TITLE: B-297207, Marine Industries NW, December 2, 2005
BNUMBER: B-297207
DATE: December 2, 2005
************************************************
B-297207, Marine Industries NW, December 2, 2005

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
   The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
   Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

   Decision

   Matter of: Marine Industries NW

   File: B-297207

   Date: December 2, 2005

   Carolyn A. Lake, Esq., Goodstein Law Group PLLC, for the protester.

   Craig D. Haughtelin, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

   Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office
   of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the
   decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency reasonably determined that protester's proposal failed to comply
   with a solicitation requirement for a brief description of offeror's
   quality assurance plan for certifying completed work where protester
   submitted brief description of plan that it was in the process of
   implementing, but failed to represent that the plan would be in place by
   the time of contract award or describe any plan that it would be
   replacing.

   DECISION

   Marine Industries NW protests the rejection of its proposal and the award
   of contracts to three other offerors under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   N00406-05-R-5037, issued by the Department of the Navy, Fleet and
   Industrial Supply Center, Puget Sound, for repair services for Navy
   vessels. The protester contends that the agency erroneously determined its
   proposal to be technically unacceptable and the proposals of the other
   three offerors to be technically acceptable.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, which was issued on March 17, 2005, contemplated the award of up
   to four fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts,
   with the awardees then to compete for individual task orders. The
   solicitation provided for award to the offerors whose technically
   acceptable proposals represented the best value to the government, past
   performance and price considered. To be determined technically acceptable,
   offerors had to state that they could meet or exceed the specifications in
   the solicitation and any subsequent amendments; demonstrate that they had
   adequate docking facilities and services, located within the distance
   limits of Naval Base Kitsap--Bremerton Annex, as set forth elsewhere in
   the solicitation; and submit a brief description of their company quality
   assurance (QA) plan for certifying completed work. RFP at 73.

   Seven proposals were received by the April 18 closing date. The evaluators
   determined the protester's proposal to be technically unacceptable because
   it did not include the required information regarding the protester's QA
   plan. In this connection, the evaluators explained as follows:

   [Marine Industries] stated that they are in the process of implementing a
   Quality Assurance Plan. The solicitation stated that the offeror shall
   submit a brief description of the type of their Quality Assurance Program
   and their process for ensuring proper certification of work/inspection.
   [Marine Industries'] statement that they are in the process of
   implementing a Quality Assurance Plan does not meet the requirements of
   the solicitation in that the process of implementation is a long process
   that could take years prior to fully putting the Quality Assurance Plan
   into operation. [Marine Industries'] statement doesn't indicate where they
   are in that process, what type of Quality Assurance process they would
   employ and whether any process will be in effect at the time of award. To
   ascertain this information would require the Contracting Officer go into
   discussions. Since the government has the option to award without
   discussion and there are three qualified offerors that are fully capable
   of meeting the requirements of the solicitation, the Contracting Officer
   does not feel that going into discussions is in the best interest of the
   Government. Given that [Marine Industries] does not meet all of the
   requirements of the solicitation they were determined to be technically
   unacceptable by the technical review board.

   Business Clearance Memorandum at 5. The evaluators determined five of the
   remaining six proposals to be technically acceptable and selected three of
   the five for award. On July 8, the agency awarded contracts to Pacific
   Ship Repair and Fabrication, Inc., Puglia Engineering Inc., and Propulsion
   Controls Engineering. The protester was debriefed on July 20 and filed an
   agency-level protest on July 25. The Navy denied the protest on September
   2, and Marine Industries protested to our Office on September 9.

   First, the protester takes issue with the evaluators' determination that
   its proposal was technically unacceptable for failing to include a
   description of the company's QA plan. Marine Industries notes that its
   proposal responded to the solicitation requirement for a brief description
   of its QA plan by stating as follows: "Marine Industries is in the process
   of implementing a quality management system based on the ISO
   [International Standards Organization] 9001-2000." The protester contends
   that since the ISO updates its standards periodically and 9001-2000 is a
   current standard, the evaluators should have understood that it was
   upgrading an existing QA plan.

   We disagree. Nothing in Marine Industries' proposal establishes that a
   company can implement a QA system based on ISO 9001-2000 only as an
   upgrade to an existing QA system. Further, Marine Industries has provided
   no evidence that implementation of a plan based on ISO 9001-2000
   necessarily implies the existence of a precursor plan, such that the
   agency should have evaluated the proposal based on such an assumption.
   Accordingly, because the protester failed to represent that its new QA
   plan would be in place by the time of contract award and failed to furnish
   any description of an already implemented QA plan, we think that the
   evaluators reasonably determined that it had failed to comply with the RFP
   requirement for a description of its company QA plan for certifying
   completed work.

   The protester further argues that the past performance information that it
   submitted with its proposal furnished evidence of its adherence to quality
   standards. The protester's argument is misdirected since the issue is not
   whether Marine Industries has previously adhered to quality standards; the
   issue is whether it furnished a description of its QA plan. The fact that
   the protester has performed work at an acceptable level of quality in the
   past does not establish the existence (or the content) of a company QA
   plan.

   Next, the protester argues that the proposals of each of the awardees
   should have been determined technically unacceptable because none of the
   three offered dry dock facilities meeting the size requirements and/or
   located within the distance limits specified in the RFP.

   The RFP required that the awardees have cranes and/or dry docking
   facilities capable of hauling out or dry docking vessels up to 261' x 48'
   x 2,700 tons (displacement). The solicitation included a chart containing
   examples of the types of craft that might require servicing, the largest
   two of which were the above dimensions.

   One awardee, Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication, Inc., proposed [deleted]
   as one of its servicing facilities. Pacific Ship Repair included in its
   proposal information regarding the size of the [deleted] dry docks. As
   noted by the agency, the data clearly shows that [deleted] that meet the
   size and capacity requirements, For example, [deleted] long and [deleted]
   wide, with a capacity of [deleted] tons. Accordingly, the record does not
   support the protester's allegation that Pacific Ship Repair failed to
   propose adequate facilities.

   [Deleted] Propulsion Controls Engineering and Puglia Engineering, Inc.
   [deleted] servicing facilities. The Propulsion Controls proposal stated
   that the [deleted] was a "Full Service Shipyard capable of dry-docking all
   of the vessels listed [in the above-mentioned chart]," while the Puglia
   proposal stated that the [deleted] included [deleted] servicing vessels up
   to [deleted] in length in excess of [deleted]." We think that these
   statements were adequate to demonstrate compliance with the RFP's size
   requirements.[1]

   We also find the protester's argument that the facilities proposed by the
   awardees are not located within the distance limits specified by the RFP
   to be without merit. The solicitation defined the distance limits as
   follows:

   THE CONTRACTOR'S FACILITY WHICH WILL BE UTILIZED TO REPAIR GOVERNMENT
   ASSETS MUST BE LOCATED NO FURTHER THAN 120 ROAD MILES FROM NAVAL BASE
   KITSAP--BREMERTON ANNEX, BREMERTON WA 98314. Except for the use of the
   Bremerton to Seattle ferry, Kingston-Edmonds ferry this distance will not
   be calculated as air miles or over water miles. If the trip includes use
   of the Bremerton to Seattle ferry or Kingston to Edmonds ferry, 60 miles
   will be added to the trip calculation to account for the time and expense
   of ferry use.

   RFP at 28. While the protester has submitted calculations purporting to
   show that two of the shipyards identified by the awardees in their
   proposals are more than 120 road miles from the Bremerton Annex, the
   calculations are clearly erroneous since they include mileage for ferry
   use despite the fact that the travel routes do not require ferry
   transport.[2]

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] We recognize that Puglia's proposal did not specifically address the
   width requirement, but we think that the evaluators could reasonably have
   concluded that a dry dock capable of accommodating a [deleted] ton vessel
   would be capable of accommodating a vessel 48 feet wide.

   [2] Since Bremerton is located across Puget Sound from Seattle, one can
   travel between Bremerton and Seattle (where the shipyards in question are
   located) by driving around the southern edge of Puget Sound or by taking
   the ferry across Puget Sound. As noted above, the RFP provided that in the
   event that the trip included use of the ferry, 60 miles would be added to
   the trip calculation to account for the time and expense of ferry use. The
   protester has calculated the travel distances by adding 60 miles to the
   around-the-sound driving distances.