Transatlantic Lines, LLC v. United States

• Decision Date: 10 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 15-689C,15-689C
• Parties: TRANSATLANTIC LINES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

TRANSATLANTIC LINES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 15-689C

United States Court of Federal Claims

August 10, 2015¹

Post-Award Bid Protest; Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record; Technical Proposal Evaluation

Brian S. Gocial, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Alexander V. Sverdlov, Trial Attorney, with whom were Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Douglas K. Mickle, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

OPINION and ORDER

CAMPBELL-SMITH, Chief Judge

This case involves a post-award bid protest filed by TransAtlantic Lines, LLC (TransAtlantic or plaintiff). TransAtlantic challenges the decision of the United States Transportation Command² (TRANSCOM, the agency, or defendant) to award a contract

Page 2

for commercial liner service to Schuyler Line Navigation Company, LLC (Schuyler). TransAtlantic contends that Schuyler's technical proposal failed to comply with certain material terms of the Solicitation and, therefore, Schuyler's proposal should have been excluded from consideration for award. Because TransAtlantic was the only other offeror, and because TransAtlantic's proposal complied with the terms of the Solicitation, TransAtlantic argues that it should have been awarded the contract.

The parties submitted cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record (AR) in accordance with United States Court of Federal Claims Rule (RCFC) 52.1(c).³ See Pl.'s Mot. J. AR (Pl.'s Mot.), July 1, 2015, ECF No. 9⁴; Def.'s Mot. J. AR (Def.'s Mot.), July 9, 2015, ECF No. 23; see also Pl.'s Resp., July 14, 2015, ECF No. 26; Def.'s Reply, July 21, 2015, ECF No. 28. Oral argument was not deemed necessary.

For the reasons explained below, the court finds that Schuyler's technical proposal complied with the material terms of the Solicitation. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is DENIED, and defendant's motion is GRANTED.

I. Background

A. Solicitation

On September 10, 2014, TRANSCOM issued Solicitation HTC711-14-R-W001. See Tab 15, AR 131-289 (Solicitation).⁵ The Solicitation sought "regularly scheduled commercial liner service" of containerized and breakbulk cargo between Jacksonville/Blount Island, Florida and United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO). Id. at AR 182; see id. at AR 221 (defining "[r]egularly [s]cheduled" as

Page 3

"[s]ailing at regular intervals maintained between the same port ranges and consisting of regular arrivals, regular departures along an established route"). The Solicitation was designated as a small business set-aside, id. at AR 131, and contemplated the award of a firm-fixed price requirements contract⁶ for a base year and two option years, see id. at AR 133-35, 165.

The Solicitation provided that the procurement would be conducted as a best value, lowest-priced technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection. Id. at AR 141; see FAR 15.101-2 (2014) (describing the LPTA source selection process). Offerors were instructed "to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements in the [Performance Work Statement (PWS)]." Tab 15, AR 137. Offerors were also advised that "[t]he [g]overnment reserves the right to . . . incorporate all, part or none of the offeror's written proposal into the resultant contract." Id.

Offerors were to be evaluated based on five factors: (1) Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) participation, (2) price, (3) technical capability, (4) past performance, and (5) information assurance and cyber security. Id. at AR 142. After assigning preference to offerors that were VISA participants, the agency would assign a rating of acceptable or unacceptable to the technical capability, past performance, and information assurance and cyber security factors. Id. at AR 141. The agency would then evaluate the prices of those offerors deemed acceptable. Id. An "[a]ward [would] be made to the lowest priced responsible offeror meeting or exceeding the requirements for technical capability, past performance, information assurance and VISA participation." Id.

The Solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate the technical capability factor by examining "the degree to which the information provided by the offeror in its proposal demonstrates the offeror's ability to provide the equipment and resources needed to successfully accomplish the objectives of the [PWS], as well as manage, supervise, and perform the required services in accordance with the PWS." Id. at AR 143. The technical capability factor was comprised of three sub-factors, and an

Page 4

unacceptable rating as to any of the three sub-factors would result in an overall technical rating of unacceptable. Id. An acceptable rating would be assigned if the "[p]roposal clearly [met] the minimum requirements of the solicitation," whereas an unacceptable rating would be assigned if the proposal did not "clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation." Id.

Offerors were instructed to "submit written narratives for evaluation of technical capability." Id. at AR 140. The written narratives were to "demonstrate the offeror's understanding of the requirements identified in the [PWS]," id. at AR 141, and "explain how the offeror [would] meet all requirements established in the solicitation," id. at AR 140. Offerors were to include written narratives for each of the three technical capability sub-factors: (1) equipment, (2) management of operations, and (3) schedule. Id.

Under the equipment sub-factor, offerors were instructed to "identify the vessel(s) . . . to be utilized for this contract." Id. Under the management of operations sub-factor, offerors were instructed to provide a "[c]ompany overview and description of current operations in the region or ability to operate in the region." Id. Under the schedule sub-factor offerors were instructed as follows:

[S]ubmit a proposed liner schedule that meets the departure, arrival, and transit requirements as specified in paragraph Section 3.B.4 of the PWS beginning the week of 1 February 2015. Provide the proposed southbound and northbound delivery routes to include other vessel ports of call. Describe how the delivery requirements in the PWS will be incorporated into [the] offeror's current liner schedule or whether offeror will establish a new/additional liner route.

Id. (emphasis added).

Section 3.B.4 of the PWS is entitled "Schedule Maintenance." Id. at AR 184. It includes two sub-sections that detail the schedule requirements for southbound and northbound sailings. Id. Only the northbound schedule requirements are at issue in this protest:

The Contractor shall maintain a scheduled service northbound[,] GTMO to Jacksonville/Blount Island. Frequency of such service must be, at a minimum, every 14 calendar days. Sailings shall be on a fixed-day-of-the-week basis, on a fixed day selected by the Contractor. Transit time from GTMO to Jacksonville/Blount Island is a maximum of 18 calendar days.

Page 5

Id. (emphasis added); cf. Pl.'s Resp. 3 (characterizing two of the northbound schedule requirements—that "(1) the sailings from each port had to be scheduled on a 'fixed-day-of-the week'; and [that] (2) the liner service had to depart from each port at least every 14 days"—as "central to the present action"); Pl.'s Mot. 8 (similar).

Section 3.B.4 of the PWS also required contractors to "provide and continually maintain vessel schedules in the Integrated Booking System (IBS) at least 45 calendar days in advance of the vessel sail date." Tab 15, AR 184. The PWS contemplated that schedule changes might occur. If the contractor anticipated a change in the vessel schedule, the contractor was instructed to notify the ordering officer and update the schedule in the IBS within seven calendar days prior to the next scheduled port call. Id. If the contractor anticipated a "slippage in scheduled sailing date/arrival date by more than one . . . calendar day," the contractor was to report the schedule change in writing. Id.

B. Schuyler's Technical Proposal

Schuyler's technical proposal offered two different vessels to meet the Solicitation requirements, a "[p]rimary [v]essel" and an "[a]lternative [v]essel." Tab 21, AR 460, 463, 465 (Schuyler Proposal). The primary vessel was identified as the MV EOT Spar (EOT Spar), a "twin-screw, single-hold, self-sustaining [roll-on/roll-off] Cargo vessel." Id. at AR 463. The alternative vessel was identified as the barge Columbia Houston and the tug Atlantic Coast (Columbia Houston). Id. at AR 465. Schuyler's proposal explicitly stated that the Columbia Houston would be provided "as required to ensure uninterrupted service to GTMO." Id.

At issue in this protest is the section of Schuyler's technical proposal dedicated to the schedule sub-factor. Plaintiff contends that Schuyler's proposed liner schedules do not comply with the Solicitation's northbound schedule requirements. Pl.'s Mot. 7-8.

Per the Solicitation instructions, see Tab 15, AR 140, Schuyler submitted a written narrative describing how it intended to meet the requirements of the schedule sub-factor, Tab 21, AR 485-86. The written narrative for the schedule sub-factor states in relevant part:

...