Vane Line Bunkering, Inc.

B-417859,B-417859.2 Nov 22, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Vane Line Bunkering, Inc., of Baltimore, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Harley Marine Services, Inc., of Seattle, Washington, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC711-19-R-W003, issued by United States Transportation Command for fuel transportation services. Vane challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. We sustain the protest in part and deny the protest in part. 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:  Vane Line Bunkering, Inc. File:  B-417859; B-417859.2 Date:  November 22, 2019 Jayna Marie Rust, Esq., Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Scott F. Lane, Esq., and Timothy Sullivan, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the protester. Bryant E. Gardner, Esq., and Allison Skopec, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP, for Harley Marine Services, Inc., the intervenor. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Lieutenant Colonel John C. Degnan, and Lawrence M. Anderson, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the technical factor is sustained in part where the record does not show that the agency considered significant countervailing evidence in the awardee’s proposal that cast doubt on the awardee’s assertions of compliance with the solicitation’s vessel capacity requirements. 2.  Protest that agency improperly evaluated the awardee’s past performance is sustained where the record does not confirm that the awardee was the contractor on submitted past performance references and does not support the reasonableness of crediting the awardee with the past performance of its subsidiaries. 3.  Protest that the agency improperly found the awardee responsible is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably considered the available information concerning the awardee’s financial status. DECISION Vane Line Bunkering, Inc., of Baltimore, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Harley Marine Services, Inc., of Seattle, Washington, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC711-19-R-W003, issued by United States Transportation Command for fuel transportation services.  Vane challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. We sustain the protest in part and deny the protest in part. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on April 12, 2019, and contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, to provide transportation services for Department of Defense-owned bulk jet, marine diesel, and commercial fuel.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP, at 3; AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement of Facts (COS) at 2.  The requirement entailed delivering fuel by tug and barge between ports on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts.  RFP, at 4. Award was to be made on a best-value, tradeoff basis, considering four factors:  business proposal, technical proposal, past performance, and price.  RFP at 37-38.  The business proposal factor was divided into two subfactors:  proposal compliance and use of United States Shipyards.  Id. at 38.  The technical proposal factor also included two subfactors:  equipment and management operations.  Id. at 39-40.  The agency was to evaluate the business and technical proposals at the subfactor level on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.  A proposal found to be unacceptable under any of the subfactors would not be considered for award.  Id. at 39. Under the past performance factor, the RFP required offerors to submit past performance questionnaires (PPQs) detailing recent and relevant contracts.[2]  Id. at 41.  To make award, the agency would then perform a tradeoff between the equally weighted past performance and price factors.  Id. at 38. Harley[3] and Vane submitted proposals in response to the RFP.  COS at 9.  The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) performed an initial evaluation of proposals and found both unacceptable under each technical subfactor.  AR, Tab 40, SSEB Report at 3-5.  For the past performance factor, the agency assigned Harley’s proposal a satisfactory confidence rating, while assigning Vane’s proposal a substantial confidence rating.  Id. The contracting officer and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) then established a competitive range, consisting only of Vane and Harley.  AR, Tab 26, Competitive Range Determination at 2.  The agency entered into discussions with both firms and sent evaluation notices  which addressed the deficiencies contained in their respective proposals.