TITLE:  Ocean Technical Services, Inc., B-284745, May 22, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-284745
DATE:  May 22, 2000
**********************************************************************
Ocean Technical Services, Inc., B-284745, May 22, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Ocean Technical Services, Inc.

File: B-284745

Date: May 22, 2000

Esteban Fernandez for the protester.

Richard Wilkinson for American Shipyard, an intervenor.

Richard V. Gonzales, Esq., United States Coast Guard, for the agency.

Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

In procurement for vessel repairs, agency reasonably excluded
mission-related mileage from distance factor added to bids for evaluation
purposes (to reflect the agency's cost of navigating the vessel to each
bidder's shipyard) and instead calculated distance based on the shortest
route consistent with the vessel's physical capabilities.

DECISION

Ocean Technical Services, Inc. (Otech) protests the proposed award of a
contract to American Shipyard under invitation for bids (IFB) No.
DTCG80-00-B-3FC159, issued by the Department of Transportation, United
States Coast Guard (USCG), for the drydock and repair of USCG cutter Attu.

We deny the protest.

The IFB contemplated award of a fixed-price contract, to be performed at the
contractor's shipyard. IFB sect.sect. F.1(b), L.5. Award was to be made to the low
responsive, responsible bidder. IFB sect. M.2(a). The low bid was to be
determined by adding to the bids five foreseeable cost factors to be
incurred by the USCG as a result of having the work performed at the
contractor's shipyard, rather than the home pier; these factors would vary
depending on the location of the contractor's shipyard. IFB sect.sect.  M.1(b), M.3.
The protest concerns the calculation of one of these foreseeable cost
factors, the distance factor--$16.90 per nautical mile--which reflected the
cost of navigating the vessel from its home pier to the contractor's

shipyard and back. IFB sect. M.3. The IFB also provided for a 10-percent
evaluation factor to be applied to bids other than those of small
disadvantaged businesses (SDB). IFB sect.sect. M.1(b), I.3(b).

Four bids were received by the January 7, 2000 bid opening. American's bid
as submitted was low at $284,600, and Otech's was the highest at $332,784.
To calculate the distance factor for all bidders, the agency applied its
Internal Standard Operating Procedure (IntSOP) 042.14, Foreseeable Cost
Evaluation Procedures, Agency Report, tab 21, which provides:

The determination of transit mileage shall be based on the shortest route
consistent with the vessel's physical capabilities. Factors to consider for
safe navigation include: the cutter size, the cutter's stability and sea
keeping capabilities, and the cutter's maximum range based on required fuel
reserves during hurricane season/typhoon season or other seasonable weather
patterns which affect operating instructions. All cutters greater than 110'
in length with the exception of the 175' WLMs, 160' WLICs and CGC COURSEN,
are considered capable of unrestricted open ocean transits; i.e., transiting
a route greater than 100 miles offshore.

IntSOP 042.14, para 8. The provision goes on to state that the above method
for calculating mileage should be used "even if the cutter plans to deviate
from the route used to evaluate foreseeable costs." Id.

Since the Attu was a cutter not greater than 110 feet in length, the agency
determined that the proper route for evaluation purposes was the shortest
route possible while maintaining the vessel within 100 miles offshore. The
contemplated performance period was not during hurricane season, so fuel
reserve requirements were not applied. Contracting officials charted a route
from San Juan, Puerto Rico, the Attu's home pier, to Jacksonville, Florida,
and then up the coast, making two more intermittent ports, to American's
shipyard at Newport, Rhode Island, for a total of 2,038 nautical miles (nm),
or 4,076 nm round trip. [1] After the five foreseeable cost factors were
calculated and added to all bids, the 10-percent SDB evaluation factor was
added to the three bids other than Otech's (since Otech was the only SDB
bidder). American's bid remained low at $399,228.29, while Otech's became
second low at $401,936.01.

Otech argues that the distance factor added to American's bid is too low
because it was calculated based on a route shorter than the one that the
Attu will actually follow. In this regard, Otech maintains that the Attu
will not actually sail from San Juan directly to Jacksonville, because there
is a standing mission requirement for 110-foot cutters transiting north from
San Juan to use the Old Bahamas Channel and the Santaren or Nicolas Channel,
in order to maximize patrolling time in those channels, where there is a
high level of drug and migrant activity. E-mail Message from LTJG James
Brown to LCDR Todd Seaman, May 21, 1998. [2] To meet that requirement, as
well as maintain the vessel within 100 miles offshore, Otech maintains, the
proper course to American's shipyard is from San Juan to Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, on to Miami, Florida, and then up the U.S. east coast to Newport. This
route--measuring 2,219 nm, or 4,438 nm round trip--would increase the
distance factor added to American's bid such that its total evaluated bid
would increase to $405,957.87, leaving Otech's evaluated bid low by
$4,021.87.

We find nothing objectionable in the agency's approach to calculating the
distance to American's shipyard. As indicated, the only purpose of adding
cost factors to the bids was to ensure that the evaluated bid prices fully
reflected the agency's total costs associated with performance of the
contract. Although the record indicates that the Attu likely would follow
the longer route charted by Otech in sailing to American's shipyard,
Affidavit of John W. Yager, Apr. 14, 2000, the additional distance is
attributable solely to the agency's decision to satisfy mission requirements
when a vessel travels to certain commercial shipyards for repairs; the
additional distance has nothing to do with the performance of the vessel
repair contract. This being the case, there is nothing unreasonable in the
agency's excluding the additional mileage from its distance calculations, on
the basis that mileage that has nothing to do with performance of the vessel
repair contract should not affect the price evaluation.

Otech maintains that, in determining its bid price, it relied on its
understanding that distance cost factors would be calculated based on the
actual route the Attu would take to each shipyard, and cites our decision in
Sample's Shipyard, supra, in support of that understanding. This assertion
is not supported by the record, which contains a February 7, 2000 letter
from Otech to the contract specialist, Agency Report,
Tab 13 at 6, in which Otech maintains that the proper route for calculating
the distance to American's shipyard is from San Juan to Savannah, Georgia,
and then up the U.S. east coast to Newport, for a total of 1,989 nm. This
route would not encompass the mission requirement through the Old Bahamas
Channel and, in fact, is shorter than the route used by the USCG. Only in
later submissions to contracting officials did Otech argue that the route to
American's shipyard should include the mission requirement to Guantanamo Bay
and through the Old Bahamas Channel to Miami, Florida. Since bids were
submitted prior to February 7, we think it is clear that Otech did not rely
on inclusion of the mission requirement in the distance cost factors. [3]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. This is the USCG's final position regarding the appropriate distance to
American's shipyard; both Otech and the agency changed their calculations
and positions several times during the course of the protest. A dispute over
the calculation of the distance to Otech's shipyard also was resolved during
the course of the protest.

2. Otech's knowledge of this mission requirement was apparently obtained
from the cited e-mail message, which was part of the protest record in our
decision, Sample's Shipyard, B-280452, Oct. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 83, in which
Otech participated as an intervenor.

3. Moreover, Otech misstates our holding in Sample's. We held there only
that it was reasonable for the USCG to calculate the distance cost factor by
using a route the agency considered necessary to maintain the safety of the
vessel and crew. We did not address the issue of whether mission requirement
mileage should be included in the distance cost factor calculations.