TITLE: B-299266, Solec Corporation, March 5, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299266
DATE: March 5, 2007
******************************************
B-299266, Solec Corporation, March 5, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Solec Corporation

   File: B-299266

   Date: March 5, 2007

   David A. Hearne, Esq., Outland, Gray, O'Keefe & Hubbard, for the
   protester.

   Kenneth T. Rye, Esq., and Scott Garner, Esq., Department of the Navy, for
   the agency.

   Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that awardee's proposal to perform repairs outside area where
   repair items originate is denied where solicitation did not expressly
   limit competition to offerors in any specific geographical location.

   DECISION

   Solec Corporation protests the award of a contract to Tigertek Industrial
   Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62381-06-R-1001, issued by
   the Department of the Navy for electric motor repair services. Solec
   asserts that Tigertek failed to meet a geographical restriction in the
   RFP.

   We deny the protest.

   The Military Sealift Fleet Support Command (MSFSC) operates various ships
   in support of the Navy's combatant fleet. The RFP, a small business
   set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract
   for the repair, reconditioning, and replacement of various motors and fans
   on MSFSC vessels located at government piers. Proposals were to be
   evaluated on the basis of six factors: understanding the scope of work,
   facilities, management control and quality assurance, experience, past
   performance, and price. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the
   lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal.

   Under the heading "location," the RFP provided that the contractor was
   "required to perform the work as ordered onboard" MSFSC vessels, with the
   work generally to be performed at government piers in the Tidewater,
   Virginia area, including Norfolk, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, Newport
   News, and Williamsburg. The RFP's statement of work (SOW) provided
   detailed descriptions of the different fan repair items, all of which
   began with work on the ships and included removal of the fans, repair and
   testing at the contractor's facility, and reinstallation. Some tasks had
   to be witnessed by the contracting officer's representative or port
   engineer at the contractor's repair facility.

   Solec, the incumbent contractor, and Tigertek were the only offerors to
   submit proposals. After the initial evaluation, the agency held
   discussions with and obtained revised proposals from both firms. Based on
   Tigertek's lower proposed price, the agency awarded it the contract. After
   learning of the award, Solec filed this protest.

   Solec's protest is based on the following note in the RFP's section F,
   entitled "deliveries or performance":

     NOTE: ALL WORK/REPAIRS WILL BE IN THE TIDEWATER, VA. AREA. IF WORK IS
     REQUIRED OUTSIDE THE TIDEWATER, VA AREA, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST
     AND SECURE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER PRIOR TO
     PERFORMANCE OF SUCH TRAVEL. IN ANY EVENT, APPROVED TRAVEL SHALL NOT
     EXCEED APPLICABLE RATES [SPECIFIED] BY DOD JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

   RFP at 48. In Solec's view, this RFP language required all work--both
   onboard the ships and at the contractor's repair facility--to be performed
   in the Tidewater area. Solec concludes that Tigertek, a North Carolina
   firm, cannot meet this requirement and, thus, was ineligible for the
   award. The agency maintains that there was no geographical restriction for
   off-ship repair work, and that Tigertek met the RFP's requirements.
   According to the agency, the noted language was intended to address
   potential work on ships located outside the Tidewater area.

   In order to be deemed reasonable, an interpretation of a solicitation
   provision must be consistent with the solicitation when read as a whole
   and in a reasonable manner. Burns and Roe Servs. Corp., B-251969.4, Mar.
   1, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 160 at 7. We will not read a provision
   restrictively where it is not clear from the solicitation that such a
   restrictive interpretation was intended by the agency. International Data
   Prods.; Commax Techs., Inc., B-275480.2 et al., Apr. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD
   para. 179 at 4.    

   We find no basis to conclude that the RFP restricted the competition to
   firms located in the Tidewater area. There was no provision in the RFP
   that expressly restricted the competition based on a firm's location--in
   the Tidewater area or otherwise. The only specific RFP references to
   locations were related to the ships where the repair items are installed,
   not to the contractors' repair facilities. In this regard, while under the
   heading "location" the SOW expressly required performance onboard MSFSC
   vessels at government piers in the Tidewater area, it did not similarly
   expressly require that off-ship repairs be performed in that area. In the
   same vein, while the note quoted above, on which Solec relies, stated that
   "ALL WORK/REPAIRS WILL BE IN THE TIDEWATER VA AREA," it did not expressly
   state that the contractor had to be located in the Tidewater area. On the
   other hand, there are indications that the RFP was not intended to
   establish a geographical restriction. First, the note acknowledged that
   work may be performed outside the Tidewater area with the contracting
   officer's permission.[1] In addition, the RFP required that offerors
   include all anticipated travel costs in their proposed pricing, suggesting
   that the agency contemplated that the contractor might need to travel
   between the vessels and its facility. RFP sect. H.4. Tigertek's proposal
   specifically addressed this requirement by explaining that it would cover
   all costs of travel to and from ships to perform the contract, noting that
   its free pickup and delivery area included Tidewater, VA. Proposal at 2.
   In any case, absent clear language limiting offerors' eligibility to
   compete based on their location, we will not interpret the RFP to include
   one. International Data Prods.; Commax Techs., Inc., supra. Thus, the
   agency reasonably concluded that Tigertek's proposal to perform work in
   North Carolina was technically acceptable.[2]

   Solec asserts that performance at Tigertek's facility will be more
   expensive than performance by Solec due to additional travel and personnel
   costs resulting from the need for agency personnel to travel to Tigertek's
   facility for required inspections. However, the RFP did not provide for
   evaluation of such costs; thus, they could not be considered in the award
   decision.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] It appears to us that, rather than a geographical restriction, this
   note was intended only to apprise offerors that when the agency "required"
   them to obtain repair items from outside the Tidewater area, additional
   travel had to be approved in writing and would be subject to Department of
   Defense Travel Regulations.

   [2] Solec asserts that location of a repair facility in the Tidewater area
   represented a definitive responsibility criterion that Tigertek did not
   meet. See Charter Envtl., Inc., B-297219, Dec. 5, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 213
   at 2. However, it follows from our conclusion that the RFP did not contain
   any restriction on the location of an offeror's repair facility that there
   was no definitive responsibility criterion setting forth such a
   restriction.