TITLE: Thames Towboat Company, Inc., B-282982, September 9, 1999
BNUMBER: B-282982
DATE: September 9, 1999
**********************************************************************
Thames Towboat Company, Inc., B-282982, September 9, 1999
Decision
Matter of:Thames Towboat Company, Inc.
File:B-282982
Date:September 9, 1999
Wayne A. Keup, Esq., and Brian A. Bannon, Esq., Dyer Ellis & Joseph, for the
protester.
George N. Brezna, Esq., and Michelle C. Simms, Esq., Military Sealift
Command, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Where solicitation does not require submission of detailed technical
information, submission of representative technical information along with
statements of compliance with minimum requirements is sufficient to meet the
requirement for submission of "adequate technical information."
2. Decision to make multiple awards for time charter of tugboats, instead of
a single award to the protester, is unobjectionable where solicitation
provided for best value award and explicitly indicated that payment of a
cost premium was contemplated for increased mission capability and early
delivery date, both of which were gained with the awardee?s tug.
DECISION
Thames Towboat Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Alpha
Marine Services, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00033-99-R-1004,
issued by the Military Sealift Command (MSC), Department of the Navy, for
time charter of a tugboat. Thames challenges the agency?s technical
evaluation and best value determination.
We deny the protest.
MSC issued the solicitation on January 13, 1999 for the charter of up to two
U.S.-flag tractor tugs for use at the Naval Submarine Base in New London,
Connecticut, to service a variety of naval vessels including nuclear
submarines. Services included towing, mooring, berthing, docking, undocking,
escorting identified naval vessels, providing emergency support services,
and firefighting. Tugs offered could be existing or newly built with
delivery not later than April 1, 2000. Offers were solicited for a base
period of 17 months with two, 17-month options.
The RFP was a best value solicitation with price as important as all
technical factors. The four equally weighted technical factors were: tug
utility and flexibility; construction or charter plan; past performance; and
delivery date. Minimum requirements were set forth in RFP sect. C3 and included
performance specifications such as bollard pull, [1] shaft horsepower (SHP),
minimum transit speed, fendering, navigation/communications equipment, and
firefighting capability. Under the delivery factor, the RFP provided that
offerors submitting early delivery dates would receive more credit, and
increased credit was to be given to the offeror proposing the delivery date
closest to April 1, 1999. Under the source selection plan, each factor was
rated on an adjectival basis including "excellent," "good," "satisfactory,"
"marginal," and "unsatisfactory." In general, in order to receive an
excellent rating, the proposed tug had to significantly exceed the relevant
requirements; to receive a good rating, the tug simply had to exceed the
requirements. Agency Report, Tab 10, attach. 3, at 1.
The RFP permitted multiple awards. Award to other than the low-cost offeror
could be based on a tug?s increased mission capability, decreased risk of
non-performance, past performance, or early delivery. RFP sect. M1.1.
Seven offerors, including Thames and Alpha, submitted offers by the March 15
closing date. After initial evaluations, the contracting officer included
only the Thames and Alpha proposals in the competitive range. Thames offered
two reverse tractor-like tugs, one existing and one to be built, each of
which was evaluated as good with an overall proposal rating of good. Alpha
offered two true-tractor tugs one existing (referred to as a C-Tractor 6),
rated as excellent and the other, unbuilt, rated as marginal, resulting in
an overall proposal rating of marginal. [2] After conducting discussions,
the contracting officer requested final proposal revisions from both
offerors.
The final evaluation of the proposals was as follows:
Thames Thames Alpha Alpha
(existing (new-build (existing (new-build
tug) tug) tug) tug)
Factor/Offeror
Utility/Flexibility Good Good Excellent Unsatisfactory
Past Performance Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
Construction/ Excellent Excellent Excellent Unsatisfactory
Charter Plan
Delivery Date Excellent Satisfactory Excellent Unsatisfactory
Agency Report, Tab 26, Business Clearance Memorandum, May 17, 1999, at 7-8.
The agency considered four scenarios in making its best value determination
based on combinations of two tugs per offeror or one tug each. Because
Alpha?s new-build tug was technically unacceptable, the tradeoff decision
was made between awards of both tug charters to Thames or award of one
charter to each offeror for the existing tugs.
In making the best value recommendation, the source selection evaluation
board and the contracting officer considered that each offeror's existing
tug was rated overall "excellent" because of its superior technical
abilities and the early delivery dates. [3] They also recognized that an
award of both charters to Thames represented a cost of [deleted], while an
award of one charter to each offeror represented a cost of $6,000,229, a
difference of [deleted]. They found that the technical benefits associated
with Alpha?s true-tractor tug outweighed the additional costs the government
would incur over the life of the contract. Agency Report, Tab 27, Best Value
Scenario Report, at 2-4. Based on his review of the technical evaluation,
the source selection authority (SSA) accepted the board?s recommendation and
determined that awards to Thames and Alpha for their existing tugs
represented the best value to the government. Agency Report, Tab 28, Source
Selection Memorandum.
After receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, Thames filed this
protest. Thames contends that the technical evaluation of Alpha?s proposal
was flawed and does not support the award determination.
Where there is a challenge to the evaluation of proposals in a negotiated
procurement, it is not the function of our Office to evaluate the proposals
de novo. Rather, we will examine an agency's evaluation only to ensure that
it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and
applicable statutes and regulations, since determining the relative merit of
competing proposals is primarily a matter within the contracting agency's
discretion. Advanced Tech. and Research Corp., B-257451.2, Dec. 9, 1994,
94-2 CPD para. 230 at 3; Information Sys. & Networks Corp., B-237687, Feb. 22,
1990, 90-1 CPD para. 203 at 3. An offeror's mere disagreement with the judgment
of the evaluators does not render the evaluation unreasonable. Medland
Controls, Inc., B-255204, B-255204.3, Feb. 17, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 260 at 3.
Based on our review of the record, the evaluation at issue was reasonable
and was conducted in accordance with the stated criteria. [4]
Thames first argues that Alpha?s proposal failed to provide sufficient
technical information to support a valid evaluation because it simply
provided blanket statements of compliance with the requirements. In Thames?s
view, reliance on this information was inconsistent with the RFP. We
disagree. A contracting agency is responsible for evaluating the data
submitted by an offeror and ascertaining if it provides sufficient
information to determine the acceptability of the offeror's item; we will
not disturb this technical determination unless it is shown to be
unreasonable. SAIC Computer Sys., B-258431.2, Mar. 13, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 156
at 8.
Contrary to Thames?s view, the RFP did not require that offerors submit
detailed technical information with their proposals. Instead, the RFP
specifications provided that tug owners were to "warrant" that their vessels
were in "full conformity with the [stated] specifications" including the
performance specifications which formed the basis of the technical
evaluation. RFP sect. C3. Section L of the RFP provided that proposals were to
include "[a]dequate technical information to conduct a technical evaluation
[and] [a]t a minimum it shall individually address each requirement outlined
in Article C3." RFP sect. L12(b). Alpha?s proposal followed this guidance.
In addition to attachment J-2, which provided "tug particulars," [5] Alpha
provided detailed drawings of its tug (showing fendering, location of
equipment, deck plans, and how the tug would be used in handling
submarines); discussed the advantages of its true-tractor design with a
separate discussion on the skeg design; and addressed each of the
specifications with the statement that its tug "meet[s] this requirement"
and "exceed[s]" the requirements of five of the specifications including
SHP, minimum range/endurance, sewage, wind/sea state, and firefighting.
Alpha Proposal Tabs 4, 5, 7. The proposal also stated that the C-Tractor 6
was currently in operation providing tug support services at a Navy
installation in San Diego, California. Alpha Proposal, Tab 5. Taken
together, this information provided sufficient technical information on
which the agency could reasonably base its evaluation that Alpha?s tug met
and significantly exceeded the requirements of the RFP.
Thames?s argument that its proposal provided relatively more technical
information does not provide any basis to conclude that the agency?s
evaluation of Alpha?s proposal was unreasonable. In this regard, while
Thames?s proposal included a J-2 attachment, engine specification sheets for
its new-build tug, and a narrative paragraph for each requirement, its
drawing was less detailed than Alpha?s and showed only a single profile of
the vessel. Moreover, although it did discuss each of the specifications, in
general these narratives simply reiterated the specification itself,
sometimes with a representation of specific attributes of the existing tug
and the new-build tug. For example, with regard to navigation and
communications equipment, the RFP stated that each tug had to have the
minimum equipment required by the U.S. Coast Guard for international waters
and then listed a two-way radio, radar, and navigation equipment with stated
ranges. RFP sect. C3.1(f)(xii). Thames?s proposal stated that "[t]he tugs are
equipped with navigational and communication equipment exceeding both the
Solicitation and U.S.C.G. requirements" and identified equipment on the
existing tug. Thames Proposal, Tug Characteristics, at 4. Similarly, the RFP
called for the tugs to be equipped with 7-inch kevlar and equivalent
sufficient synthetic lines and wires and associated equipment to safely and
efficiently perform the services listed in the charter. RFP
sect. C3.1(f)(xi). Thames?s proposal represented that its "tugs are equipped
with both 7 inch kevlar and equivalent synthetic working lines to perform
the required services" as well as equipped with certain towing wire. Thames
Proposal, Tug Characteristics, at 4. In our view, since Thames?s "detailed"
information essentially repeated the specified requirements and/or simply
represented certain specific attributes that its new-build tug would
possess, its proposal was substantially the same as a blanket representation
of compliance. [6]
Thames next argues that the evaluators failed to specifically consider
Alpha?s ability to perform different types of missions because they focused
only on the tug?s capabilities. Section M of the RFP identified two
subfactors under the tug utility and flexibility factor: (a) ability of the
tug to perform more than one type of mission and (b) ability of the tug to
perform in excess of requirements. RFP sect. M1.2(b)(ii)A. Thames contends that
the evaluators? consideration of the tugs? capability should have been
relevant only to the question of whether the proposed tug exceeded
requirements under the second subfactor. We disagree. The key inquiry for
the evaluators for both subfactors is the tug?s capability. Thus, when an
evaluator finds that a tug possesses certain characteristics, it logically
follows that it can perform a mission that requires these characteristics
and it is evaluated under the first subfactor. Where a recognized capability
exceeds the requirements, it is then evaluated under the second subfactor.
Thus, focusing on the tug?s capability is part and parcel of the evaluation
of the proposal under the tug utility and flexibility factor.
Contrary to Thames?s position, the evaluation record supports the finding
that the evaluators considered Alpha?s ability to perform various missions.
Each individual evaluation worksheet contained a list of the different
missions to be evaluated: towing, docking, ship assists, firefighting,
personnel transport, handling of different types of watercraft, and
emergency response. It is plain from the worksheets that the evaluators
considered these. For example, one evaluator noted that the fendering
drawings submitted with Alpha?s proposal, along with relevant past
performance information, "provide great assurance that Alpha Marine?s tugs
offer excellent flexibility to handle the full array of Naval water craft."
Agency Report, Tab 14. The same evaluator noted that the true-tractor design
had "some maneuverability advantages over tractor-like tugs [and] [e]xceeded
[the minimum SHP], minimum transit speed and firefighting capability." Id.
While the evaluator did not specifically state that these capabilities
translated into the tug?s ability to perform specific missions, that
conclusion follows from the evaluator?s having listed these comments on the
evaluation worksheet dealing with the first subfactor. Two other evaluators
who rated Alpha?s tug as "excellent" under this subfactor, annotated the
list of different missions indicating the tug?s ability to perform all
identified missions. One of these evaluators specifically noted that the
"true-tractor, skeg & crane makes [the tug] much more flexible" and
concluded that it could "more than adequately meet mission req[uirements]."
Id.
While the protester seeks to contrast Alpha?s proposal with Thames?s
specific examples of capability to perform more than one type of mission, we
note that its examples for its new-build tug are merely representations
based on past performance with other tugs. In this regard, Alpha also
provided examples of previous successful missions in personnel transport,
ocean-towing, hurricane anchorage transport, firefighting, and operations
during storm conditions. Although these references do not concern the
C-Tractor 6, they concern similarly designed tugs operated by the
contractor. Since both offerors? relied on the past mission performance of
other tugs, we see no appreciable difference in the agency?s consideration
of the offerors? information in this regard in its evaluation of both
proposals.
Thames next argues that the evaluation and award determination failed to
take into account those aspects of the protester?s new-build tug that
exceeded comparable aspects of Alpha?s tug under the ability to perform in
excess of requirements subfactor. For example, Thames?s new-build tug would
feature an SHP exceeding Alpha?s by [deleted] horsepower and a bollard pull
exceeding Alpha?s by [deleted] pounds. Protester?s Comments at 11. The Navy
acknowledges these differences but overall determined that the combination
of advantages associated with Alpha?s tug made it a better value than
Thames?s new-build tug.
In making this determination, the agency considered that Alpha?s
true-tractor tug, steered and driven from the bow, was better suited for
work under this charter where quick position changes, orientation, and
immediate response to the tug pilot were required to meet the RFP
requirements. The agency noted that the tug?s quick response, smaller
turning circle, and direct steering would be very beneficial in placing
submarines in dry-dock. The agency also noted that the curved shape of the
Alpha tug?s skeg enabled it to fit snugly against the hulls of submarines,
providing for tight handling of those vessels. In addition, since this
aspect of the tug?s fendering was at the aft end of the tug, it was less
prone to being removed by the expected ice conditions in the port. Further,
the agency noted that Alpha?s tug had a firefighting capacity of [deleted]
gallons per minute higher than that required by the RFP, and that its
transit speed of [deleted] knots at 80 percent SHP, faster than the 10-knot
requirement, would allow for faster transits to and from work sites. Agency
Report, Tab 27, Best Value Scenario Report, para.para. 7(a), 7(b). While not
specified in the source selection narrative, Alpha?s offer of a [deleted],
which could be used for additional missions such as [deleted], was also
deemed an added value by the agency. Agency Report at 11.
Price/technical tradeoffs may be made, and the extent to which one may be
sacrificed for the other is governed only by the test of rationality and
consistency with the established evaluation factors. Dawco Constr., Inc.,
B-278048.2, Jan. 2, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 32 at 3. Here, the agency recognized
that an award of both tug charters to Thames would result in a higher
combined SHP and bollard pull, at a savings of [deleted] over 5 years.
However, the agency determined that the extra horsepower was not necessary
to successfully meet the RFP requirements. It took into account the fact
that awarding charters to both Thames and Alpha resulted in the quickest
delivery of two technically superior tugs, whose combined SHP and bollard
pull exceeded the minimum requirements of the RFP. In the agency?s judgment,
the extra maneuverability of Alpha?s true-tractor tug was more important
than the extra SHP and bollard pull available with Thames?s new-build tug.
Agency Report, Tab 27, Best Value Scenario Report, para. 5. [7] The RFP
evaluation scheme specifically contemplated award at a higher cost where a
tug was offered with increased mission capability or early delivery, and
Alpha?s tug met both of these considerations. Under these circumstances the
SSA?s award determination was reasonable and unobjectionable.
Our conclusion is not changed by Thames?s argument that Alpha?s and the
agency?s contrast between true-tractor and reverse-tractor tugs was
misleading. In this regard, Thames submitted information from a consultant
in support of its position that its reverse-tractor tug uses the same type
of adjustable drives as Alpha, which permit it to operate with turning
circles and tug responses that are nearly identical, the only difference
being the pivot point. Declaration of Captain Robert L. Hempstead, July 26,
1999, para.para. 8-9. However, the agency also submitted information regarding the
difference in the two:
"Reverse tractor" is a term coined to take advantage of the
current elite status of tractors for use in escort service. Five
years ago they would have been described as conventional tugs with
Z-drive propulsion. Now, as these "reverse" tractors are designed
to go into the "indirect towing" mode, they are advertising
themselves as full tractors. As with most tug designs though, all
things are never exactly the same and when we cut through the
marketing hype, we find that most current reverse tractors cannot
create indirect forces as well as true tractors. They are really a
compromise design trying to maximize the performance of a
conventional hull.
CAPTAIN GREG BROOKS, TUGS AND SHIPHANDLING (1997), quoted in Agency
Supplemental Report at 6-7. In view of this difference of professional
opinion, we have no basis to conclude that the agency was unreasonable in
its evaluation of true-tractor tugs as more advantageous than
reverse-tractor tugs. The protester?s contrary view simply constitutes
disagreement with the judgment of the evaluators, which does not render the
evaluation unreasonable. Medland Controls, Inc., supra.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
Notes
1. Bollard pull is the measure, in pounds, of the strength of the tug?s
pulling ability.
2. A "reverse tractor-like" tug such as those proposed by Thames has an
adjustable propulsion system fitted at the aft end of the tug. A
"true-tractor" tug such as those proposed by Alpha has an adjustable
propulsion system fitted at the forward end of the tug. Agency Report at 4
nn. 5-6.
3. Thames?s existing tug was to be delivered within 30 days of the (May 28,
1999) contract award and Alpha?s existing tug was to be delivered by August
1, 1999. Thames?s new-build tug was to be delivered by February 11, 2000.
Agency Report, Tab 18, Business Clearance Memorandum, Apr. 20, 1999, at 5.
4. While both offerors proposed two tugs, all of which were evaluated by the
agency, the protester challenges only the evaluation of the Alpha tug
selected for award. Thus, our discussion of the evaluation will concern only
Alpha?s existing C-Tractor 6 tug and Thames?s new-build tug.
5. Tug particulars included specific information on ownership, dimensions of
the tug, propulsion including SHP, transit speed, fuel consumption and
capacity, and equipment.
6. Thames also makes the argument that the RFP?s statement of minimum
technical requirements constitute definitive responsibility criteria and,
because the awardee did not furnish "objective evidence" reflecting the
minimum requirements, the agency should not have evaluated Alpha?s tug as
"excellent." This argument is misplaced. A definitive responsibility
criterion is a specific objective standard that has been established by a
procuring agency in a solicitation to measure an offeror's ability to
perform--such as a requirement for 5 years of specific experience--with
which an offeror must be found to comply as a precondition to receiving
award. Clamshell Bldgs., Inc., B-250520, Dec. 11, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 408 at 2.
Specifications of minimum technical requirements do not establish standards
relating to an offeror's ability to perform the contract; rather, they
describe the item offerors are to furnish if they are awarded the contract.
Here, the minimum technical requirements are specification requirements, not
definitive responsibility criteria. Id.
7. Thames also questions the validity of the evaluation based on the
agency?s use of language from Alpha?s proposal in its source selection
documentation to support the selection decision. The contracting officer
states that he included the language because he "thought the rationale
provided by Alpha . . . was well written and seemed to encompass most of the
evaluators? individual comments." Declaration of Contracting Officer, Aug.
4, 1999, para. 10. Based on our review of Alpha?s proposal, the source selection
and evaluation documents, we see nothing improper in the agency?s action.