BNUMBER:  B-270602.5
DATE:  June 25, 1996
TITLE:  Tidewater Marine, Inc.--Reconsideration

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Tidewater Marine, Inc.--Reconsideration

File:     B-270602.5

Date:June 25, 1996

William J. Spriggs, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for the protester.
Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Dismissal of protest for failure to state a valid basis is affirmed 
where protest lacked detail supporting protester's contention that 
work commencement date in solicitation exceeded agency's minimum needs 
since protest at a minimum must set forth sufficient detail 
establishing the likelihood that the agency's determination of its 
minimum needs was improper.

DECISION

Tidewater Marine, Inc. requests reconsideration of our May 17, 1996, 
dismissal of its protest under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
N62387-96-R-1303, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military 
Sealift Command, for tugboat services to support live firing exercises 
in the Mayport, Florida region.

We affirm our dismissal.

On May 15, Tidewater filed a protest at this Office challenging the 
RFP's scheduled June 16 work commencement date as unduly restrictive.  
We dismissed Tidewater's protest in accordance with our Bid Protest 
Regulations, which require that a protest  include a detailed 
statement of the legal and factual grounds for protest, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.1(c)(4) (1996), and that the grounds stated be legally sufficient.  
4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.1(f).

In our dismissal, we first concluded that Tidewater's protest was 
legally insufficient because its premise for challenging the work 
commencement date--Tidewater's apparent belief that the agency would 
award the contract less than 30 days before contract performance was 
scheduled to begin--was not supported by the record, which showed that 
the agency was in the process of making contract award on May 15, the 
date Tidewater's protest was filed.  We also concluded that Tidewater 
had failed to set forth a valid basis for protest since it did not 
articulate how or why the proposed work commencement date was unduly 
restrictive.  Although Tidewater generally complained that only the 
incumbent could comply with the scheduled work performance date, the 
protester did not otherwise explain why it was unable to meet the 
scheduled work commencement date deadline, nor did it indicate how the 
work commencement date exceeded the agency's minimum needs.

On reconsideration, Tidewater asserts that its protest should not have 
been dismissed because in advancing its contention that the work 
commencement date specification was unduly restrictive, it was not 
required to indicate how the work commencement date exceeded the 
agency's minimum needs.  Relying on our decision in Yale Materials 
Handling Corp., B-230209, Mar. 23, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  302, Tidewater 
asserts that where a protester challenges a delivery date 
specification--analogous to this solicitation's work commencement 
date--a prospective offeror "cannot know what has caused an agency to 
constrict the delivery schedule so as to restrict competition," and 
consequently, a protest challenging such a requirement need not 
indicate how it exceeds the agency's minimum needs.  Instead, 
Tidewater asserts, the burden is initially on the procuring agency to 
establish prima facie support for its contention that the work 
commencement date reasonably relates to its minimum needs.

The precedent cited by Tidewater only applies where the preliminary 
protest pleadings provide a legally sufficient basis to support the 
challenge.  Unlike Yale where we viewed the protester as having 
alleged sufficient facts to call into question the terms of the 
solicitation, Tidewater, beyond its general objections to the 
scheduled  work commencement date, never articulated precisely why it 
exceeded the agency's minimum needs, or how the requirement should 
have been modified to make it acceptable.  Tidewater's protest thus 
failed to set forth any detail establishing the likelihood that the 
agency's determination of its minimum needs was improper.  Therefore, 
it properly was dismissed as legally insufficient.  See International 
Health Management Corp.--Recon., B-254468.2, Sept. 24, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  
183.

Further, as noted above, the protester's factual basis for challenging 
the specification--that award would be delayed for approximately 2 
weeks--was incorrect.  On May 16, 1 day after Tidewater filed its 
protest, the agency advised this Office that it had been in the 
process of awarding the challenged contract, and that despite 
Tidewater's protest, a contract award would be made by May 17.  In its 
reconsideration request, Tidewater does not challenge this portion of 
our decision.  Consequently, on this ground alone, Tidewater's protest 
was properly dismissed as failing to state a valid basis.  See 
Alascom, Inc.--Second Recon., B-250407.4, May 26, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  
411.

The prior dismissal is affirmed.

Comptroller General
of the United States