BNUMBER:  B-271999
DATE:  July 25, 1996
TITLE:  Tidewater Marine, Inc.

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

Matter of:Tidewater Marine, Inc.

File:     B-271999

Date:July 25, 1996

William J. Spriggs, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for the protester.
Robert M. Elwell, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Mary Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest against solicitation goal of awarding contracts for tugs with 
an aggregate of  300,000 pounds of towing capacity is denied where 
goal was a reasonable statement of agency's minimum need for towing 
capacity sufficient to assure safe and swift maneuver of an aircraft 
carrier in a congested port during adverse weather.   

DECISION

Tidewater Marine, Inc. protests alleged improprieties in request for 
proposals (RFP) No. N62387-96-R-1314, issued by the Department of the 
Navy, Military Sealift Command, for the procurement of U.S. Flag 
Tugboat Services, including towing.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation was issued on March 25, 1996, for one or more 
tugboats meeting the minimum specifications provided in RFP section C.  
Tidewater asserts that although the solicitation does not specify the 
number of tugs that must be provided, it essentially mandates the use 
of three tugs by virtue of the section M requirement for a 
300,000-pound bollard pull; Tidewater maintains that no more than two 
will be necessary to meet the work requirements, and that the bollard 
pull requirement renders the solicitation ambiguous as to how many 
tugs are required.  Tidewater further protests that the 300,000-pound 
bollard pull requirement is restrictive of competition in that it 
favors one offeror who intends to submit a proposal to use tractor 
tugs.[1]

Tidewater's arguments are based on the flawed premise that section M 
requires offerors to supply tugboats that meet a 300,000-pound bollard 
pull requirement.  In fact, section C3.2 sets out as requirements in 
this area a minimum 55,000-pound forward bollard pull, 45,000-pound 
astern bollard pull, and 35,000-pound athwartship bollard pull.  The 
300,000-pound figure on which Tidewater's argument is based is found 
in section M2, which simply states that the Navy's goal is to award 
contracts for a total aggregate bollard pull of 300,000 pounds, a goal 
it may meet, if at all, by awarding one contract or multiple contracts 
that in the aggregate total 300,000 pounds of bollard pull.  We fail 
to see how this goal improperly could limit competition; it in no way 
requires offerors to propose tugs beyond those necessary to perform 
the work requirements.

Tidewater also argues that the 300,000-pound bollard pull goal exceeds 
the minimum needs of the Navy.  The Navy responds that it will require 
the tugs to pull 97,000-ton NIMITZ class aircraft carriers in the 
Norfolk port.  The Navy explains that it based its bollard pull goal 
on Mil-Std 2040, which recommends a total bollard pull of 175,000 to 
300,000 pounds to pull a 90,000-ton vessel; the Navy set the bollard 
pull goal at 300,000 pounds to ensure that vessels could be pulled in 
a manner that was safe to personnel and vessels due to congested port 
conditions in Norfolk, the large sail area of aircraft carriers, the 
likelihood of hurricanes and other severe weather conditions, and the 
possibility of emergency situations requiring the need for swift and 
accurate vessel movements.

Tidewater asserts that the Navy has based its goal on the worst case 
scenario, and thus improperly has stated its maximum, rather than its 
minimum need.  The Navy's minimum need, however, is for tugs that can 
perform the work required, in this case, potentially pulling a NIMITZ 
class carrier in a crowded port during adverse weather.  Thus, the 
Navy has stated minimum, not maximum needs.

Tidewater argues that, rather than requiring a specific number of 
pounds of bollard pull, the Navy should either state that it requires 
enough tugs to pull a NIMITZ aircraft carrier or should state the 
number of tugs it needs to pull the carrier.  This argument is no more 
than an attempt by the protester to dictate the manner in which the 
Navy should defines its needs; it does not demonstrate that the 
agency's description overstates its needs.  Moreover, as the Navy has 
explained, its needs are for a certain number of pounds of bollard 
pull, not a certain number of tugs.  Since the Navy has reasonably 
explained that 300,000 pounds of bollard pull is necessary to pull a 
NIMITZ class carrier in the Norfolk port safely and Tidewater has not 
demonstrated otherwise, there is no basis for questioning it.  See 
Harry Feuerberg & Steven Steinbaum, B-261333, Sept. 12, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  
109.  

Tidewater argues that the solicitation is ambiguous because it states 
that the contract will be awarded on the basis of best value to the 
government, but also discusses minimum technical acceptability.  
Tidewater concludes that it is unclear whether the Navy intends to 
award the contract on the basis of the best value to the government, 
or to the lowest-cost, technically acceptable offeror.[2]  We 
disagree.  While section M.1.2(a) discusses minimal technical 
acceptability, it also explains that those proposals that meet the 
minimum specifications of section C will be evaluated against listed 
criteria, and that the contract then will be awarded to the offeror(s) 
whose proposal(s) are found to provide the best value to the 
government.  The solicitation clearly indicates, therefore, that award 
is to be based on the best value among the proposals meeting the 
stated minimum requirements.  We find nothing unclear or objectionable 
in this evaluation scheme.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Tidewater also argues that amendment 1 to the solicitation, 
reducing the amount of harbor work under the contract and changing the 
contract start date, is inconsistent with the agency's needs and was 
issued solely to accommodate one offeror who would not have its 
proposed tractor tugs available until that date.  However, Tidewater 
has presented no evidence that amendment 1 compromises the agency's 
needs, and there is nothing improper in amending a solicitation to 
permit a certain firm to compete.  See A-Com, Inc., B-245246.2, Feb. 
13, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  183; Sea Containers Am., Inc., B-243228, July 11, 
1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  45.

2. In addition, Tidewater argues that section M does not specify the 
minimum requirements against which bollard pull will be evaluated.  
These minimum requirements are specified in section C which, as 
indicated, requires 55,000-pound forward bollard pull, 45,000-pound 
astern bollard pull, and 35,000-pound athwartship bollard pull.