BNUMBER:  B-272271
DATE:  August 1, 1996
TITLE:  Cascade General, Inc.

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

Matter of:Cascade General, Inc.

File:     B-272271

Date:August 1, 1996

John T. Jozwick, Esq., for the protester.
Keith B. Letourneau, Esq., United States Coast Guard, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that solicitation's provisions for evaluation of foreseeable 
costs to the agency (based on bidder's place of performance) unduly 
restrict competition and are ambiguous is denied where they provide 
for the proper evaluation of actual cost to the agency and, as 
amended, provide sufficient information to allow bidders to 
intelligently prepare their bids.

DECISION

Cascade General, Inc. protests certain provisions in invitation for 
bids (IFB) No. DTCG85-96-B-625L00, issued by the United States Coast 
Guard (USCG) for drydocking and vessel repairs for the USCG cutter 
Polar Star.  Cascade contends that the solicitation's provisions for 
the evaluation of certain foreseeable costs to the agency are improper 
because they are unduly restrictive of competition and are ambiguous.

We deny the protest.

The IFB, as amended, provides for the evaluation of bids on the basis 
of price and price-related factors, identified in section M of the IFB 
as certain foreseeable costs to the agency "that will vary with the 
location of the commercial shipyard to be used by offerors of services 
under this solicitation."[1]  Section M includes the following 
elements generally challenged by the protester:  operating costs 
(including transportation costs at $172.30 per nautical mile for one 
round-trip by the cutter from its home moorage at the USCG Support 
Center, Pier 36, Seattle, Washington, to the place of performance); 
and crew member travel (to be computed for 
50 eligible personnel whenever the location of contract performance is 
beyond the "area" (defined by geographical boundaries provided in the 
IFB) from which personnel customarily commute daily to the home berth, 
calculated for a certain amount of round-trips (at government rates) 
from the location of the commercial shipyard to the home moorage at 
Pier 36).

The protester, located in Portland, Oregon, contends that the 
evaluation of foreseeable costs as provided in the IFB unduly 
restricts competition since it favors shipyards located closer to the 
cutter's Seattle, Washington berth.  Cascade submits a 1986 Department 
of Transportation (DOT) homeport policy letter which it contends 
supports its position that its bid should not be subject to the 
application of certain additional foreseeable costs.  However, while 
the DOT letter permits  Portland shipyards to compete for ship repair 
contracts for vessels based in Seattle,  it does not prohibit the use 
of foreseeable costs to evaluate bids.   Under Federal Acquisition 
Regulation  sec.  14.201-8, the evaluation of price-related factors, 
including foreseeable costs "to the [g]overnment resulting from such 
factors as differences in inspection, locations of supplies, and 
transportation," is a proper basis for award in a sealed bid 
procurement.   Marlen C. Robb & Son, Boatyard & Marina, Inc., 
B-256516, June 28, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  392.  While higher transportation 
costs are associated with facilities that are further away from the 
home berth, those costs reflect actual cost to the government.  Thus, 
consideration of such costs in the evaluation of bids does not confer 
an unfair competitive advantage and is not otherwise improper.  See GE 
Am. Communications, Inc., B-233547, Feb. 17, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  172.[2]

Cascade also asserts that the foreseeable cost factors stated in the 
IFB are ambiguous and that the firm's requests for explanation of 
those terms have not been adequately answered by the agency.  
Specifically, the protester contends that the IFB, as originally 
issued, contained varying terms such as "homeport," "home moorage," 
"cutter's mooring," and "homeport mooring area" without providing 
sufficient definition or distinction among the terms.  Our review of 
the record, however, including the amendments to the IFB (which 
deleted some of the challenged terms and clarified the basis of the 
agency's intended evaluation of the identified foreseeable costs), 
does not support the protester's allegations.

As a general rule, the contracting agency must give bidders sufficient 
detail in a solicitation to enable them to compete intelligently and 
on a relatively equal basis.  The mere allegation that a solicitation 
is ambiguous or restrictive does not make it so.  Skyline Indus., 
Inc., B-257340, Sept. 22, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  111.  Rather, where, as 
here, a challenge has been posed as to the actual meaning of a 
solicitation provision, our Office will resolve the matter by reading 
the solicitation as a whole, and in a manner that gives effect to all 
provisions of the solicitation.  Plum Run,
B-256869, July 21, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  38.

As stated above, the agency has issued amendments, several of which 
were issued subsequent to the filing of Cascade's protest, clarifying 
the terms of the IFB that provide for the evaluation of foreseeable 
costs.  In particular, amendment No. 3 deleted the challenged term of 
"homeport" from the IFB's general explanation (at  sec.  M.1.A.5) of the 
application of foreseeable costs and substituted the term "home 
moorage," which term is consistently defined in the IFB as Pier 36, 
Seattle, Washington; this amendment also deleted the requirement at  sec.  
M.2.D. which referenced the challenged "cutter's mooring" term.  
Additionally, amendment No. 5 deleted the challenged term "homeport 
mooring area" and substituted the term "home moorage" (i.e., Pier 36).  
These amendments clearly clarify the challenged terms of the 
solicitation as initially issued.

As to Cascade's allegation of ambiguity in the agency's continued 
reference to the term "homeport" for purposes of evaluating crew 
member travel costs pursuant to  sec.  M.2.F. of the IFB, we believe the 
IFB's terms are straightforward and sufficiently detailed to allow 
bidders to compete intelligently and fairly.  The Coast Guard 
reference to the term "homeport" in this regard is, as explained by 
the agency in an amendment, reflective of that term's use in Joint 
Federal Travel Regulation U7115, which provides for entitlement when 
the crew member's dependents reside "in the area of homeport."  The 
IFB, as amended, provides that "the term 'area' means places 
surrounding the homeport for which personnel customarily commute daily 
to the homeport."  The amended IFB further provides that 50 crew 
members are eligible for the amount of travel identified in the IFB, 
and the IFB provided detailed information regarding the surrounding 
boundaries (by citing the furthest home addresses of the eligible 
personnel) of the Seattle metropolitan area that constitute the "area 
of homeport" for purposes of calculating the applicable travel costs.  
In its recently issued amendment No. 8, the agency gives bidders 
detailed examples of calculated costs under this IFB provision, 
including an example of a Portland shipyard bidder's evaluated cost, 
to aid bidders in the preparation of their bids.  In short, the record 
does not support the protester's allegations of ambiguity; rather, the 
record shows that the amended IFB adequately defines the challenged 
provisions.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States 

1. The agency explains that for each bidder's shipyard location, the 
agency will incur different vessel operating costs, per diem costs, 
rental car costs, crew travel costs, contracting and engineering 
personnel travel costs, and supply transportation costs.

2. We note that several of the IFB's identified foreseeable costs will 
be lower for Cascade's Portland shipyard than for the Seattle shipyard 
(e.g., regarding per diem rates and certain equipment shipping costs), 
and some of the IFB's personnel travel costs (e.g., airfare to 
Alameda, California) are identical for Portland and Seattle shipyards.