Alpha Marine Services, LLC, B-292511.4; B-292511.5, March 22, 2004

Alpha Marine Services, LLC, B-292511.4; B-292511.5, March 22, 2004 TITLE: Alpha Marine Services, LLC, B-292511.4; B-292511.5, March 22, 2004 BNUMBER: B-292511.4; B-292511.5 DATE: March 22, 2004 ********************************************************************** Alpha Marine Services, LLC, B-292511.4; B-292511.5, March 22, 2004 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-292511.4; B-292511.5 Date: March 22, 2004 Michael R. Charness, Esq., and Amy R. Napier, Esq., Vinson & Elkins, for the protester. Wayne A. Keup, Esq., Jonathan K. Waldron, Esq., and David A. Leib, Esq., Blank Rome, for Ocean Services, LLC, the intervenor. Richard Knutsen, Esq., and David Townsend, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where proposal did not take exception to requirement in solicitation for the services of an oceanographic research vessel that the vessel be capable of a minimum transit speed of 12 knots, but rather specifically provided that the proposed vessel would comply, and there was no significant countervailing evidence reasonably known to the agency evaluators that should have created doubt whether the offeror would comply with the requirement, the proposal was reasonably evaluated by the agency as acceptable in this regard. DECISION Alpha Marine Services, LLC protests the Department of the Navy*s award of a contract to Ocean Services, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00033‑02‑R-2009, for the *time charter* of a vessel to support the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration*s (NOAA) hydrographic survey program.Alpha asserts that the vessel proposed by Ocean does not meet the RFP*s requirement that the vessel be capable of a minimum transit speed of 12 knots, and that the selection of Ocean*s proposal for award was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a time-charter contract, for a base period of 1 year, with three 1-year and one 11-month option periods, for an oceanographic research vessel to be used in performing hydrographic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico and the near coastal areas of Alaska. [1] RFP S: C2.2. The solicitation provided a number of minimum requirements with regard to the vessel, including, for example, a minimum range of 6,048 nautical miles, minimum transit speed of 12 knots, and minimum length overall of 150 feet. RFP S: C2.3. The solicitation also provided that *[t]he vessel shall . . . meet the requirements of Title 46 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 188-196, Subchapter U, Oceanographic Research.* Id. The RFP added that *[t]he vessel shall meet all International Maritime Organization Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) construction, equipment, and communication requirements for a vessel of its type, size, class, and service.* Id. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best value to the government based upon four evaluation factors: (1) technical, (2) past performance, (3) participation of small businesses, historically underutilized business zone small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and women-owned business concerns, and (4) price. The RFP provided that the technical, past performance, and small business participation evaluation factors, when combined, were more important than price in determining which proposal represents the best value to the government. RFP at 12‑13. Initial proposals were received from four offerors, including Alpha and Ocean. After conducting several rounds of discussions with offerors, and obtaining final proposal revisions (FPR), the agency determined that Alpha*s revised proposal represented the best value to the agency. Upon learning of the resulting award to Alpha, and after receiving a debriefing, Ocean filed a protest with our Office, arguing that the agency had failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and had failed to evaluate the proposals reasonably and in accordance with the terms of the RFP. In response to the protest, the agency informed our Office that it was taking the corrective action of amending the solicitation and reopening discussions with the offerors. Our Office then dismissed the protest as academic. The agency, in order to *level the playing field* after release of Alpha*s proposed price, Agency Report (AR) (B-292511.3), Memorandum (Aug.