BNUMBER:  B-277241.19          
DATE:  June 8, 1998
TITLE: Aalco Forwarding, Inc., et al. --Reconsideration, B-
277241.19, June 8, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Aalco Forwarding, Inc., et al.--Reconsideration

File:B-277241.19         
        
Date:June 8, 1998

DIGEST

There is no basis to reconsider a decision which had found 
unobjectionable the notional price evaluation scheme used in lieu of 
quantity estimates in a solicitation for moving and storing services 
where the procuring agency could not prepare quantity estimates but 
required a common basis to evaluate prices, and in the absence of any 
viable alternative or showing that the methodology will necessarily 
produce a materially misleading result.

DECISION

Aalco Forwarding, Inc. and 65 other protesters request reconsideration 
of that portion of our decision in Aalco Forwarding, Inc., et al., 
B-277241.15, Mar. 11, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  87 at 10-13, in which we denied 
their protests of the price evaluation scheme of request for proposals 
(RFP) No. DAMT01-97-R-3001.[1]  The solicitation was issued by the 
Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC), Department of the Army, 
and implements a pilot program to reengineer the current program for 
shipping and storing the personal property of military service members 
and civilian employees.

We deny the request.

The protesters contended that the RFP's "notional shipment" price 
evaluation scheme for international shipments includes accessorial 
services that are rarely, if ever, performed, does not allow for 
consideration of the variances in the need for particular accessorial 
services on each shipment, and distorts the evaluated costs to the 
government by overweighting the costs for air shipments and 
underweighting the costs for surface shipments.  

We found no basis to object to MTMC's use of the notional shipment, 
including the use of all possible accessorial services, to evaluate 
the relative costs of the proposals, in lieu of stated quantity 
estimates.  Aalco Forwarding, Inc., et al., supra, at 11-12.  We 
recognized that the notional shipment is not representative of a 
typical shipment that may be ordered under the contract given that 
each shipment will necessarily be different due to the many variables 
inherent in each move and no shipment is likely to include all 
possible accessorial services.  However, we explained that, since MTMC 
lacks historical data to formulate quantity estimates for accessorial 
services, this type of price evaluation scheme is unobjectionable 
where the agency needs a price evaluation scheme that accounts for the 
prospective ordering of all possible accessorial services and that 
provides a common basis for proposal comparison and determining the 
relative cost to the government.  Id. at 
11-13; see High-Point Schaer, B-242616, B-242616.2, May 28, 1991, 91-1 
CPD  para.  509
at 6-8.  

In requesting reconsideration, the protesters allege that we failed to 
address the applicability of Beldon Roofing & Remodeling Co., 
B-277651, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  131, a decision they cited to 
support the contention that the notional shipment was an unreasonable 
hypothetical basis on which to determine the lowest cost to the 
government. 

We think that our decision in Aalco is clearly distinguishable from 
Beldon.  We found in Beldon that if a procuring agency issues an 
invitation for bids for a requirements contract with estimates of 
items required to be supplied, the estimates must be reliable so as to 
give bidders a reasonable basis to prepare their bids and the 
government the ability to determine which bid will actually result in 
the lowest overall cost.  However, unlike the situation of the 
procuring agency in Beldon, where the agency could prepare reasonably 
reliable quantity estimates (albeit with some difficulty), MTMC had no 
basis to prepare quantity estimates for each accessorial service for 
this RFP.  The protesters still have not shown that MTMC could prepare 
such estimates, given the lack of historical data.  

Since the agency required some common basis to evaluate the prices of 
accessorial services, and in the absence of any viable alternative or 
convincing showing that the methodology will necessarily produce a 
materially misleading result, we continue to find no basis to object 
to the notional shipment evaluation scheme employed in this RFP.  In 
this regard, although the protesters contend that the Aalco decision 
fails to address "the fatal flaw" in the agency's notional shipment 
resulting from the alleged overweighting of costs for air shipments 
and the underweighting of costs for surface shipments, we in fact 
considered this aspect of the protests, but deemed it without merit, 
Aalco Forwarding, Inc., et al., supra, at 12-13, and the protesters 
have not persuaded us that reconsideration is warranted on that 
matter.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The firms requesting reconsideration are:  Aalco Forwarding, Inc.; 
AAAA Forwarding, Inc.; Air Van Lines International, Inc.; Allstates 
Worldwide Movers; Aloha Worldwide Forwarders, Inc.; Alumni 
International, Inc.; American Heritage International Forwarding, Inc.; 
American Mopac International, Inc.; American Shipping, Inc.; American 
Vanpac Carriers; American World Forwarders, Inc.; Apollo Forwarders, 
Inc.; Arnold International Movers, Inc.; Astron Forwarding Company; 
BINL Incorporated; Burnham Service Company, Inc.; Cavalier Forwarding, 
Inc.; Classic Forwarding, Inc.; Davidson Forwarding Company; Deseret 
Forwarding International, Inc.; Foremost Forwarders, Inc.; Gateways 
International, Inc.; Global Worldwide, Inc.; Great American 
Forwarders, Inc.; Hi-Line Forwarders, Inc.; International Services, 
Inc.; Island Forwarding, Inc.; Jet Forwarding, Inc.; Katy Van Lines, 
Inc.; Lincoln Moving & Storage; Miller Forwarding, Inc.; Northwest 
Consolidators; North American Van Lines; Ocean Air International, 
Inc.; Senate Forwarding, Inc.; Shoreline International, Inc.; Stevens 
Forwarders, Inc.; Von Der Ahe International, Inc.; Wold International, 
Inc.; Zenith Forwarders, Inc.; 
A Advantage Forwarders, Inc.; Sentinel International Forwarding, Inc.; 
T.R.A.C.E. International, Inc.; Acorn International Forwarding 
Company; AAA Systems, Inc.; A.C.E. International Forwarders; American 
Red Ball International, Inc.; Apex Forwarding Company, Inc.; Armstrong 
International, Inc.; Arpin International Group, Inc.; Art 
International Forwarding, Inc.; Atlas Van Lines International 
Corporation; Coast Transfer Company, Inc.; Crystal Forwarding, Inc.; 
CTC Forwarding Company, Inc.; Diamond Forwarding, Inc.; Dyer 
International, Inc.; Harbour Forwarding Company, Inc.; HC&D Forwarders 
International, Inc.; Jag International, Inc.; The Kenderes Group, 
Inc.; Pearl Forwarding, Inc.; Rainier Overseas, Inc.; Rivers 
Forwarding, Inc.; Ryans's World; and Sequoia Forwarding Company, Inc.