BNUMBER:  B-270228.3
DATE:  April 3, 1996
TITLE:  Occu-Health, Inc.

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Occu-Health, Inc.

File:     B-270228.3

Date:April 3, 1996

Craig A. Holman, Esq., Dorn C. McGrath, Esq., and Richard L. 
Moorhouse, Esq., Holland & Knight, for the protester.
Brian A. Bannon, Esq., and Margaret A. Dillenburg, Esq., Dyer Ellis & 
Joseph, for EHG National Health Services, Inc., an intervenor.
Jerome C. Brennan, Esq., and Robert Sebold, Esq., Department of 
Defense, for the agency.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

The procuring agency improperly failed to notify offerors that it no 
longer intended to exercise or evaluate the solicitation's options 
where it knew this fact prior to the receipt of best and final offers. 

DECISION

Occu-Health, Inc. protests the award of a contract to EHG National 
Health Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
S2202A-95-R-0001, issued by the Defense Contract Management Command, 
Northeast District, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for occupational 
health and industrial hygiene services.

We sustain the protest.

The RFP, issued April 25, 1995, sought occupational health and 
industrial hygiene services for the Northeast District's headquarters 
health clinic in Boston, Massachusetts and 41 field sites.  The RFP 
provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for 1 base year with 
4 option years, and included the standard "Evaluation of Options" 
clause, set forth at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  52.217-5, 
which informed offerors that the government would evaluate offers by 
adding the price for the base period and options years, unless the 
government determined, in accordance with FAR  sec.  17.206(b), that 
evaluation of option quantities was not in its best interests.[1] 

A best value basis for award was stated, and the following evaluation 
factors identified:  quality, management, and price.  Offerors were 
informed that the quality factor was more important than the 
management factor, and that both the quality and management factors 
were significantly more important than price.  The RFP incorporated 
FAR  sec.  52.215-16, Alternate III, which states that the government 
intends to make award without conducting discussions. 

DLA received proposals from Occu-Health and EHG, the incumbent 
contractor, by the closing date for the receipt of proposals.  
Occu-Health offered the lowest total price (base and option years 
included) of [DELETED] while EHG offered a total price of [DELETED].  
On August 3, DLA made oral inquiries to Occu-Health regarding several 
aspects of its proposal.  Discussions were not conducted with EHG, and 
best and final offers (BAFO) not requested.  The agency determined 
that EHG's proposal represented the best value to the government and 
made award to EHG on August 31, with performance to commence on 
October 1.

Occu-Health protested the award to our Office on September 19, 
asserting that DLA improperly conducted discussions with EHG and that 
the source selection was not reasonably based.  This protest was 
dismissed on October 2 after DLA decided to take corrective action by 
conducting discussions and requesting BAFOs.[2]  On October 5, DLA 
initiated negotiations with the offerors.  Following discussions, on 
October 24, DLA requested BAFOs to be submitted by November 1.  

During this same time frame, a recommendation of the Base Realignment 
and Closure Commission (BRAC) to close the Defense Contract Management 
Command's South District and consolidate functions under the Command's 
West District and Northeast District became final.  Specifically, BRAC 
recommended closing the South District on July 1, 1995; the President 
approved the BRAC's recommendation and submitted it to Congress on 
July 15; and the recommendation became final on October 1.  On October 
27, prior to the receipt of BAFOs under the RFP, the Northeast 
District determined, in a meeting including the procuring contracting 
officer, that it would not exercise the options under the contract 
because "it would be better to prepare a solicitation to provide 
health services to all of the newly configured District in fiscal year 
1997, than to rely on options."

BAFOs were received from both EHG and Occu-Health by the November 1 
closing date.[3]  EHG reaffirmed its initial offer of [DELETED] 
([DELETED] for the base year and [DELETED] for the option years), 
while Occu-Health reduced its price to [DELETED].  EHG's BAFO was 
rated slightly higher ([DELETED]) than Occu-Health's BAFO ([DELETED]), 
based upon the agency's view that the [DELETED] offered by EHG was 
better qualified than the [DELETED] offered by Occu-Health.

On November 17, the contracting officer determined that EHG's BAFO 
represented the best value to the government because EHG's offer 
received the higher technical point score and the price differential 
between the offerors--considering only their proposed prices for the 
base year--was insignificant.  In his selection decision, the 
contracting officer determined that given the reorganization of the 
Defense Contract Management Command it was very unlikely that options 
in the contract would be exercised; accordingly, the contracting 
officer concluded, in accordance with FAR  sec.  17.206(b), that it was not 
in the government's best interests to include the option year prices 
in the evaluation of offers for award purposes.  The offerors were 
informed that EHG's offer was again selected for award and that EHG's 
contract would "remain in effect."  This second protest by Occu-Health 
followed on November 30.[4]

Occu-Health objects to the agency's failure to inform offerors of the 
agency's changed needs.  Occu-Health argues that the agency should 
have amended the RFP prior to the receipt of BAFOs to inform offerors 
that the contract options would not likely be exercised and that 
option year pricing would not be evaluated.  Occu-Health asserts that 
it could have significantly reduced its base year price by 
restructuring how it intended to obtain and provide required health 
care, industrial hygiene, and computer equipment.

DLA does not dispute Occu-Health's arguments concerning the firm's 
statement that it would have reduced its base year pricing, but argues 
that the agency has the discretion under FAR  sec.  17.206(b) not to 
evaluate the options in making an award, whenever the agency becomes 
aware that the option quantities will not be required.  In this 
regard, the agency notes that the RFP informed offerors that option 
years pricing would not be evaluated where it was determined that not 
evaluating options was in the government's best interest.

It is true that FAR  sec.  17.206(b) provides an agency with authority to 
not evaluate option quantities in making an award, even where the 
solicitation informed bidders or offerors that options would be 
evaluated, where the agency properly determines that evaluation of 
options is not in the best interests of the government.  Thus, we have 
previously held that a determination not to evaluate options, made 
after receipt of bids, did not preclude an award on the basis of base 
bid items and, by implication, did not require the receipt of new 
bids.  See Foley Co., 71 Comp. Gen. 148 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  47.  This, 
however, does not resolve this case.  The FAR, at section 
17.208(c)(4), also provides that a contracting agency may include the 
standard "Evaluation of Options" clause, as included in this RFP, only 
where a determination has been made that there is a reasonable 
likelihood that the option(s) will be exercised.  Thus, an RFP that 
includes this clause informs offerors that the government's reasonably 
anticipated needs include the option quantities, the prices for which 
are intended to be evaluated.  This notice is important because 
vendors may structure their bids/proposals differently depending upon 
whether the exercise of an option is likely.

It is fundamental that the government select for award the offer that 
is most advantageous to the government, considering price and other 
evaluation factors identified in the solicitation.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2305(b)(4)(B)(1994).  It is also a fundamental requirement that the 
government apprise offerors of its actual needs in a manner designed 
to achieve full and open competition and so that offerors may fairly 
compete on an equal basis.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  2305(a)(1)(A); Unisys Corp., 
67 Comp. Gen. 512 (1988), 88-2 CPD  para.  35.  Accordingly, where the 
government's needs change, a procuring agency is required to notify 
offerors of its changed needs, affording offerors the opportunity to 
make and the government to obtain the most advantageous offer in 
response to the government's actual needs.  FAR  sec.  15.606; EEV, Inc., 
B-261297; B-261297.2, Sept. 11, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  107; Dept. of 
State-Recon., B-243974.4, May 18, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  447.  

Here, we find, given the statutory requirements that an agency inform 
offerors of its actual needs and select the most advantageous offer to 
the government, that DLA improperly failed to inform offerors of its 
changed needs.  Although FAR  sec.  17.206(b) permits agencies to not 
evaluate option prices and the RFP, through the clause at FAR  sec.  
52.217-5, informed offerors of the possibility that the government 
might not evaluate options, we think that, in light of the statutory 
requirements set forth in 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2305(a)(1)(A) and (b)(4)(B), an 
agency may not rely on this FAR provision without requesting revised 
proposals when the agency knows, at least prior to the receipt of 
BAFOs, its needs have materially changed, so that it will not be 
evaluating options.  To read FAR  sec.  17.206(b) as broadly as DLA 
suggests--as granting an agency essentially unfettered discretion to 
decide not to evaluate options without advising offerors of this 
change under circumstances when the agency could reasonably provide 
that advice--would be inconsistent with the agency's fundamental 
obligations to allow offerors the opportunity to respond to the 
government's actual needs and to obtain the offer that is most 
advantageous to the government.  See Management Sys. Designers, Inc., 
et al., B-244383.4, et al., Dec. 6, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  518.

This concern is very much highlighted by this case.  As noted above, 
the competition between EHG and Occu-Health was very close.  Although 
EHG was given a higher rating in the more important evaluation 
factors, the contracting officer made his best value determination in 
part upon the fact that the offerors' base year price differential was 
"insignificant."  The protester's president has demonstrated in a 
sworn declaration how it would have changed its approach to performing 
the contract requirements to significantly reduce its base year price, 
if Occu-Health had been aware of the agency's changed requirements, 
that is, its elimination of the needs represented by the option items.  
Specifically, Occu-Health states that if it had been aware that only 
the base period would be performed, it would have [DELETED].  In 
total, Occu-Health's base-year price would assertedly have been 
reduced by almost [DELETED].  The agency and intervenor do not 
challenge the protester's assertion that it could lower its base year 
pricing if it had been aware of the agency's actual needs.  Moreover, 
the intervenor does not assert that it could or would have similarly 
lowered its base year pricing if it had been apprised of the 
government's changed needs.  Thus, it reasonably appears that 
Occu-Health was prejudiced by the agency's failure to announce its 
changed needs and that the agency might have precluded receipt of a 
more advantageous offer.  Accordingly, we sustain Occu-Health's 
protest on this basis.[5]

We recommend that, if feasible, the agency reopen the competition, 
issue an amendment reflecting its changed needs, and permit the 
offerors to submit revised proposals.  If Occu-Health is determined to 
be entitled to award, then DLA  should terminate EHG's contract and 
make award to Occu-Health, if otherwise appropriate.  We recommend 
that in the event that the agency determines that reopening the 
competition is not feasible, Occu-Health be reimbursed its costs of 
proposal preparation.  Bid Protest Regulations,  sec.  21.8(d)(2), 60 Fed. 
Reg. 40,737, 40743 (Aug. 10, 1995) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.8(d)(2)).  We also recommend that Occu-Health be reimbursed its 
costs of filing and pursuing the protest.  Bid Protest Regulations,  sec.  
21.8(d)(1).  The protester should submit its certified claim for costs 
to the contracting agency within 90 days of receiving this decision.  
Bid Protest Regulations,  sec.  21.8(f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. FAR  sec.  17.206(b) provides that:

            "The contracting officer need not evaluate offers for any 
            option quantities when it is determined that evaluation 
            would not be in the best interests of the [g]overnment and 
            this determination is approved at a level above the 
            contracting officer.  An example of a circumstance that 
            may support a determination not to evaluate offers for 
            option quantities is when there is a reasonable certainty 
            that funds will be unavailable to permit exercise of the 
            option."

2. Performance was not stayed in connection with Occu-Health's 
protest, and DLA elected to leave the EHG award in place during the 
reopening of the competition.

3. EHG protested the agency's reopening of discussions, but withdrew 
its protests after again being selected for award.

4. The agency initially determined that urgent and compelling 
circumstances warranted continued performance of the contract, but 
subsequently decided that it need not make this determination because 
it had made award on August 31 and had not stayed performance.

5. Occu-Health also protests the agency's evaluation of the experience 
of its proposed [DELETED] under the quality and management evaluation 
factors.  We have reviewed these allegations and find them to be 
without merit.