BNUMBER:  B-276457 
DATE:  June 16, 1997
TITLE: International Code Services, Inc., B-276457, June 16, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:International Code Services, Inc.

File:     B-276457

Date:June 16, 1997

Richard C. Walters, Esq., Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., and Stanley R. Soya, 
Esq., Piper & Marbury, for the protester.
David R. Johnson, Esq., Kathleen C. Little, Esq., and Dennis E. 
Wiessner, Esq., McDermott, Will & Emery, for Symtron Systems, Inc., an 
intervenor.
Thomas T. Basil, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that multiple awards should be made because this would result 
in a lower price to the government is denied where the solicitation 
indicated that a single award in the aggregate would be made.

DECISION

International Code Services, Inc. (ICS) protests the award of a 
contract to Symtron Systems, Inc., by the Department of the Navy, 
Naval Air Warfare Center, Training Systems Division, Orlando, Florida, 
under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61339-97-R-0006 for fire 
fighting training systems.  ICS asserts that the Navy should have made 
multiple awards under the RFP with ICS receiving an award for that 
portion of the requirement on which its price was low.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on November 19, 1996, contemplated the award of a 
firm, fixed-price contract for commercially available, propane-fueled, 
fire fighting training systems for use at various Army installations 
in the following configurations:  2-floor and 3-floor modular/fixed 
structural trainers, mobile structural trainers, and mobile aircraft 
rescue/fire fighting trainers.  These computer-controlled systems 
safely replicate flames, heat, and reduced visibility (using non-toxic 
smoke) during fire fighting training exercises.  Offers were to 
include fabrication and delivery of the trainers, as well as set-up, 
testing, training, documentation, and warranty coverage.  

The RFP's price schedule consisted of three different lots.  Lot I, 
the base quantity, requested line item prices for a 3-floor 
modular/fixed structural trainer for 
Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey; a 2-floor modular/fixed structural trainer 
for Ft. Belvoir, Virginia; a 2-floor modular/fixed structural trainer 
for Ft. Lewis, Washington; a mobile structural trainer for Ft. Rucker, 
Alabama; a mobile aircraft trainer for
Ft. Belvoir; and a mobile aircraft trainer for Ft. Rucker.  Lot II 
consisted of optional line items for extended warranties for the Lot I 
trainers by site, i.e., extended warranties for Ft. Monmouth, Ft. 
Belvoir, Ft. Lewis, and Ft. Rucker.  Lot III consisted of options for 
four 3-floor modular/fixed structural trainers, four 2-floor 
modular/fixed structural trainers, nine mobile aircraft trainers, and 
12 mobile structural trainers.  Besides requesting unit and extended 
prices for the different line items, the price schedule requested that 
offerors supply total prices by lot.

The RFP listed the following evaluation factors:

        1.  System Operations
        2.  System Performance
        3.  Logistics
        4.  Past performance--assessed for risk
        5.  Price (affordability)

The system operations, system performance, and price factors were 
equally important; the logistics factor was more important than the 
past performance factor, but less important than the system operations 
factor.  Although all evaluation factors other than price, when 
combined, were significantly more important than price, the 
solicitation provided that as competing proposals were determined to 
be substantially equal in technical merit, past performance and total 
evaluated price could become paramount.

The RFP required offerors to propose prices for all requirements and 
stated that prices were to be evaluated for the basic system 
requirements (Lot I) and the two option quantities (Lot II and Lot 
III) by adding the total for all priced line items in Lots I and II 
together with the estimated quantities priced in Lot III.  Offerors 
were also required to complete an "Affordability Pricing Worksheet," 
which essentially replicated the price schedule, but which also asked 
for a total proposed price based on the total Lot I, Lot II, and Lot 
III prices.  This total proposed price was to be evaluated for 
completeness and balance and the total evaluated price was to be 
assessed for reasonableness.  The solicitation stated that award would 
be made to the offeror whose acceptable proposal was most advantageous 
to the government, technical merit, past performance, and evaluated 
price considered.

The RFP included the clause found at Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR)  sec.  52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors--Commercial Items (OCT 
1995), which provides, in relevant part:

     "(h) Multiple awards.  The Government may accept any item or 
     group of items of an offer, unless the offeror qualifies the 
     offer by specific limitations.  Unless otherwise provided in the 
     Schedule, offers may not be submitted for quantities less than 
     those specified.  The Government reserves the right to make an 
     award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, 
     at the unit prices offered, unless the offeror specifies 
     otherwise in the offer."

The Navy received proposals from two offerors--ICS and Symtron.[1]  
The Navy determined both proposals to be acceptable; placed them in 
the competitive range; conducted discussions; and requested best and 
final offers (BAFO), including the offerors' best price terms.  
Following its evaluation of the discussion responses and BAFOs, the 
Navy rated Symtron's proposal higher overall than ICS' for the 
technical evaluation factors, but determined "after comparing both 
proposals together and taking into consideration the different 
benefits and disadvantages of all the required trainer configurations 
(as a whole)" that "paying an extra premium price [for technical 
merit] would not be justified."  On past performance, the Navy rated 
both Symtron and ICS as acceptable (low risk).  Symtron's total 
evaluated price for the basic contract and the option quantities was 
slightly lower than ICS' total price, although ICS' prices were lower 
for some of the line items.  The Navy regarded the total evaluated 
prices from both offerors as reasonable.  Based on the foregoing, the 
Navy made award to Symtron, determining its offer to be most 
advantageous to the government, technical factors and price 
considered.

ICS alleges that the Navy considered its proposal as essentially 
technically equal to Symtron's because the Navy concluded that there 
were no discriminating characteristics between the two proposals that 
would have merited the payment of a price premium.  ICS thus asserts 
that the determining factor for award should have been price and that 
because the RFP reserves the right to the agency to make multiple 
awards, ICS was entitled to award of that portion of the total RFP 
quantity which would result in the lowest cost to the government.  In 
this regard, ICS offered lower prices in Lot I for the 3-floor 
modular/fixed structural trainer for
Ft. Monmouth and the 2-floor modular/fixed structural trainers for Ft. 
Belvoir and Ft. Lewis, as well as for these configurations of trainers 
in Lot III.[2]   ICS contends that the Navy could realize almost $2.9 
million in savings over Symtron's aggregate $15,394,568 evaluated 
price if the Navy awarded ICS the line items for which its price was 
low, and that if ICS had realized an aggregate award would be made it 
would have submitted a lower overall price.

The basic premise of ICS' protest is flawed since the RFP basically 
contemplated one award in the aggregate rather than multiple 
awards.[3]  Other than the clause reserving the government's right to 
make multiple awards, every relevant statement in the RFP suggested 
that a single award would be made, e.g., the term "award" is used in 
the singular.  See Knoxville Glove Co., B-251598, Apr. 21, 1993, 93-1 
CPD  para.  339 at 4.  More significantly, the RFP evaluation methodology 
addressed proposals in the aggregate and did not provide for proposal 
evaluation on a separate line item or lot basis, so as to indicate 
that multiple awards were contemplated.  Specifically, under the terms 
of the solicitation's evaluation scheme, the offerors' total prices 
for all of the line items, rather than prices for individual line 
items, were to be considered in the award selection and price was not 
the only evaluation factor, or even the most important factor, 
specified by the RFP.  Moreover, the Lot II options for extended 
warranties for the Lot I trainers are by site, not by trainer 
configuration or line item, and two of the sites will receive two 
different types of trainers; it thus follows that the requirements are 
not severable and must be provided by the same contractor.[4]

Where, as here, a solicitation contemplates a single award for the 
requirement, the contracting agency should generally award on that 
basis, even where the RFP 
reserves the right to the agency to make multiple awards.  See 
Knoxville Glove Co., 
supra at 3-4.  Because the RFP here contemplated an aggregate award, 
ICS was not
entitled to award of individual line items.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Neither offeror qualified its proposal on an "all or none" basis.  

2. ICS also had a slightly lower price than Symtron for the Lot I 
mobile structural trainer for Ft. Rucker, but a higher price than 
Symtron for the additional quantities of this configuration of trainer 
in Lot III.  In Lot II, ICS' price for the extended warranty for the 
Ft. Lewis site in Lot I was lower than Symtron's.  Otherwise, 
Symtron's line item prices were lower than ICS'.

3. We note that prior to the issuance of the final RFP, the Navy 
posted the following response to a query about the draft RFP:

            Question: "Will the Government entertain proposals for 
            individual systems versus the entire project?  For 
            instance, the [aircraft rescue/fire fighting] mobile 
            trainer only?"

            Answer: "No."

The RFP actually issued was not materially different from the draft 
RFP in this respect.  Had the Navy instead contemplated making 
multiple awards under the RFP, it should have included in the RFP the 
provision at FAR  sec.  52.215-34, "Evaluation of Offers for Multiple 
Awards," as required by FAR  sec.  15.407(h); that provision, which was not 
included in the RFP, assumes administrative costs for each contract 
issued in determining whether multiple awards would result in the 
lowest aggregate cost to the government.

4. Under its scenario for multiple awards, ICS suggests that the Navy 
could merely deduct ICS' extended warranty price (which is 
determinable per trainer) from Symtron's for sites where both ICS and 
Symtron would supply different configurations of trainer.  However, 
this arrangement is not feasible because Symtron priced the extended 
warranty line items taking into account the cost savings resulting 
from providing the extended warranty coverage at sites with multiple 
trainers based on its reasonable understanding that the solicitation 
contemplated a single award.