BNUMBER:  B-278099 
DATE:  December 4, 1997
TITLE: Meridian Management Corp., B-278099, December 4, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Meridian Management Corp.

File:     B-278099

Date:December 4, 1997

Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & 
Gordon, for the protester.
Kenneth M. Bruntel, Esq., and Ariel R. David, Esq., Crowell & Moring 
LLP, for Omni Corp., an intervenor.
Lafayette N. Johnson, Esq., Federal Emergency Management Agency, for 
the agency.
Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest alleging that agency improperly requested multiple rounds of 
best and final offers is denied where the record shows that, in each 
instance, the contracting officer had a valid reason for doing so.

DECISION

Meridian Management Corporation protests the award of a contract to 
Omni Corporation pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 
EME-97-RP-0019, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) for maintenance, housekeeping, repairs and minor construction 
at the agency's National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, 
Maryland.  

We deny the protest.

The RFP for these support services for FEMA was issued March 27, 1997, 
seeking fixed-price offers for a base year and four 1-year options.  
The RFP anticipated award to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced 
technically acceptable offer.  RFP  sec.  M.3.  

By the RFP's initial due date, FEMA received several proposals, 
including those submitted by Meridian and Omni.  Upon completion of 
the initial evaluation, one proposal was found unacceptable; the 
remaining proposals were found capable of being made acceptable.  
After a round of written discussion questions, the agency requested 
best and final offers (BAFO) by July 9.  After evaluation of the 
BAFOs, the agency concluded that all of the remaining offerors were 
technically acceptable, and that Meridian had submitted the lowest 
price.

According to the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) report, during the 
review of BAFOs the contract specialist noticed that offerors were 
using different Department of Labor wage rates for one of the labor 
categories identified in the RFP.  Because the agency decided that 
misleading information in the RFP was the source of the ambiguity, the 
contracting officer issued amendment 006 to the RFP changing the title 
of one position from Laborer/Grounds Maintenance to Laborer.  SEB 
Report, Sept. 9, 1997, at 2.  The corresponding wage rate change was 
an increase from $7.89 per hour for the position, to $9.71 per hour.  
Offerors were then requested to submit a second BAFO by July 17, 1997.  
RFP, Amend. 006. 

Upon receipt and evaluation of the second BAFO, Omni's price was the 
lowest of all the offerors'; Meridian's price was second low.  
However, prior to making award to Omni, the agency discovered what it 
viewed as an ambiguity in the RFP regarding the treatment of 
transition costs.  After concluding that the offerors should be given 
specific instructions on those costs, FEMA provided such instructions 
by letter dated August 20.  The letter also requested that offerors 
submit a third BAFO by August 25.  

Upon conclusion of its review of the third round of BAFOs, FEMA 
decided that Omni's was the lowest-priced, technically acceptable 
offer, and on September 9, FEMA awarded the contract to Omni at a 
price of $16,782,672.

Meridian argues that FEMA improperly requested multiple BAFOs from the 
offerors in order to permit Omni to prevail in the competition by 
lowering its price and improving its standing among the competitors.  
Meridian's challenge is premised upon the assumption that agency 
officials have conducted this procurement with a desire to favor only 
one offeror.  Not only does our review of the record indicate that 
there is no evidence of improper motive on the part of agency 
officials, but Meridian itself acknowledges that "there appears to be 
no evidence of a direct price disclosure or technical leveling."  
Meridian's Comments on the Agency Report, Oct. 31, 1997, at 1.  
Without such evidence, we will not attribute prejudicial motives to 
agency contracting officials on the basis of mere inference or 
supposition.  Meridian Management Corp., Inc.; NAA Servs. Corp., 
B-254797, B-254797.2, Jan. 21, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  167 at 6.

Meridian also argues that the agency violated Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.611(c) when it requested a second and third 
round of BAFOs in this procurement.  We disagree.  Although the FAR 
clearly discourages agencies from reopening discussions after receipt 
of BAFOs, the contracting officer is not without discretion in this 
matter.  Specifically, the provision states, in relevant part, that 
the contracting officer should not reopen discussions

     unless it is clearly in the Government's interest to do so (e.g., 
     it is clear that information available at that time is inadequate 
     to reasonably justify contractor selection and award based on the 
     best and final offers received).

FAR  sec.  15.611(c) (FAC 90-44).  

As stated above, in both the second and third BAFO requests here, the 
contracting officer had concerns that making a selection decision, 
without remedying underlying problems, could lead to a conclusion that 
the selection decision was not reasonably justified.  Our decisions 
recognize that there is nothing wrong with requesting more than one 
round of BAFOs where a valid reason exists to do so.  Warren Elec. 
Constr. Corp., B-236173.4, B-236173.5, July 16, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  34 at 
11; HLJ Management Group, Inc., B-225843.3, Oct. 20, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  
375 at 7.  For the reasons below, we agree that the agency had a valid 
reason in both instances.  

In the first instance--i.e., in the second request for BAFOs--the 
agency became concerned that offerors were misled by the solicitation 
into using different wage rates.  In support of this conclusion, the 
record shows that different offerors used one or the other of the two 
applicable wage rates.  In addition, there is no dispute that the 
difference in the wage rates for these two positions--$7.89 per hour 
versus $9.71 per hour--would have a significant impact on the proposed 
price of an offeror whose proposal relied on the wrong rate to 
calculate its price for five years worth of labor.  Similarly, in the 
second instance--the third request for BAFOs--the contracting officer 
reasonably elected to correct an apparent ambiguity with respect to 
the treatment of transition costs, based on advice from the agency's 
legal counsel that failure to do so could result in a successful 
challenge to the award decision.  Under these circumstances, we 
conclude the agency had valid bases for both its decisions to reopen 
discussions.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States