BNUMBER:  B-271483
DATE:  July 23, 1996
TITLE:  Inventory Accounting Service, Inc.

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

Matter of:Inventory Accounting Service, Inc.

File:     B-271483

Date:July 23, 1996

Darcy V. Hennessy, Esq., Moore Brower Hennessy & Freeman, P.C., for 
the protester.
Col. Nicholas P. Retson and Capt. Philip T. McCaffrey, Department of 
the Army, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest by incumbent contractor that solicitation for a 
requirements contract to provide washer and dryer services contains 
inaccurate estimated quantities is denied where the estimated 
quantities were reasonably accurate representations of the agency's 
anticipated future requirements.

2.  Allegation that solicitation for washer and dryer rental and 
maintenance  services to be performed on a fixed-price basis is 
defective because it does not  provide specific information needed to 
permit bidders, other than the protester, to calculate bids on an 
equal basis is denied as the solicitation contains descriptions about 
the scope and nature of services required, thus providing a reasonable 
indication of what to expect under the contract.  Bidders are 
responsible for projecting costs and allowing for risks in computing 
their bids. 

DECISION

Inventory Accounting Service, Inc. (IAS) protests the terms of 
invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAKF19-96-B-0003, issued by the 
Department of the Army for rental and maintenance of commercial 
washers and dryers in laundry rooms at Fort Riley, Kansas.  IAS argues 
that the IFB is defective, precludes competition on an equal basis, 
and should be revised and clarified.  

We deny the protest.

The IFB as issued on February 1, 1996, anticipated the award of a 
fixed-price requirements contract for a base year with up to 4 option 
years.  The bid schedule advised prospective bidders that the 
contractor was to provide 434 washers and 
457 dryers and unit prices were to encompass all elements of 
performance to be accomplished under each line item.  The IFB included 
a detailed statement of work at section C, including the requirements 
for a full-time project manager, daily reporting for repair service 
calls and the penalty for failure to provide required washer and dryer 
service.  The agency issued amendment Nos. 0001 and 0002 on February 1 
and February 26, respectively, to include the new wage determinations, 
to amend various requirements, to answer questions submitted by 
prospective bidders, and to extend the bid opening date.  Of relevance 
here is the deletion of the requirement for a "full-time" project 
manager.

Prior to bid opening, IAS, the incumbent contractor, protested to the 
agency that the IFB overstated the quantity of washers and dryers 
needed, and challenged various IFB requirements on the grounds that 
they exceeded the agency's minimum needs.  In order to consider the 
merits of the agency-level protest, the contracting officer issued 
amendment No. 0003 to again extend the bid opening date from March 7 
to March 12.  After reviewing the protest and conducting a 
face-to-face meeting with the protester, the contracting officer 
determined that further changes to the solicitation were not necessary 
and denied IAS' protest by letter dated 
March 8.  The agency proceeded to open bids as scheduled on the March 
12 extended bid opening date.  Of the eight bids received, IAS' was 
the fourth low at $423,604.80.[1]  Award was made to Wincor Management 
Group, Inc. on March 20 at its total bid price of $357,337.32.  IAS' 
protest to our Office was filed on March 21.    
In its protest of the terms of the solicitation, IAS complains that 
the quantity of washers and dryers set forth in the IFB are overstated 
and not based on the best information available to the agency.  In 
this regard, IAS alleges that as of March 8, it had submitted an 
invoice to the contracting officer for only 392 washers and 
413 dryers, some 10 percent less than the stated IFB estimate of 434 
washers and 457 dryers.  Moreover, IAS states, the agency has 
scheduled at least eight more buildings (with a corresponding decrease 
of at least eight more pairs of washers and dryers) for demolition in 
1996 and 1997.  Thus, the protester insists that the estimated 
quantities in the solicitation were overstated which rendered the 
solicitation defective.         

As a general rule, a contracting agency must give sufficient detail in 
a solicitation to enable bidders to compete intelligently and on a 
relatively equal basis.  Hero, Inc.,  63 Comp. Gen. 117 (1983), 83-2 
CPD  para.  687.  When an agency solicits bids for a requirements contract 
on the basis of estimated quantities, the agency must base its 
estimates on the best information available.  There is no requirement, 
however, that the estimates be absolutely correct.  Rather, the 
estimated quantities must be reasonably accurate representations of 
anticipated needs.  Renaissance Exchange, Inc., B-220799.2, Jan. 21, 
1986, 86-1 CPD  para.  63; DSP, Inc., B-220062, Jan. 15, 1986, 
86-1 CPD  para.  43.  The mere presence of a risk factor in government 
estimates does not render the estimates inaccurate, since there is no 
requirement that estimates be so precise that they eliminate the 
possibility that the contractor will be required to perform more or 
less work than specified.  Hero, Inc., supra. 

Our Office has no basis on which to question the accuracy of the 
estimated quantities in the solicitation.  The record indicates that 
the estimated quantities were based on the Army's estimate of its 
total need for washers and dryers, which in turn was based on the 
projected number of buildings at the installation which house the 
washer and dryer units.  In doing so, the Army considered the ongoing 
demolition of buildings, ongoing renovation projects, soldier 
deployments, 
restationing, and future funding in calculating its estimated need; 
that is, the actual number of washers and dryers were contingent on 
these ongoing as well as future events at the installation.  This led 
to overall estimates of total need listed in the solicitation which 
somewhat exceeded the quantities recently provided by the protester.

IAS' argument that the agency's most recent orders for these units, 
together with the planned demolition of eight more buildings, indicate 
that the installation's actual needs may be lower than the IFB 
estimates is not determinative here.  The estimates are based not only 
on historical data and planned demolition, but also on potential 
increased manning due to redeployment of personnel.  In these 
circumstances, we have no basis to object to the estimated quantities 
specified in the solicitation, which the record shows represent the 
agency's best estimate of its future needs.  Further, as noted by the 
agency, because this was its best estimate at the time of solicitation 
issuance and there is some possibility of personnel shifts and change 
in demolition schedule, the solicitation provides for an equitable 
adjustment in unit price if the total quantity of washers and dryers 
increases or decreases by more than 20 percent.   Clearly, the agency 
has shared some of the risk of unforeseen events which could affect 
the quantities.

IAS also protests that the IFB should have been amended to clearly 
identify for all bidders, other than itself, the hidden costs in the 
solicitation.  First, the protester alleges that the agency did not 
clearly inform bidders, other than itself, that a full time project 
manager was no longer required.  While the protester acknowledges that 
amendment No. 0002 deleted the phrase "full time" from the provision 
requiring the contractor to provide a full-time project manager, it 
nonetheless argues that other bidders may have been misled by the 
agency's response to a prebid inquiry.  IAS' allegation is without 
merit.  The amendment deleted the full-time requirement and stated 
that the project manager shall be "at [the] work site(s) daily at a 
minimum."  Further, the agency's response to bidders' questions which 
were made a part of amendment No. 0002 clearly noted that the IFB 
section requiring a full-time manager had been revised.  

IAS next alleges that it had information regarding certain 
unreimbursed costs that other bidders did not.  Contrary to the 
industry practice among government installations, the protester 
asserts that Fort Riley will not reimburse the contractor for false 
service alarms, damage to the equipment caused by the negligence of 
others, or time lost by the contractor if government personnel are not 
available to inspect the repaired unit and to sign the work order.  
Because the contracting officer refused to further amend the 
solicitation to clarify the risk that the contractor will be 
responsible for these costs, IAS insists that it was disadvantaged in 
computing its bid, as other bidders probably did not include these 
costs in their bids.  We disagree.  Nothing in the record suggests 
that IAS had any material information concerning "hidden" or 
unreimbursed costs which resulted in its being competitively 
disadvantaged in preparing its bid price.  

In this regard, our review of the record shows that the IFB 
unequivocally requires the contractor to report to Fort Riley each day 
to receive work orders and perform any required service.  
Consequently, a prudent bidder should factor in the cost of reporting 
to Fort Riley on a daily basis when computing its bid price; once it 
has done so, it would not incur additional costs if, on any given day, 
the work order it receives is for a fully functioning machine, that 
is, a "false alarm" service call.  As for other costs about which IAS 
is concerned, we simply point out that risk is inherent in most types 
of contracts, especially fixed-price contracts such as this one and 
the fact that the bidder in computing its bid must consider a variety 
of scenarios that differently affect its anticipated costs does not by 
itself render the IFB defective.  Wespac Serco, B-239203, July 23, 
1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  64.  In other words, an agency is not required to 
eliminate all risk, and in fact, may impose maximum risk on the 
contractor, in which case it is the bidders' responsibility to factor 
this risk potential into their bid prices.  Id.  We consider the 
information furnished here sufficient to enable prospective bidders to 
estimate their costs and to compete intelligently on an equal basis.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. The apparent low bidder was allowed to withdraw based on a mistake 
in its bid,  thereby making the protester the third low bidder.