B-299266, Solec Corporation, March 5, 2007

B-299266 Mar 05, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Solec Corporation protests the award of a contract to Tigertek Industrial Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62381-06-R-1001, issued by the Department of the Navy for electric motor repair services. Solec asserts that Tigertek failed to meet a geographical restriction in the RFP. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299266, Solec Corporation, March 5, 2007 Decision Matter of: Solec Corporation File: B-299266 Date: March 5, 2007 David A. Hearne, Esq., Outland, Gray, O'Keefe & Hubbard, for the protester. Kenneth T. Rye, Esq., and Scott Garner, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that awardee's proposal to perform repairs outside area where repair items originate is denied where solicitation did not expressly limit competition to offerors in any specific geographical location. DECISION Solec Corporation protests the award of a contract to Tigertek Industrial Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62381-06-R-1001, issued by the Department of the Navy for electric motor repair services. Solec asserts that Tigertek failed to meet a geographical restriction in the RFP. We deny the protest. The Military Sealift Fleet Support Command (MSFSC) operates various ships in support of the Navy's combatant fleet. The RFP, a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for the repair, reconditioning, and replacement of various motors and fans on MSFSC vessels located at government piers. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of six factors: understanding the scope of work, facilities, management control and quality assurance, experience, past performance, and price. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal. Under the heading –location,— the RFP provided that the contractor was –required to perform the work as ordered onboard— MSFSC vessels, with the work generally to be performed at government piers in the Tidewater, Virginia area, including Norfolk, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, Newport News, and Williamsburg. The RFP's statement of work (SOW) provided detailed descriptions of the different fan repair items, all of which began with work on the ships and included removal of the fans, repair and testing at the contractor's facility, and reinstallation. Some tasks had to be witnessed by the contracting officer's representative or port engineer at the contractor's repair facility. Solec, the incumbent contractor, and Tigertek were the only offerors to submit proposals. After the initial evaluation, the agency held discussions with and obtained revised proposals from both firms. Based on Tigertek's lower proposed price, the agency awarded it the contract. After learning of the award, Solec filed this protest. Solec's protest is based on the following note in the RFP's section F, entitled –deliveries or performance—: NOTE: ALL WORK/REPAIRS WILL BE IN THE TIDEWATER, VA. AREA. IF WORK IS REQUIRED OUTSIDE THE TIDEWATER, VA AREA, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST AND SECURE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER PRIOR TO PERFORMANCE OF SUCH TRAVEL. IN ANY EVENT, APPROVED TRAVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED APPLICABLE RATES [SPECIFIED] BY DOD JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. RFP at 48. In Solec's view, this RFP language required all work--both onboard the ships and at the contractor's repair facility--to be performed in the Tidewater area. Solec concludes that Tigertek, a North Carolina firm, cannot meet this requirement and, thus, was ineligible for the award. The agency maintains that there was no geographical restriction for off-ship repair work, and that Tigertek met the RFP's requirements. According to the agency, the noted language was intended to address potential work on ships located outside the Tidewater area. In order to be deemed reasonable, an interpretation of a solicitation provision must be consistent with the solicitation when read as a whole and in a reasonable manner. Burns and Roe Servs. Corp., B-251969.4, Mar. 1, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 160 at 7. We will not read a provision restrictively where it is not clear from the solicitation that such a restrictive interpretation was intended by the agency. International Data Prods.; Commax Techs., Inc., B-275480.2 et al., Apr. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 179 at 4. We find no basis to conclude that the RFP restricted the competition to firms located in the Tidewater area. There was no provision in the RFP that expressly restricted the competition based on a firm's location--in the Tidewater area or otherwise. The only specific RFP references to locations were related to the ships where the repair items are installed, not to the contractors' repair facilities.