BNUMBER:  B-261856.3
DATE:  October 31, 1996
TITLE:  Hewitt, Olson Capital Recovery Group, Inc.--Reconsideration

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Hewitt, Olson Capital Recovery Group, Inc.--Reconsideration

File:     B-261856.3

Date:October 31, 1996

Richard D. Duvall, Esq., and Bruce E. Kasold, Esq., Holland & Knight, 
for the protester.
Michael J. Farley, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
for the agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. 
Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the 
preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Decision denying protest that awardee's bid for broker services was 
unbalanced is affirmed since although protester challenges conclusion 
of original decision that awardee's bid did not include an understated 
broker fee, regardless of whether the broker fee was understated bid 
still was not unbalanced because it did not include an overstated 
price for other work.

DECISION

Hewitt, Olson Capital Recovery Group, Inc. requests that we reconsider 
our decision Hewitt, Olson Capital Recovery Group, Inc., B-261856, 
Nov. 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  210, in which we denied its protest that the 
bid of Palm Beach Realty Services, Inc. for exclusive listing broker 
services and related services should not have been accepted for award.  
Hewitt, Olson contends that our decision contains errors of fact and 
law which require its reversal.

We affirm our decision.

In our prior decision, we rejected Hewitt, Olson's contention that 
Palm Beach's bid should have been rejected because Palm Beach 
submitted multiple bids.  We also found to be untimely the protester's 
challenge to the evaluation scheme in the solicitation.  Finally, we 
concluded that Palm Beach's bid was not unbalanced since it did not 
contain understated or overstated prices.  In this respect, although 
Hewitt, Olson argued that Palm Beach's broker fee was understated, we 
concluded otherwise because the fee was approximately the same as 
Hewitt, Olson's fee, which presumably was reasonable and not 
understated.  

Hewitt, Olson first contends that we mistakenly concluded that Palm 
Beach's broker fee of 2.9 percent was not understated since Hewitt, 
Olson's fee was only 3.289 percent--only slightly higher--and Hewitt, 
Olson did not state that its own fee was understated.  Hewitt, Olson 
now explains that its own broker fee in fact was understated which, 
according to Hewitt, Olson supports its contention that Palm Beach's 
broker fee was understated.  The firm also argues that the awardee's 
lawn maintenance price was overstated, resulting in an unbalanced bid.   

Regardless of whether Palm Beach's bid included an understated broker 
fee, we are unconvinced, as we were when we issued the original 
decision, that Palm Beach's lawn maintenance price was overstated.

The agency determined that Palm Beach's price of $110 per month, per 
property, for lawn service was not unreasonable.  Although the agency 
initially estimated the cost of the lawn service work to be $53, after 
bid opening the agency reviewed its estimate and concluded that the 
cost of this work would be higher.  The agency based its revised 
estimate on a wage of $6.35 per hour (using the applicable Department 
of Labor wage determination) and an estimate of 8 hours per property, 
per month, to derive a base labor cost of $50.80 per month.  The 
agency then added overhead of 25 percent and profit of 10 percent, 
which resulted in a monthly cost of approximately $70 per property.  
According to the agency, its estimate includes the cost of an initial 
cleanup of each property, which agency officials believe will take an 
average of 5 hours, or $75.[1]

The agency reports that its estimate includes no costs for equipment 
or landfill charges and the overhead and profit estimates are 
conservative.  In addition, the agency notes that these calculations 
assume the contractor would be able to locate workers willing to work 
for the specified minimum wage and argues that the estimate of 8 hours 
per month also is conservative, considering the sub-tropical weather 
in south Florida and the resulting rapid plant growth.  

In addition to its calculations, the agency reports that it contacted 
lawn maintenance firms and that three gave estimates of $90, $100, and 
$100 per month for similar services.  As a result of the agency's 
calculations and its survey, the agency estimated the monthly cost of 
lawn maintenance, including an initial cleanup, would be approximately 
$117 per month, per property.

Hewitt, Olson disputes the agency's analysis, arguing for instance 
that approximately 2 hours, not 8 hours, is all it would take to 
maintain the lawns in question.  According to Hewitt, Olson, the 
contracting officer's estimate of 8 hours is based simply on his 
personal experience.  Hewitt, Olson maintains that a total of only 
$18.58, including 25 percent overhead and 10 percent profit, is a 
reasonable estimate of the monthly cost of lawn care for each property 
covered by this contract.  Hewitt, Olson therefore contends that Palm 
Beach's bid of $110 for lawn maintenance was grossly overstated.  

We have no basis to reject the agency's view that Palm Beach's bid of 
$110 was not overstated.  The agency's revised estimate of $117 is 
not, as Hewitt, Olson contends, based simply on the personal 
experience of the contracting officer.  Rather, that estimate included 
consideration of estimates of $90, $100, and $100 per month for 
similar services, not including the cost of the initial cleanup of the 
properties, from lawn maintenance firms contacted by the agency.  In 
addition, the bids submitted under the solicitation included prices of 
$80, $65, $89.50, $85, $87, and $75 for lawn maintenance, all 
significantly higher than Hewitt, Olson's $18.58 estimate.  While Palm 
Beach's price of $110 was higher than the other prices submitted for 
lawn maintenance, we do not believe Hewitt, Olson has shown that price 
to be overstated and, under the circumstances, we conclude the 
awardee's bid was not mathematically unbalanced.  Accordingly, as we 
concluded in the original decision, the award to Palm Beach was 
unobjectionable.

Hewitt, Olson also argues that in deciding its protest we failed to 
recognize that the government would save $128,000 through award to 
Hewitt, Olson, as opposed to Palm Beach.  Hewitt, Olson had 
erroneously calculated the yearly savings to be only $3,000 in 
September 12, 1995, protest comments, but corrected the record the 
next day to argue that the savings in fact would be much higher; 
Hewitt, Olson points out that our decision mentions the initial figure 
instead of the revised one.  The alleged estimated savings, however, 
flowed from the protester's contention that Palm Beach's bid included 
an understated broker fee as well as grossly overstated prices for 
lawn care, and thus was materially unbalanced.  Since we have rejected 
Hewitt, Olson's argument with respect to the lawn maintenance prices, 
and we thus do not agree that Palm Beach's bid--low under the 
solicitation's evaluation scheme-- was even mathematically unbalanced, 
Hewitt, Olson's point provides no basis to reconsider our decision.[2]  
See Hampton Rds. Leasing, Inc., B-250645.2, Feb. 1, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  
486. 

Finally, Hewitt, Olson argues, as it did in its protest, that Palm 
Beach obtained an improper advantage over other bidders by submitting 
multiple bids.  The protester is merely reiterating an allegation from 
the protest.  Since we addressed this contention in our decision, it 
does not present a valid basis for reconsideration.  Docusort, 
Inc.--Recon., B-254852.3, July 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  25. 

The decision is affirmed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. A submission from Palm Beach, the awardee, explains the need for 
the initial cleanup.  As Palm Beach states:

            "Unfortunately, repossessed homes become the community 
            dump in many neighborhoods.  Almost without exception, our 
            lawn maintenance contractors must pick up bottles, 
            newspapers, garbage and other debris before they can mow, 
            edge and trim."

2. Although we concluded that the protest untimely challenged the 
evaluation scheme upon which the award was based, Hewitt, Olson now 
contends that the impropriety of the scheme was not apparent until the 
awardee's bidding method disclosed the scheme could result in an award 
to other than the lowest cost bidder.  Hewitt, Olson also argues that 
we should consider this issue even if it is untimely.  Both of Hewitt, 
Olson's arguments for considering the propriety of the solicitation 
evaluation scheme are based on its view that the evaluation scheme 
improperly allowed unbalanced bids and award to other than the low 
cost offeror--as evidenced by Palm Beach's bid.  The short answer is 
that since, as we have explained above, we do not agree that Palm 
Beach's bid was unbalanced, we see no reason to  review the 
solicitation further.