BNUMBER:  B-270013
DATE:  February 5, 1996
TITLE:  ANV Enterprises, Inc.

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

Matter of:ANV Enterprises, Inc.

File:     B-270013

Date:     February 5, 1996

Wayne C. Allen for the protester.
Monica Allison Ceruti, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the 
agency.
Sylvia Schatz, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that numerous specifications are inadequate to permit 
intelligent competition, and that agency has not sufficiently 
definitized the specifications in answers to protester's questions, is 
denied where agency provided all information in its possession, and 
the information generally was sufficient to permit intelligent 
competition.

2.  Agency does not have to restructure requirement in manner that 
will require agency to furnish equipment to the contractor, where cost 
comparison will be conducted to determine whether contractor or 
in-house performance is more economical; agency need not adopt hybrid 
alternative preferred by protester solely because it will reduce 
contractor risk.

DECISION

ANV Enterprises, Inc. protests alleged specification deficiencies in 
invitation for bids (IFB) No. F22600-95-B-0096 issued by the Air Force 
for purposes of a cost comparison under Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circular A-76.  The cost comparison is to determine 
whether it will be more economical to contract for grounds maintenance 
services at Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi, or to continue the 
services in-house.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, which contemplates award of fixed-price contract for 
a base year with 4 option years, requires the contractor to supply all 
labor, equipment, tools, materials, transportation, supervision, and 
other items and services necessary for grounds maintenance.  The 
appendix to the IFB contains a performance work statement, which 
includes detailed specifications with regard to all the items and 
services to be provided under the contract.

The Air Force held a pre-bid opening conference with all potential 
offerors during which ANV submitted a list of 77 questions with regard 
to numerous specifications it believed were ambiguous.  The Air Force 
responded to these questions in a letter to all prospective bidders.  
The Air Force subsequently issued three amendments, two of which 
further responded to ANV's questions.  In addition, the IFB provides 
for a site visit.

ANV generally maintains that, even as amended, the IFB contains 
numerous ambiguous specifications.  ANV believes the agency did not 
adequately resolve most of the 77 questions on its list, and that the 
result is the imposition of undue risk on bidders and a competitive 
advantage for the agency in the cost comparison.

While a procuring agency must provide prospective bidders with 
information sufficient to enable bidders to compete intelligently and 
on a relatively equal basis, Cobra Technologies, Inc., B-254890, Jan. 
24, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  35, an IFB need not be so detailed as to 
eliminate all performance uncertainties and risks.  RMS Indus., 
B-248678, Aug. 14, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  109.  Some risk is inherent in 
most types of contracts, and offerors are expected, when computing 
their prices, to account for such risks and exercise business judgment 
in preparing their bids.  Service Technicians, Inc., B-249329.2, Nov. 
12, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  342.

The IFB, along with the information furnished by the agency, 
adequately describes the work requirements.  We discuss three examples 
below.

Paragraph 5.1.1.1.8 of the specifications requires bidders to test 
soil for the proper fertilizer requirements, and to furnish and apply 
fertilizer.  ANV asked whether the fertilizer is cost reimbursable, 
and requested that the Air Force provide information on the types and 
quantities of fertilizer used historically.  The agency responded 
initially that the fertilizer was cost reimbursable and, subsequently, 
that the "types and approximate quantity used for a 12 month period 
are:   8-8-8 (1,000 bags), 3-13-13 (200 bags), 20-10-15 (520 bags), 
29-3-5 (20 bags), osmocote (10 bags), ferti-lime (40 bags)," and 
explained that these "types and quantities were not based on soil 
samples and were not restricted to the areas in the solicitation."  We 
see nothing inadequate in the information provided; the numbers are 
not precise, but they clearly are sufficient to give bidders an idea 
of the amounts used in the past.  Although the protester desires more 
specific numbers, the agency states it has provided all information it 
possesses, and there is no indication that more specific information 
exists.  There is no requirement that agencies obtain historical 
information for inclusion in an IFB.  See Paige's Sec. Servs., Inc., 
B-235254, Aug. 9, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  118.  More generally, where a 
solicitation for services provides information on the area to be 
maintained and bidders are advised to complete a site visit, as here, 
specifications are not inadequate just because they do not specify 
exact quantities.  Ronald E. Borello, B-232609, Jan. 11, 1989, 89-1 
CPD  para.  28.  We conclude that the information the agency furnished, 
along with the site visit, was adequate.

Paragraph 5.1.1.1.1 of the specifications concerns maintenance of 
improved grounds, and paragraph 5.1.1.1.4, maintenance of enhanced 
grounds.  ANV asked the agency whether grass clippings from these 
grounds were to be bagged or mulched on each mowing.  The agency 
responded that "[a]s stated in Paragraph 5.1.1.1.1, 'after mowing 
remove or mulch into the grass the clippings that remain on top of the 
mowed grass.'  This applies to Paragraph 5.1.1.1.4 and will be added 
to that paragraph."  ANV notated this response (on a list of the 77 
questions included with its protest) as "N/R," for not responsive (ANV 
annotated each of the agency's responses either "N/R" or "OK").  
However, we think the agency's answer was clear--mulching or removal 
is required after each mowing on the improved and enhanced grounds.  
ANV does not explain in its protest why the answer was not 
adequate.[1]

Paragraph 3.1.2.2 requires replacement of government furnished 
equipment (GFE) at no cost to the government.  ANV asked the agency to 
clarify the requirement and "explain the basis for determining when 
replacement is required and who will own the replacement items."  The 
agency initially responded that replacement was required "when the 
equipment becomes useless or is not economically feasible for repair.  
The government will own the replacement items."  Subsequently, 
however, the agency stated that the contractor would retain ownership.  
ANV maintains that this change did not resolve the problem, since it 
still had an insufficient basis for determining how much equipment 
replacement would be required.  However, the IFB also includes a GFE 
listing that states the age of each piece of equipment.  We think this 
information alone was sufficient to provide bidders with a means of 
estimating, in their business judgment, how much equipment would have 
to be purchased under the contract, and together with the fact that 
the contractor would keep any equipment purchased (so that the 
contractor would retain any excess useful life of equipment 
purchased), adequately minimized the risk imposed on bidders.  

ANV suggests that the IFB be revised to require the government to 
purchase new equipment and retain ownership.  However, there simply is 
no requirement that the government participate in the contract in this 
manner.  The agency has identified the acceptable alternative 
performance approaches--in-house or by contract--and is not required 
instead to remain involved in performance of the requirement under the 
hybrid approach preferred by ANV, solely to minimize the contractor's 
risk.  Again, we see no reason why the information provided is not 
adequate to permit bidders to develop a reasonable estimate of the 
amount of equipment to be purchased, based on the average useful life 
of the GFE in question.

We have recognized that grounds maintenance services, by their nature, 
often require computing prices based on visual inspections and that 
the presence of some risk does not render a solicitation improper.  
Harris Sys. Int'l, Inc., B-224230, Jan. 9, 1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  41.  We do 
not consider these specifications to be so uncertain as to impose an 
unreasonable risk on bidders when exercising business judgment in 
preparing their bids, nor has ANV shown that the agency will have an 
undue advantage in the cost comparison. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. In its comments on the agency report, ANV for the first time states 
the specific reasons it believes certain specifications are ambiguous.  
Where a protester, in its initial protest submission, argues in 
general terms that a procurement was deficient, and then, in its 
comments on the agency report, for the first time makes out a detailed 
argument specifying the alleged procurement deficiencies, the detailed 
arguments will not be considered unless they independently satisfy the 
timeliness requirements under our Regulations.  TAAS-Israel Indus., 
Inc., B-251789.3, Jan. 14, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  197.  ANV's comments were 
not received prior to bid opening; thus, its specific arguments 
concerning the adequacy of the specifications are untimely and will 
not be considered.  Bid Protest Regulations, section 21.2(a)(1), 60 
Fed. Reg. 40,740 (Aug. 10, 1995) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.2(a)(1)).