B-204684, OCT 9, 1981
Highlights
DIGEST: A REQUIREMENT THAT AN OFFERED WORKBOAT HAVE A PROVEN RECORD OF SERVICE WITHOUT RESTRICTION AS TO TYPE OF SERVICE IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. THE REQUIREMENT FOR A "PROVEN RECORD OF SERVICE" IS AMBIGUOUS SINCE THE LOG BRONC IS USED PRIMARILY WITH LOGS - NOT VESSELS. OF THE LOG BRONC AND HAVE A PROVEN SERVICE RECORD. OLYMPIC APPEARS TO BE READING SOMETHING INTO THE SOLICITATION THAT IS NOT THERE. AN AMBIGUITY EXISTS ONLY IF A REQUIREMENT IS SUBJECT TO MORE THAN ONE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION. THE PROTEST IS DENIED. BECAUSE OLYMPIC'S INITIAL SUBMISSION TO OUR OFFICE ESTABLISHES THAT THE PROTEST IS WITHOUT MERIT. WE HAVE DECIDED THIS MATTER WITHOUT RECEIVING A REPORT FROM THE NAVY.
B-204684, OCT 9, 1981
DIGEST: A REQUIREMENT THAT AN OFFERED WORKBOAT HAVE A PROVEN RECORD OF SERVICE WITHOUT RESTRICTION AS TO TYPE OF SERVICE IS NOT AMBIGUOUS.
OLYMPIC PREFABRICATORS, INC.:
OLYMPIC PREFABRICATORS, INC. (OLYMPIC), HAS FILED A PROTEST WITH OUR OFFICE AGAINST A PROCUREMENT BEING CONDUCTED UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) N00406-81-R-0054 BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF WORKBOATS. WE FIND THE PROTEST TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.
THE RFP DESCRIBES THE WORKBOATS AS "LOG BRONC" MODEL 2210 OR EQUAL, WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS, TO BE USED AS SMALL TUGBOATS FOR MOVING FLOATING CRAFT AND EQUIPMENT. THE RFP PROVIDES THAT ANY CRAFT OFFERED AS AN EQUAL TO THE LOG BRONC MUST BE EQUAL IN ALL SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS, INCLUDING A "PROVEN RECORD OF SERVICE."
OLYMPIC CONTENDS THAT, BECAUSE THE RFP CALLS FOR THE LOG BRONC OR EQUAL, THE REQUIREMENT FOR A "PROVEN RECORD OF SERVICE" IS AMBIGUOUS SINCE THE LOG BRONC IS USED PRIMARILY WITH LOGS - NOT VESSELS. THE NAVY, IN REJECTING OLYMPIC'S EARLIER OBJECTIONS EXPRESSED TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, FOUND NO AMBIGUITY IN THIS REQUIREMENT. NEITHER DO WE.
THE PROVISION TO WHICH OLYMPIC OBJECTS REQUIRES ONLY THAT THE OFFERED VESSEL MEET THE DESCRIBED SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS (MANEUVERABILITY, OPERATOR VISABILITY, ETC.) OF THE LOG BRONC AND HAVE A PROVEN SERVICE RECORD. WE FIND NOTHING WHICH REQUIRES THAT THIS SERVICE BE IN SOME SPECIFIC ENDEAVOR. OLYMPIC APPEARS TO BE READING SOMETHING INTO THE SOLICITATION THAT IS NOT THERE.
AN AMBIGUITY EXISTS ONLY IF A REQUIREMENT IS SUBJECT TO MORE THAN ONE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION. PITNEY BOWES, INC., B-200288, MARCH 5, 1981, 81-1 CPD 171; TELECTRO-MEK, INC., B-190653, APRIL 13, 1979, 79-1 CPD 263. WE FIND THE MEANING OF THIS PROVISION TO BE BOTH CLEAR AND REASONABLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO ONLY ONE INTERPRETATION.
THE PROTEST IS DENIED. BECAUSE OLYMPIC'S INITIAL SUBMISSION TO OUR OFFICE ESTABLISHES THAT THE PROTEST IS WITHOUT MERIT, WE HAVE DECIDED THIS MATTER WITHOUT RECEIVING A REPORT FROM THE NAVY. DEVOE & RAYNOLDS COMPANY, B-197457, FEBRUARY 7, 1980, 80-1 CPD 111.