B-296245; B-296245.2, TransAtlantic Lines, LLC, July 14, 2005

B-296245; B-296245.2, TransAtlantic Lines, LLC, July 14, 2005 TITLE: B-296245; B-296245.2, TransAtlantic Lines, LLC, July 14, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296245; B-296245.2 DATE: July 14, 2005 ************************************************************* B-296245; B-296245.2, TransAtlantic Lines, LLC, July 14, 2005 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: TransAtlantic Lines, LLC File: B-296245; B-296245.2 Date: July 14, 2005 Brian A. Bannon, Esq., David A Leib, Esq., and Albert B. Krachman, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for the protester. Marc J. Fink, Esq., Anne E. Mickey, Esq., Heather M. Spring, Esq., and Christine Gollatz DeWitt, Esq., Sher & Blackwell, for Strong Vessel Operators, LLC, an intervenor. Captain Joseph V. Fratarcangeli, Department of the Army, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that awardee's proposal failed to comply with requirement for self-sustaining refrigerated containers is denied where agency reasonably determined that proposal, which did not take exception to the container terms, provided sufficient information to demonstrate firm's intention and capability to meet the requirement. 2. Protest of omission of mandatory subcontracting limitation from solicitation is dismissed as untimely where issue is not raised until after award is made. DECISION TransAtlantic Lines, LLC (TAL) protests the award of a contract to Strong Vessel Operators, LLC (SVO) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81G4E-04-R-0053, issued by the Department of the Army for regularly scheduled cargo transportation services to and from Jacksonville, Florida and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. TAL contends that the awardee's proposal should have been rejected as technically unacceptable for failure to comply with the solicitation's requirement for self-sustaining refrigerated containers. TAL also contends that the award is improper because the solicitation failed to include a mandatory subcontracting limitation provision. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on October 19, 2004, as a small business set-aside for commercial items/services, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements-type contract for a base year and two option years for regularly scheduled port-to-port cargo transportation services; award was to be made to the firm determined to have submitted the proposal deemed most advantageous to the government. RFP at 6, 21. The RFP set out three evaluation factors for award: technical capability (with subfactors for reliability of service, equipment, management approach, and electronic data interchange); past performance (with subfactors for quality of service, schedule, business relations, and management of key personnel); and price. The technical capability factor was more important than the past performance factor, and technical capability and past performance combined were approximately equal in importance to price. Id. at 8. The RFP set out various generally-worded requirements to be met after award. For example, as relevant here, while the RFP contained a requirement for the contractor to provide "[s]elf-sustaining refrigerated containers, not more than two years old," id. at 37, detailed design specifications for the containers, or details of how an offeror should propose to meet the self-sustaining aspect of the requirement, were not provided in the RFP. A glossary of terms provided as an attachment to the solicitation only generally defined the term "self-sustaining" as follows: [a] refrigerated container which does not need an external power or fuel source, and upon which a self-contained power unit is mounted, either on the container or its accompanying chassis. The container is self-sustained only while the power unit and its fuel source are mounted. Id. attach. 1 at 8. Three proposals were received in response to the RFP, discussions were conducted, and revised proposals were received and evaluated. The proposal of TAL, the incumbent contractor of these services, was rated as very good under the technical capability factor and very good for past performance, for an overall rating of very good; TAL's evaluated price was [deleted]. SVO's proposal was rated very good under the technical capability factor and excellent for past performance, for an overall rating of very good; SVO's evaluated price was $16,118,157.