking, undocking, escorting identified naval vessels, providing emergency support services, and firefighting. Tugs offered could be existing or newly built with delivery not later than April 1, 2000. Offers were solicited for a base period of 17 months with two, 17-month options. The RFP was a best value solicitation with price as important as all technical factors. The four equally weighted technical factors were: tug utility and flexibility; construction or charter plan; past performance; and delivery date. Minimum requirements were set forth in RFP Sec. C3 and included performance specifications such as bollard pull, /1/ shaft horsepower (SHP), minimum transit speed, fendering, navigation/communications equipment, and firefighting capability. Under the delivery factor, the RFP provided that offerors submitting early delivery dates would receive more credit, and increased credit was to be given to the offeror proposing the delivery date closest to April 1, 1999. Under the source selection plan, each factor was rated on an adjectival basis including "excellent," "good," "satisfactory," "marginal," and "unsatisfactory." In general, in order to receive an excellent rating, the proposed tug had to significantly exceed the relevant requirements; to receive a good rating, the tug simply had to exceed the requirements. Agency Report, Tab 10, attach. 3, at 1. The RFP permitted multiple awards. Award to other than the low-cost offeror could be based on a tug's increased mission capability, decreased risk of non-performance, past performance, or early delivery. RFP Sec. M1.1. Seven offerors, including Thames and Alpha, submitted offers by the March 15 closing date. After initial evaluations, the contracting officer included only the Thames and Alpha proposals in the competitive range. Thames offered two reverse tractor-like tugs, one existing and one to be built, each of which was evaluated as good with an overall proposal rating of good. Alpha offered two true-tractor tugs one existing (referred to as a C-Tractor 6), rated as excellent and the other, unbuilt, rated as marginal, resulting in an overall proposal rating of marginal. /2/ After conducting discussions, the contracting officer requested final proposal revisions from both offerors. The final evaluation of the proposals was as follows: Factor/Offeror Thames Thames Alpha Alpha (existing (new-build (existing (new-build tug) tug) tug) tug) Utility/ Good Good Excellent Unsatisfactory Flexibility Past Performance Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Construction/ Charter Plan Excellent Excellent Excellent Unsatisfactory Delivery Date Excellent Satisfactory Excellent Unsatisfactory Agency Report, Tab 26, Business Clearance Memorandum, May 17, 1999, at 7-8. The agency considered four scenarios in making its best value determination based on combinations of two tugs per offeror or one tug each. Because Alpha's new-build tug was technically unacceptable, the tradeoff decision was made between awards of both tug charters to Thames or award of one charter to each offeror for the existing tugs. In making the best value recommendation, the source selection evaluation board and the contracting officer considered that each offeror's existing tug was rated overall "excellent" because of its superior technical abilities and the early delivery dates.