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.