We find nothing objectionable in the agency's approach to calculating the distance to American's shipyard. As indicated, the only purpose of adding cost factors to the bids was to ensure that the evaluated bid prices fully reflected the agency's total costs associated with performance of the contract. Although the record indicates that the Attu likely would follow the longer route charted by Otech in sailing to American's shipyard, Affidavit of John W. Yager, Apr. 14, 2000, the additional distance is attributable solely to the agency's decision to satisfy mission requirements when a vessel travels to certain commercial shipyards for repairs; the additional distance has nothing to do with the performance of the vessel repair contract. This being the case, there is nothing unreasonable in the agency's excluding the additional mileage from its distance calculations, on the basis that mileage that has nothing to do with performance of the vessel repair contract should not affect the price evaluation.  (Ocean Technical Services, Inc., B-284745, May 22, 2000)

However, when a solicitation lacks accurate foreseeable costs, the agency cannot determine whether award to one firm versus another will result in a lower cost to the government. See Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., B-279073, May 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 127 at 3 (protest sustained where solicitation for drugs did not state accurate dosage estimates); Beldon Roofing & Remodeling Co., B-277651, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 131 at 7 (protest sustained where solicitation for roofing work lacked accurate quantity estimates).  (Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation, B-281383, February 1, 1999)