BNUMBER:  B-272166
DATE:  July 29, 1996
TITLE:  J&J Maintenance, Inc.

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

Matter of:J&J Maintenance, Inc.

File:     B-272166

Date:July 29, 1996

Albert H. Smith, Jr. for the protester.
George N. Brezna, Esq., and Christopher M. Bellomy, Esq., Department 
of the Navy, for the agency.
Christine Davis, Esq. and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

A solicitation for housing maintenance services is not defective 
because it lacks historical workload information, where changes in the 
agency's requirements have undermined the value of the historical 
information and the solicitation includes accurate and current 
workload information that should permit offerors to compete 
intelligently and on equal terms.

DECISION

J&J Maintenance, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals 
(RFP) No. N68931-96-R-9516, issued by the Department of the Navy, 
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for family housing maintenance 
services at three Naval Air Stations (Cecil Field, Jacksonville, and 
Mayport) in Florida.

We deny the protest.

The RFP covers most residential maintenance at the three air stations, 
including structural maintenance and repair services; repair or 
replacement of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) 
equipment and other home appliances; painting services; plumbing work; 
electrical work; custodial work; grounds maintenance; and change of 
occupancy maintenance (COM).[1]  The RFP solicits prices for 
fixed-price and indefinite quantity contract line items (CLIN).  
Estimated quantities are specified for each CLIN.  The contractor will 
be paid a fixed annual price for the fixed-price CLINs, even if the 
government orders less than the estimated quantities; if the 
government requires more than the estimated quantities, it may order 
the additional quantities under indefinite quantity CLINs 
corresponding with the fixed-price requirements.

For the fixed-price CLINs, the RFP contemplates that work assignments 
will generally originate through service calls, which can be 
classified as either "emergency," "urgent," "routine," "alteration," 
"scheduled," or "other" calls.  The RFP also provides a separate work 
authorization process for COM, painting, custodial, and HVAC 
preventive maintenance work.  For the indefinite quantity CLINs, the 
RFP provides for the issuance of delivery orders.  The wage 
determinations issued under the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. sec.  351 
- 358 (1994), apply to all contract work, except for "alteration" 
service calls, which are subject to Davis-Bacon Act general wage 
decisions, 40 U.S.C.  sec.  276a (1994).

The RFP contains certain limitations on the contractor's liability for 
both the fixed-price and indefinite quantity work.  For example, a 
service call that will consume more than 16 labor hours or $500 in 
material costs is generally not required to be performed at the 
contractor's stated unit price.  Similarly, in performing a COM 
assignment, the contractor is not required to correct at its stated 
unit price any individual deficiency that will consume more than 16 
hours or $500 in material costs, but it must correct all individual 
deficiencies below that threshold; the RFP notes that the total cost 
of a COM assignment may therefore add up to more than 16 hours or $500 
in material costs.

The RFP provides a variety of workload information.  The RFP statement 
of work describes the specific tasks that may be required at the three 
installations and the manner in which the contractor must perform 
those tasks.  Section J of the RFP provides information on the style 
and number of housing units; the structural characteristics of the 
housing units; the approximate square footage and floor plans of the 
housing units; and information specific to the painting and HVAC 
maintenance requirements.  The Navy also afforded offerors site 
visits.[2]

J&J protests that the information contained in the RFP is inadequate 
for pricing purposes without undue risk to the offeror.  J&J concedes 
that the RFP contains a "copious amount of valuable workload data" and 
does not challenge the accuracy of the workload information and 
estimates contained in the RFP.  However, the protester argues that 
the RFP "did not go far enough in providing key workload data elements 
[with regard to the government's historical requirements at the three 
installations] which are required by all offerors to base a reasonable 
bid on."  For example, J&J argues that the RFP should provide a 
breakdown of service calls by craft, such as plumbing service calls or 
electrical service calls.  J&J claims that offerors can not reasonably 
price the contract work if they do not know the labor mix of service 
calls, since wage rates depend upon the labor category involved and 
the applicability of either the lower Davis-Bacon Act wages or the 
higher Service Contract Act wages.

The agency responds that the historical information requested by J&J 
would actually misguide offerors because the government's requirements 
have significantly changed at the three installations.  The Navy has 
given several examples of how its requirements have changed, including 
the occurrence of major home renovations at the Jacksonville air 
station and the recent installation of new appliances and HVAC units 
in numerous homes at the Mayport and Cecil Field air stations, which 
should reduce the number of service calls.  The Navy states that these 
and other changes render the historical data misleading and that the 
estimated quantities contained in the RFP, which reflect the changed 
requirements, provide the best and most accurate basis for the 
preparation of price proposals.

A procuring agency must provide sufficient information in a 
solicitation to enable offerors to compete intelligently and on a 
relatively equal basis.  State Management Servs., Inc., B-251715, May 
3, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  355; Mark Dunning Indus., Inc., B-243757, Aug. 22, 
1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  187.  There is no requirement, however, that an RFP 
eliminate all performance uncertainties and risks.  Id.  In this 
regard, offers for service contracts, by their very nature, often 
require the computation of prices based on visual inspections, and the 
presence of some element of risk does not mean that fair competition 
is precluded or that a solicitation is improper.  Ronald E. Borello, 
B-232609, Jan. 11, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  28.  It is within an agency's 
discretion to construct a solicitation so that the resulting contract 
imposes substantial risk upon the contractor and minimum 
administrative burden on the agency.  Bean Dredging Corp., B-239952, 
Oct. 12, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  286.

Based on our review, we cannot say that the agency erred in excluding 
the historical data from the RFP, since the record reflects that 
significant changes in the agency's requirements have undermined the 
value of that data.  In our view, the RFP reasonably describes the 
work to be performed and provides offerors with sufficient information 
to compete intelligently, particularly considering that offerors 
received an opportunity for a site visit.  See International Resources 
Corp., B-248050.3, Feb. 16, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  138; A&C Bldg. and Indus. 
Maintenance Corp., B-230270, May 12, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  451.  We find no 
duty in this case for the agency to provide the additional historical 
information requested by J&J regarding the number of service calls by 
craft.  In this regard, we note that the RFP limits the contractor's 
risk by segregating "alteration" service calls, which are subject to 
the lower Davis-Bacon Act wages, from the remaining contract work, 
which is subject to the higher Service Contract Act wages.  

J&J also argues that offerors should receive a breakdown of repairs 
performed under prior COM assignments at each air station, so that 
offerors can determine a lump-sum COM price that accounts for all 
individual repairs likely to fall within the COM threshold.  We 
disagree.  The Navy has attempted to reduce the contractor's risk by 
placing labor hour and dollar limits on COM repairs.  Although the 
contractor must repair any individual deficiency falling below the COM 
threshold, we see no reason why an offeror could not use its business 
acumen and the site visit to estimate the likelihood of repeated 
below-threshold repairs.  While J&J may desire more certainty, we 
believe that the exclusion of high-cost repairs from the contractor's 
lump-sum COM price strikes an appropriate compromise between reducing 
the agency's burden and limiting risk to the contractor.  See State 
Management Servs., Inc., supra.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The RFP defines COM work as the work necessary to make vacant 
houses ready for the next resident, such as cleaning chimneys or 
refinishing hardwood stairs.  The COM definition excludes painting, 
custodial, and alterations work, which are to be separately priced and 
ordered.

2. Ten firms ultimately submitted proposals by the proposal due date.