Alpha Marine Services, LLC, B-291721; B-291721.3, March 5, 2003

Alpha Marine Services, LLC, B-291721; B-291721.3, March 5, 2003 TITLE: Alpha Marine Services, LLC, B-291721; B-291721.3, March 5, 2003 BNUMBER: B-291721; B-291721.3 DATE: March 5, 2003 ********************************************************************** Alpha Marine Services, LLC, B-291721; B-291721.3, March 5, 2003 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Alpha Marine Services, LLC File: B-291721; B-291721.3 Date: March 5, 2003 O. Kevin Vincent, Esq., Baker Botts, for the protester. Michael A. Hopkins, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge, for Admiral Towing and Barge Company, an intervenor. David G. Ranowsky, Esq., and George N. Brezna, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's interpretation of solicitation provision as requiring agency to make award based on lowest overall *cost* (to be determined by application of various cost-related factors not specified in the solicitation) is unreasonable when the solicitation is read as a whole and in a manner giving effect to all of its provisions; the only reasonable interpretation is that award would be made to the offeror with the lowest overall price proposed, calculated using only those factors set out in the solicitation. 2. Protest that awardee's proposal for tugboat services should have been found technically unacceptable in various areas is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that the proposal demonstrated that the tugboats to be used to perform the services would comply with the technical requirements in the solicitation and protest essentially reflects disagreement with the agency's judgment. DECISION Alpha Marine Services, LLC (AMS) protests the award of a contract to Admiral Towing and Barge Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00033-02-R-1022, issued by the Military Sealift Command (MSC), Department of the Navy, for tugboat services. AMS challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals. We deny the protests. The RFP, issued on May 10, 2002, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for 1 year, with four 1-year options, for the time charter of up to six U.S.-flagged tractor-like tugs for use at the port of San Diego, California, and surrounding waters to service a variety of naval surface and subsurface vessels.[1] Services included towing, mooring, berthing, docking, undocking, escorting identified naval vessels, providing emergency support services, and firefighting. The solicitation established three evaluation factors: price, technical, and past performance. RFP at 29. The RFP stated that price would be evaluated based on the rates (both daily hire and overtime) and fuel consumption amounts as submitted by the offeror, as well as the Navy's estimated schedule of services, or operations tempo (OPTEMPO). The solicitation established that fuel would be either government-furnished or, if contractor-purchased, treated as a direct reimbursable expense, that is, MSC would reimburse the contractor for its actual fuel costs without any overhead or other indirect costs. Id. at 14; Agency Report (AR), Dec. 27, 2002, at 3-4. Accordingly, offerors were required to submit estimated fuel consumption rates (in barrels per hour) for each of the tugs proposed. RFP attach. 4, at 3. The RFP informed offerors that, for evaluation purposes, *[t]he price of fuel will be based on the [Defense Energy Supply Center] price of fuels on the day the solicitation closes or revised offers are due.* RFP at 29. The RFP also established various minimum performance specifications (i.e., *vessel characteristics*) for the tugs proposed, including bollard pull and configuration.[2] Specifically, the solicitation stated that one of the six tugs proposed shall have a minimum 100,000 pounds forward and astern bollard pull and a minimum 80,000 pounds side bollard pull.[3] RFP amend. 1, at 2. The solicitation also specified the acceptable ways through which offerors could provide a certification of bollard pull capability; in addition to an actual test on the offered vessel or a sister ship with identical machinery and systems, offerors could provide the calculated bollard pull of the vessel as certified by a professional engineer in mechanical engineering or naval architecture. RFP amend. 9, at 2; AR, Dec. 27, 2002, at 5. The RFP also required that all proposed tugs be configured in such a manner (e.g., through the use of non-marking fendering systems) so as to prevent metal-to-hull contact with both surface and subsurface vessels. RFP amend.