BNUMBER:  B-272340; B-272340.2
DATE:  September 26, 1996
TITLE:  Advanced Elevator Services, Inc.

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

Matter of:Advanced Elevator Services, Inc.

File:     B-272340; B-272340.2

Date:September 26, 1996

Rene' A. Marques for the protester.
Scarlett D. Grose, Esq., General Services Administration, for the 
agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, 
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the 
preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest by small business that solicitation for elevator/escalator 
maintenance services, which combines the services on a regional basis 
rather than on a local basis as was previously done, unduly restricts 
competition is denied because the agency is not required to separately 
obtain these services where the agency's overall needs can be most 
effectively provided through a consolidated procurement approach.

DECISION

Advanced Elevator Services, Inc., a small business, protests the terms 
of request for proposals (RFP) No. GS06P96GXC0029, issued by the 
General Services Administration (GSA) for multiple region 
elevator/escalator maintenance services.  The protester contends that 
the RFP is unduly restrictive because it combines these services, 
which were previously awarded on a local basis, into multiple region 
groups by equipment manufacturer, thereby excluding small business 
participation.  

We deny the protest.

Prior to the issuance of the RFP, GSA established a Business Process 
Re-engineering (BPR) team to study various methods to improve and 
streamline the procurement process for elevator maintenance services 
while reducing overall costs.  The BPR team solicited the views of 
major elevator manufacturers, small businesses, other industry 
organizations, and regional procurement officials within GSA and other 
federal agencies.  The BPR team examined several approaches to the 
delivery of these services, including the advantages and disadvantages 
of contracting on a nationwide, regional, or local basis.  The BPR 
concluded that nationwide elevator maintenance contracting was the 
approach best suited to improving services to GSA's tenant agencies 
while reducing costs.  As an implementation tool, the BPR team 
recommended contracting on a regional basis as a pilot program before 
going nationwide.

The RFP's specifications were prepared based on the findings and 
recommendations of the BPR team.  The RFP contemplated award of up to 
five, fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment for 
services at 178 federal buildings in three GSA regions which span 15 
states.  Each contract will be for a 5-year base period with two 
5-year bilateral options.[1]  To be considered for award, the 
solicitation required offerors to submit offers for all buildings 
within a group; the buildings were grouped by elevator 
manufacturer.[2] 
 
Advanced Elevator, an incumbent at one of the buildings, contends that 
consolidating the elevator service requirements into five multiple 
region contracts is unduly restrictive because the requirements are 
larger than any small business firm can provide since the equipment is 
located in 15 different states and a response time of 1 to 3 hours is 
required by the solicitation.[3]   The protester maintains that the 
requirements should be divided into several solicitations to allow 
increased competition as required by applicable procurement laws and 
regulations.  In addition, Advanced Elevator alleges that grouping the 
equipment by manufacturer gives those manufacturers, only one of which 
is an American-owned firm, an unfair competitive advantage.

In response, GSA questions the extent to which small businesses are 
prejudiced by the requirements of the solicitation.  The agency 
explains that it considered the  impact of grouping its requirements 
by region on small business participation and concluded that the 
contracts to be awarded under this solicitation are in the dollar 
range that is within the capability of small businesses.  Moreover, 
GSA contends, nothing in the solicitation prohibits small businesses 
from forming joint ventures or other teaming arrangements in the event 
that an individual small business does not operate within the entire 
15-state area.

GSA further maintains that, in any case, award of multi-regional 
elevator maintenance contracts would best accommodate the agency's 
need to provide quality service to its tenant agencies while achieving 
significant savings.  Specifically, GSA argues that because of 
downsizing and a decrease in its operating budget, the agency does not 
have sufficient personnel or resources to continue to award and 
administer 103 separate contracts for elevator maintenance services in 
these three regions.  While this was acceptable in the past, the 
agency states that under the current budgetary constraints, this 
approach imposes an unacceptable burden on the agency for processing 
contract awards and performing contract administration.  According to 
the agency, bundling these services into five regional contracts will 
significantly reduce the agency's administrative burden of managing 
103 contracts for elevator maintenance in 178 buildings.  Furthermore, 
bundling these requirements will provide cost savings from economies 
of scale, such as volume discounts, a higher level of service, a shift 
of quality control costs from the agency to the contractor, greater 
accountability for maintenance and repair arising from longer contract 
terms and administrative cost savings due to the significant decrease 
(from 103 to 5) in the number of contracts the agency would have to 
administer.  

In preparing a solicitation for supplies or services, a contracting 
agency must specify its needs and solicit offers in a manner designed 
to achieve full and open competition, and may include restrictive 
provisions and conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the 
needs of the agency.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  253a(a)(2) (1994).  Since bundled, 
consolidated, or total-package procurements combine separate, multiple 
requirements into one contract, they have the potential for 
restricting competition by excluding firms that can furnish only a 
portion of the requirement.  Border Maintenance Serv., Inc., B-260954; 
B-260954.2, June 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  287. Therefore, the bundling of 
requirements will be upheld only where it is shown to be necessary to 
meet the agency's minimum needs.  Id.; A&C Bldg. and Indus. 
Maintenance Corp., B-230839, July 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  67.

We think GSA's justification for bundling its elevator maintenance 
requirements is reasonable.  As discussed above, GSA explains that due 
to recent personnel losses and budget cuts,  it simply does not have 
sufficient personnel and resources to continue to award and manage 
more than 100 separate contracts for elevators in 178 buildings in 
three regions.  We have held in similar circumstances that bundling of  
requirements was not legally objectionable because such bundling was 
necessary for the agency to meet its minimum needs.  See  Border 
Maintenance Serv., Inc., supra; A&C Bldg. and Indus. Maintenance 
Corp., supra.  Accordingly, we see no  basis to object to the bundling 
of requirements here.

In addition, the agency believes that its acquisition strategy will 
lead to improved delivery of these services to the tenant agencies.  
The agency relied on the acquisition strategy recommended by the BPR 
team in order to achieve economies of scale accruing to the benefit of 
the government in grouping the elevators by manufacturer within a 
specific geographical region.  Underlying this strategy is the 
agency's belief that this approach will provide incentives to a 
prospective contractor to offer competitive prices to service the 
elevators of one particular manufacturer for a longer contract term (5 
years as compared to 3 years), and two, 5-year bilateral option 
periods as opposed to the typical 1 to 3 years unilateral options.  
Additionally, as the agency points out, the contractor will have 
greater incentive to deliver quality services, as failure to do so 
would have a major impact on the contractor's business resulting from 
contract termination.  While Advanced Elevator recognizes that GSA 
"has made an attempt to reduce the costs of operating Government," it 
insists that this type of bundling is an attempt by GSA to award sole 
source manufacturer's maintenance contracts to the detriment of small 
businesses.  On the basis of this record, we have no reason to object 
to GSA's procurement approach as we find such an approach is necessary 
to meet the agency's minimum needs. 

 We deny the protest.[4] 

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. There are presently 103 contracts for elevator services in these 
178 buildings.  These contracts are typically for 3 years with 
unilateral options ranging from 1 to 3 years.

2. Subsequent to the filing of this protest, the agency received 
initial proposals from  three firms for Groups 1, 2, 3, and 5; for 
Group 4, four firms submitted proposals.    The protester submitted a 
proposal for only one building in each of Groups 1, 2, and 5.

3. The protester also complains that GSA will not renew the option in 
its current elevator maintenance contract but will obtain these 
services through the new contracts.  However, the option is 
exercisable at the sole discretion of the government, so the decision 
not to exercise the option is a matter of contract administration and 
not within the scope of our bid protest function.  The Big Picture 
Co., Inc., B-220859, Oct. 31, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  512. 

4. Advanced Elevator also protests the rejection of its proposal.  GSA 
rejected Advanced Elevator's proposal because it included a price for 
only selected buildings within Groups 1, 2, and 5.  We note the RFP 
specifically required that proposals include prices for all buildings 
within a group, i.e., the buildings within a group were bundled.  
Advanced Elevator chose to ignore the RFP instructions; consequently, 
the agency properly rejected its proposal.