BNUMBER:  B-270229
DATE:  February 13, 1996
TITLE:  Site Support Services, Inc.

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

Matter of:Site Support Services, Inc.

File:     B-270229

Date:     February 13, 1996

Paul W. Nolan, Esq., Thurlow & Nolan, for the protester.
Janet N. Repka, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency had a compelling reason to cancel a solicitation after bid 
opening, where its estimate of services needed as specified in the 
solicitation was inaccurate and the solicitation's evaluation scheme 
did not ensure that award would result in the lowest cost to the 
government.

DECISION

Site Support Services, Inc. protests the cancellation of invitation 
for bids (IFB) No. MDA946-95-B-A017, issued by the Department of 
Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, for heating, ventilation 
and air conditioning (HVAC) system, preventive maintenance, and repair 
services at the Hoffman I Building, Alexandria, Virginia.

We deny the protest.

The IFB contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the 
responsive, responsible bidder submitting the lowest total price for a 
base year and 4 option years.  The services to be performed under the 
contract included basic HVAC mechanical maintenance service and 
additional service such as correction of initial deficiencies and 
minor repair work.  With regard to the additional service, the IFB 
established a minimum order of 20 hours per year and a maximum order 
of 240 hours per year, which was the number used for evaluation 
purposes and which the IFB stated was the government's best estimate 
of the additional service required.[1]

Under the IFB's evaluation scheme, bids were evaluated by extending 
the monthly price bid for the basic service for the base year and each 
of the 4 option years. Then, the bidder's price per labor hour for the 
additional service was multiplied by the agency's estimate of 240 
hours of additional service for the base year and each option year.  
The extended amount for the basic service was then combined with the 
extended amount for the additional service to determine the total 
evaluated bid price.

Site submitted the low bid in response to the IFB.  Site bid a monthly 
price of $1,488 for the basic service, which, when extended for the 
full 5-year period, resulted in a total price of $89,280 for the basic 
service.  Site entered a bid of zero dollars for the hourly labor rate 
for additional service, resulting in a total evaluated bid price of 
$89,280.  NWM Mechanical Contractors, Inc., the second low bidder, bid 
a monthly price of $936 for the basic services, which resulted in an 
extended price of $56,160, and bid an hourly labor rate of $50 for the 
additional service, resulting in a total evaluated bid price of 
$116,160.

In evaluating bids, the contracting officer determined that although 
Site was the apparent low bidder, its bid was materially unbalanced.  
Specifically, the contracting officer found that Site's zero bid for 
the additional service was significantly less than its cost for that 
service and its price for the basic service was overstated.  The 
contracting officer concluded that there was a reasonable doubt, 
depending on the amount of additional service actually ordered, that 
Site's bid would result in the lowest overall cost to the government.  
Accordingly, the contracting officer rejected Site's bid, and Site 
protested to our Office.

Meanwhile, in response to Site's method of pricing the additional 
service, the contracting officer checked the accuracy of the IFB's 
240-hour annual estimate for the additional service and found that, 
based on historical data, the best estimate of the agency's needs for 
the additional service was actually 66 hours per year.  The 
contracting officer determined that the IFB did not accurately state 
the government's minimum needs and, depending on the amount of 
additional service actually ordered, might not ensure that award would 
result in the lowest overall cost to the government.  The contracting 
officer also found a number of other solicitation defects, including 
that the IFB provided that the bidder's offered hourly rate for the 
additional service would be used to calculate deductions for the 
contractor's failure to perform some services, which effectively 
allowed bidders to establish their own liquidated damages rates; in 
Site's case, this would result in a liquidated damages rate of $0.  
The contracting officer canceled the IFB with the intention of 
amending the solicitation and resoliciting the requirement.  We 
dismissed Site's protest of the rejection of its bid as academic, and 
Site protested the cancellation of the solicitation.

Because of the potential adverse impact on the competitive bidding 
system of cancellation after bid prices have been exposed, a 
contracting officer must have a compelling reason to cancel an IFB 
after bid opening.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  14.404-1(a)(1); 
Ferguson-Williams, Inc., B-258460; B-258461, Jan. 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
39.  Cancellation after bid opening is proper where an IFB does not 
contain the agency's best estimate of what will be required, or where 
an IFB's evaluation scheme does not ensure that award will in fact be 
based on the lowest cost to the government.  S.W. Monroe Constr. Co., 
B-256382, June 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  362.  Either of these flaws 
renders an IFB materially deficient.  Id.

Here, due to the inaccuracy of the agency's 240 hour per year estimate 
for additional service and given Site's method of pricing its bid, the 
IFB's evaluation scheme did not ensure that award would result in the 
lowest cost to the government.  For example, if the agency's revised 
estimate of 66 hours per year were applied in evaluating bids,[2] 
Site's total evaluated bid price would remain $89,280 but NWM's total 
evaluated bid price would be $72,660.  Indeed, given Site's and NWM's 
respective pricing of additional service, acceptance of Site's bid 
would result in the lowest cost to the government only if the agency 
orders more than 132 hours of additional service per year.  As noted 
above, the government realistically expects to order only 66 hours of 
additional service per year.  In these circumstances, the IFB was 
materially defective, so that cancellation of the solicitation was 
proper.  S.W. Monroe Constr. Co., supra.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. According to the IFB, the number of labor hours and the cost of 
materials would be negotiated at the time each order for additional 
service is issued.

2. Although the protester disagrees with the agency's revised 
estimate, it has not shown that the higher 240-hour estimate used in 
the canceled IFB more accurately reflects the needs of the agency.  We 
generally consider agencies to be the best judges of their own needs.  
Duramed Homecare, B-260047, May 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  257.