BNUMBER:  B-278050 
DATE:  November 25, 1997
TITLE: Technology Services International, Inc., B-278050, November
25, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Technology Services International, Inc.

File:     B-278050

Date:November 25, 1997

Nancy O. Dix, Esq., Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, for the protester.
Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Apparent low bid was properly rejected as materially unbalanced where 
the bid, submitted in response to a solicitation providing for the 
award of a contract for telephone operator services for a base year 
with 4 option years, included a front-loaded base period price and did 
not become low until the third of 4 option years, thereby raising a 
reasonable doubt that the bid would result in the lowest 
ultimate cost to the government.

DECISION

Technology Services International, Inc. (TSI) protests the rejection 
of its bid as materially unbalanced and the award of a contract to 
TECHSECO, Inc., under invitation for bids (IFB) No. F09607-97-B0017, 
issued by the Department of the Air Force for telephone operator 
services at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. 

We deny the protest.

The IFB provided for the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for a 
base with 4 option years.  The successful contractor will provide 
telephone switchboard services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  The bid 
schedule required bidders to submit, for each period of the contract, 
a unit price for the services per month, and an extended price for the 
services per year.  Bidders were informed that the agency would 
evaluate bids by adding the prices bid for the base and option 
periods.  The IFB also included the standard "Contract Award - Sealed 
Bidding" clause, set forth at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  
52.214-10, which cautions that a bid may be rejected as nonresponsive 
if the prices are materially unbalanced.[1]

The agency received 17 bids by the bid opening date, with TSI and 
TECHSECO submitting the lowest-priced bids as follows:

                        TSI            TECHSECO

         Base Year      $142,920       $116,640

         1st Option     $130,800       $116,640

         2nd Option     $  89,760      $116,640

         3rd Option     $  77,760      $116,640

         4th Option     $  77,760      $116,640

         Total          $519,000       $583,200
The agency concluded that TSI's overall low bid was mathematically and 
materially unbalanced and rejected TSI's bid in accordance with the 
terms of the solicitation.  Award was made to TECHSECO as the bidder 
submitting the lowest-priced, responsive bid, and this protest 
followed.

An examination of bid unbalancing has two aspects.  First, the bid 
must be evaluated mathematically to determine whether the bid is based 
on understated prices for some work and overstated prices for other 
work.  The second aspect--material unbalancing--involves an assessment 
of the cost impact of a mathematically unbalanced bid.  Where there is 
reasonable doubt that award to the bidder submitting the 
mathematically unbalanced bid would result in the lowest ultimate cost 
to the government, the bid is materially unbalanced and may not be 
accepted.  FAR  sec.  14.404-2(g), 52.214-10(e); Westbrook Indus., Inc., 
71 Comp. Gen. 139, 140 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  30 at 4; Solon Automated 
Servs., Inc., B-206449.2, Dec. 20, 1982, 82-2 CPD  para.  548 at 3.

With regard to service contracts that involve the evaluation of base 
and option periods, and where the level of service for each period is 
essentially the same, a large price differential between the base and 
option periods, or between one option period and another, is prima 
facie evidence of mathematical unbalancing.  Westbrook Indus., Inc., 
supra, at 3; Professional Waste Sys., Inc.; Tri-State Servs. of Texas, 
67 Comp. Gen. 68, 70 (1987), 87-2 CPD  para.  477 at 3.  However, the 
assessment of whether a bid is mathematically unbalanced does not 
merely involve a comparison of the percentage difference between the 
base and option period prices. The determinative question is whether 
the pricing structure is reasonably related to the actual costs to be 
incurred in each year of the contract.  FAR  sec.  52.214-10(e); 
Residential Refuse Removal, Inc., 72 Comp. Gen. 68, 70 (1992), 92-2 
CPD  para.  444 at 4. 
Here, TSI's base year price is 59 percent higher than its price for 
the second option period, and 84 percent higher than its price for 
either the third or fourth option periods.  Because the level of 
services required during each year of this contract is the same, this 
significant difference in TSI's prices indicates that its bid is 
mathematically unbalanced.  See Residential Refuse Removal, Inc., 
supra, at 3-4.  Moreover, TSI has not shown that its bid's pricing 
structure is reasonably related to the actual costs to be incurred in 
each year of the contract.[2]  Accordingly, the agency properly found 
TSI's bid to be mathematically unbalanced.

In cases involving mathematically unbalanced bids which do not become 
low until late in the contract term, including option years, we have 
agreed that despite the initial intent of the agency to exercise the 
options, intervening events could cause the contract not to run its 
full term, which would result in an inordinately high cost to the 
government and a windfall to the bidder.  Under this type of factual 
situation, an agency could reasonably determine that there was a 
reasonable doubt whether the mathematically unbalanced bid would 
ultimately provide the lowest cost to the government.  Professional 
Waste Sys., Inc.; Tri-State Servs. of Texas, supra, at 4.  Here, TSI's 
bid does not become low until the fourth year of a possible 5-year 
contract.  Although TSI argues that the agency has not identified any 
"evidence" that it would not exercise all the contract options,[3] 
TSI's significant front-loading provides the agency with sufficient 
reasonable doubt that the acceptance of TSI's bid would actually 
provide the lowest ultimate cost to the government.  Westbrook Indus., 
Inc., supra, at 4.  Consequently, the agency reasonably rejected TSI's 
bid as materially unbalanced.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. This clause states that a bid "is materially unbalanced when it is 
based on prices significantly less than cost for some work and prices 
which are significantly overstated in relation to cost for other work, 
and if there is a reasonable doubt that the bid will result in the 
lowest overall cost to the Government."  FAR  sec.  52.214-10(e).

2. TSI argued in its protest that its bid was not mathematically 
unbalanced, because its higher initial year prices included "start-up 
costs, necessary travel, management oversight and required training to 
ensure quality performance."  In accordance with our Bid Protest 
Regulations, the agency requested that the protester provide any 
documents it possessed that supported this assertion.  4 C.F.R  sec.  
21.3(d) (1997).  The protester complied with this request, and the 
agency subsequently argued in its report that "[t]he cost breakdown 
submitted by TSI merely shows the total labor cost for performance of 
the service and provides no real justification for its unbalanced 
bid."  TSI did not respond to the agency's argument or otherwise 
support its initial protest claims regarding the front-loading of its 
bid.

3. The agency identified several possibilities that could preclude the 
agency's exercise of the option periods of this contract, including 
the loss of contract funding, a termination for default, or the 
solicitation of telephone switchboard services on a regional basis, 
which is estimated to offer a higher cost savings to the government 
than obtaining the services on a base-by-base basis as has been done 
here.