TransAtlantic Lines, LLC

B-414148 Feb 07, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TransAtlantic Lines, LLC (TAL), of Greenwich, Connecticut, protests the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command's (MSC) exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N32205-16-R-3505, to provide a clean, double-hull tanker with identified minimum specifications and capabilities to be chartered by MSC for worldwide cargo transportation. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably found its proposal to be technically unacceptable, and unreasonably excluded the protester's proposal from the competitive range. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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-414148 Date:  February 7, 2017 Daniel J. Kelly, Esq., McCarter & English, LLP, for the protester. Chad Diederich, Esq., Allison McDade, Esq., Tricia A. Nicewicz, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the exclusion of the protester’s proposal from the competitive range is denied where the agency’s evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation criteria. DECISION TransAtlantic Lines, LLC (TAL), of Greenwich, Connecticut, protests the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command’s (MSC) exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N32205-16-R-3505, to provide a clean, double-hull tanker with identified minimum specifications and capabilities to be chartered by MSC for worldwide cargo transportation.  The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably found its proposal to be technically unacceptable, and unreasonably excluded the protester’s proposal from the competitive range. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought proposals for the award of a fixed-price contract for a double-hull tanker for worldwide cargo transportation.  Award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis.  RFP at 89.  Specifically, to be considered for award, an offeror must receive an acceptable rating under the technical and past performance factors and provide an offer that conforms to the solicitation requirements.  Id. at 6‑8, 89.  As relevant to this protest, the RFP required that the technical proposal include a “practicable schedule for the delivery of the Vessel.”  RFP at 85, § 7.1.7.  The RFP contained several attachments to be completed by the offeror, including Attachment B-1, Fuel Consumption Data.  See RFP, Attach. B-1.  That attachment sought--for four categories of usage--the metric tons per day that the proposed ship would consume, the type of fuel, and the price per metric ton.  Id. The attachment provided a fixed number of days for each usage category.  Those figures would yield a total fuel cost.  Id. The agency received several proposals.  Agency Report (AR), Attach. 1, Competitive Range Determination, Excerpt from Business Clearance Memorandum.  After evaluating proposals, the agency established a competitive range of the three lowest-priced offerors, whose prices were clustered together, because that cluster of prices suggested a natural cutoff for inclusion in the competitive range.  AR, Attach. 1, Competitive Range Determination, Excerpt from Business Clearance Memorandum.  Specifically, the agency concluded that the difference in price between the lowest-priced offeror and the second and third lowest-priced offerors was 4.38 percent and 5.51 percent, respectively.  Id.  Further, the difference between the lowest-priced offeror and the fourth lowest-priced offeror was 12.57 percent.  Id.  As a result, the agency concluded that there was a “natural break in pricing between these offers” and created a competitive range of three.  Id.  The agency also concluded that award could not be made based on initial proposals.  Discussions were necessary “to correct omissions and deficiencies in all proposals in the competitive range.”  Id.  Nonetheless, the contracting officer believed that an award could be made after discussions.  The agency concluded that the protester’s price was “one of the highest of offers received,” and the protester’s proposal was evaluated as unacceptable for failure to provide a delivery schedule and the fuel consumption data attachment.  Protest, Exh. C, Pre-Award Debriefing at 5.  The protester was notified that its proposal was excluded “from the competitive range solely on price and not technical acceptability.”  Protest, Exh.