BNUMBER:  B-277238 
DATE:  August 19, 1997
TITLE: Beautify Professional Cleaning Service, Inc., B-277238,
August 19, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Beautify Professional Cleaning Service, Inc.

File:     B-277238

Date:August 19, 1997

Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., for the protester.
Michael Colvin, Department of Health and Human Services, for the 
agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

A customer complaint program used by an agency as part of its quality 
assurance plan as a means for collecting information regarding the 
contractor's performance is not objectionable where it is the 
assessment by the government of the contractor's performance, not 
unvalidated customer complaints, which will determine whether contract 
deductions are warranted.

DECISION

Beautify Professional Cleaning Service, Inc. protests the terms of 
request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-97-P(GG)-0025, issued by the 
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human 
Services, for custodial services for a large number of government 
buildings.

We deny the protest.

The RFP was issued on April 25, 1997, and contemplated the award of a 
firm, fixed-price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract.  
As relevant to this protest, the RFP's statement of work categorized 
space in existing and any future buildings into five room groups 
(public, staff, health, support, and exterior) and identified five 
performance/acceptable quality levels (outstanding, very good, good, 
fair, and minimal) for each room group.  The RFP contained a detailed 
list of the conditions likely to be evident at each performance level.

For example, for an "outstanding" level of cleaning, the RFP required 
that waste containers be empty of trash and litter; that dust very 
rarely be seen on some surfaces; that litter only rarely be seen on a 
surface or in any container; that corners and edges exhibit 
insignificant detailing problems; that streak or residue problems 
rarely be seen on any surface; that buildup or neglect problems not be 
evident on any item or surface; that there be excellent gloss or shine 
on floor and polishable surfaces; that spots or marks rarely be 
visible on any surface; and that carpeted floors and furniture exhibit 
insignificant fiber, litter, or dust buildup problems.  The RFP 
summarized this detailed listing of what would constitute an 
"outstanding" level of cleaning by stating that this level of 
performance would deliver a "highly defect-free environment" and by 
stating that when at least 90 percent of all items or surfaces cleaned 
are free of any of the conditions described, the performance would be 
considered "[w]orld [c]lass."

The RFP also described the government's quality assurance plan.  Under 
the direction of the contracting officer's technical representative 
(COTR), the government would assess customer satisfaction (complaint 
management and customer survey) and the cleanliness of the work 
environment (continuous improvement and acceptable quality levels by 
room group) to measure, monitor, and evaluate the contractor's 
compliance with acceptable quality levels.  The COTR would meet with 
the contractor's project manager on a weekly basis during the first 2 
months of the contract and after this period, at least once a month.  
The RFP explained that the purpose of these meetings is to review the 
contractor's compliance with the customer satisfaction and cleanliness 
components of the government's quality assurance plan, to review the 
monthly accomplishment report, and to resolve issues that adversely 
impact the contractor's performance.

Finally, the RFP incorporated by reference the clause at Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  52.246-4, captioned "Inspection of 
Services--Fixed Price," which reserves the government's right to 
inspect all services at all times during the contract and, when 
defects in service cannot be corrected by reperformance, to reduce the 
contract price for services that do not conform with the contract 
requirements.

The protester first argues that the RFP used ambiguous terms, for 
example, "highly defect-free environment" and "world class," to 
summarize what the agency would consider an "outstanding" level of 
performance.[1]  We disagree, since the protester's position is not 
supported by the record.

To the extent there was any ambiguity in the RFP as initially issued, 
the record shows that by amendment No. 1 (containing answers to 
potential offerors' pre-proposal questions), the agency clearly 
explained that the quoted terms were defined by the detailed 
conditions listed in the RFP for the five quality levels.  For 
example, the amendment stated that the terms "highly defect-free 
environment" and "world class" related back to and summarized the 
RFP's detailed list of conditions (set out above) likely to be evident 
at the "outstanding" performance level, e.g., waste containers empty 
of trash and litter, and dust very rarely seen on surfaces.

In light of the detailed information provided in the RFP, we think 
offerors like the protester, which is currently performing custodial 
service contracts, have sufficient information to be able to 
intelligently prepare technical proposals and to submit prices which 
take into account what they may perceive to be performance 
uncertainties and risks, thus affording offerors the opportunity to 
compete on an equal basis.  See, e.g., Braswell Servs. Group, Inc., 
B-276694, July 15, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  18 at 3-4; Sunbelt Properties, 
Inc., B-249469 et al., Nov. 17, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  353 at 4.  On this 
record, we have no basis to conclude that the RFP's descriptive terms 
are ambiguous.

The protester next expresses concern with the customer satisfaction 
component of the government's quality assurance plan as described in 
the RFP.  The protester asserts, based on its reading of the RFP, that 
the agency intends to make deductions under the contract for defects 
in contractor performance on the basis of customer complaints without 
first evaluating the merits of those complaints.  In this respect, the 
protester maintains that customers should not be able to function as 
government inspectors.

The protester's concern is not supported by a reasonable reading of 
the RFP.  The clause at FAR  sec.  52.246-4 provides, among other things, 
that if services do not conform with contract requirements and cannot 
be corrected by reperformance the agency may make deductions under the 
contract to reflect the reduced value of the services provided.  Under 
the government's quality assurance plan as described in the RFP, the 
COTR will meet with the contractor's project manager on a regular 
basis to review the contractor's compliance with the customer 
satisfaction and cleanliness components of the plan, to review the 
monthly accomplishment report, and to resolve issues that adversely 
impact the contractor's performance.  There is no language in the 
quality assurance plan which would authorize the agency to effectively 
ignore the government's inspection obligations under the clause at FAR  sec.  
52.246-4 by relying on unvalidated customer complaints as the basis 
for imposing a deduction for defective performance.

Contracting agencies are required to verify whether services conform 
to contract quality requirements and to maintain records regarding a 
contractor's performance.  See FAR  sec.  46.104; Premiere Bldg. Servs., 
Inc., B-255858, Apr. 12, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  252 at 3 n.2.  A customer 
complaint program used by an agency as part of its quality assurance 
plan as a means for collecting information regarding the contractor's 
performance is not objectionable where it is the assessment by the 
government of the contractor's performance, not unvalidated customer 
complaints, which will determine whether contract deductions are 
warranted.  Id.; see Larson Bldg. Care Inc., B-209837, B-209761, June 
20, 1983, 83-1 CPD  para.  671 at 2.  There is no support in the record for 
the protester's concern that under the terms of the RFP the agency 
will rely on unvalidated customer complaints and not perform its own 
inspection to assess the contractor's performance.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The protester makes the same argument with respect to the term 
"near defect-free environment" used in the RFP to summarize the 
conditions evidencing a "very good" performance level and the term 
"minor level of defects" used in the RFP to summarize the conditions 
evidencing "fair" and "minimal" performance levels.