Reedsport Machine & Fabrication, B-293110.2; B-293556, April 13, 2004

Reedsport Machine & Fabrication, B-293110.2; B-293556, April 13, 2004 TITLE: Reedsport Machine & Fabrication, B-293110.2; B-293556, April 13, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293110.2; B-293556 DATE: April 13, 2004 ********************************************************************** Reedsport Machine & Fabrication, B-293110.2; B-293556, April 13, 2004 Decision Matter of: Reedsport Machine & Fabrication File: B-293110.2; B-293556 Date: April 13, 2004 Daniel L. Duyck, Esq., Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, for the protester. B. J. Braun, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Peter Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Allegation that agency*s combination of two groups of motor lifeboats into one solicitation unduly restricts competition is denied where agency has reasonably demonstrated that a single contract is necessary to satisfy its minimum needs. DECISION Reedsport Machine & Fabrication protests the award of a contract to Modutech Marine, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DTCG85-04-B-66B003 (IFB 003), a small business set-aside issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, for haul out and repair work on 47‑foot motor lifeboats (MLB) based at a group of Coast Guard stations near Astoria, Washington. Reedsport also protests the terms of IFB No. DTCG85-04-B-695133 (IFB 133), which requested bids for the same work at Coast Guard stations near Seattle, Washington. We deny the protests. On August 21, 2003, the Coast Guard issued IFB 003, which provided for the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for a base year, with 4 option years. The IFB contemplated multiple awards and, towards that end, separated the MLBs into five geographic lots. Lots 1 through 4 were each composed of one Coast Guard group, while Lot 5 was composed of two groups (Group Seattle and Group Port Angeles).[1] Vendors were allowed to bid on any lot, provided that its place of repair was within 300 nautical miles of every MLB in the lot. The IFB provided that evaluated price would include composite labor rates and foreseeable costs to the government for transporting MLBs from home moorage to the contractor*s place of performance. The foreseeable costs consisted of operating costs for transporting boats, travel and per diem costs for the Port engineer, costs for a rental car, and costs (on a mileage basis) for transporting crew members. By amendment issued on September 10, Station Tillamook was removed from Lot 4 (Group Astoria), and instead placed in Lot 3 (Group North Bend). Bid opening was October 28. Two days after bids were opened, in response to a protest, the Coast Guard removed Lot 5 from the IFB with the intent of recompeting it by separate solicitation. The contracting officer (CO) subsequently found Reedsport to be in line for award of Lots 1 and 3, and that Modutech was in line for award of Lot 4 (a third bidder was in line for award of Lot 2, not relevant here). On December 18, the contracting officer issued IFB 133, the resolicitation for Lot 5. Reedsport raises numerous arguments with regard to the two solicitations. We have considered its arguments and find all to be without merit. We discuss the more significant arguments below. IFB 003 Untimely Arguments Reedsport alleges that it was improper for the Coast Guard to move Station Tillamook from Lot 4 into Lot 3, because doing so *reduced the efficiency, fairness, and predictability of the contracting process.* Protest at 5. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, protests of alleged solicitation improprieties must be filed no later than the time set for bid opening. 4 C.F.R. S: 21.2(a)(1) (2004). Reedsport*s challenge to the moving of Station Tillamook into a different lot constitutes an alleged solicitation impropriety, and therefore had to be raised prior to the October 28 bid opening. Because Reedsport did not file its protest until January 7, it is untimely. 4 C.F.R. S: 21.2(a)(1). Reedsport does not argue that its protest is timely; rather, it asserts that its protest should be heard under section 21.2(c) of our Regulations, which provides that we may consider an otherwise untimely protest where there was good cause for the untimely filing--some compelling reason beyond the protester*s control that prevented the protester from filing a timely protest--or the protest presents a significant issue--one of widespread interest to the procurement community that has not previously been considered. Industrial Acoustics Co., Inc.--Recon., B-246260.2, Jan. 28, 1992, 92-1 CPD P: 120 at 2. This protest falls under neither exception.