BNUMBER:  B-279191.3           
DATE:  August 5, 1998
TITLE: Main Building Maintenance, Inc., B-279191.3, August 5, 1998
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.

Matter of:Main Building Maintenance, Inc.

File:B-279191.3          
        
Date:August 5, 1998

Lee Curtis, Esq., William A. Roberts III, Esq., and Douglas Manya, 
Esq., Howrey & Simon, and Garreth E. Shaw, Esq., for the protester. 
Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., for Astro Quality Services, Inc., an 
intervenor.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. 
Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably decided to take corrective action (including 
reinstating previous protester to the competitive range and reopening 
discussions with all competitive range offerors) in response to 
previous protests, where agency concluded during pendency of protests 
that it could not defend initial protests because discussions with the 
previous protester were not meaningful and did not afford that firm an 
opportunity to clarify or revise its proposal to address evaluators' 
concerns.

DECISION

Main Building Maintenance, Inc. (MBM) protests the Air Force's 
decision to take corrective action in response to two prior protests 
filed by Astro Quality Services, Inc. (Astro) under request for 
proposals (RFP) No. F41636-96-R-0047, for base engineering services.  
MBM had been awarded two contracts pursuant to the RFP.  In its prior 
protests, Astro alleged that the Air Force's discussions with it were 
inadequate and that the Air Force improperly eliminated Astro's 
proposal from the competitive range based upon an unreasonable 
technical evaluation.  After reviewing the protests, the Air Force 
determined that it had not held meaningful discussions with Astro and 
that its decision to eliminate Astro from the competitive range could 
not be supported.  Agency Report, June 1, 1998, at 2.  The Air Force 
decided to take corrective action, including:  reinstating Astro to 
the competitive range, reopening discussions with all competitive 
range offerors, receiving and evaluating new best and final offers 
(BAFO), and making a new award determination.  Id.  MBM contends that 
the Air Force's decision to take corrective action in response to 
Astro's prior protests is improper because the agency's discussions 
with Astro were adequate and the agency reasonably evaluated Astro's 
proposal and eliminated it from the competitive range.

We deny the protest.

The RFP solicited proposals for providing labor, equipment, materials, 
transportation, and services related to base engineering requirements 
for minor construction/maintenance/repair projects to be performed at 
Lackland Air Force Base and Wilford Hall Medical Center.  RFP  sec.  C.3.1.  
The RFP contemplated award of two 1-year indefinite-delivery, 
indefinite-quantity contracts (one for Lackland and the other for 
Wilford Hall), each with options for 4 additional years.  RFP  sec.  
B.5.1, M-910; Contracting Officer (CO) Statement, Mar. 5, 1998, at 1.  
The RFP stated, at  sec.  M-901.A, that contracts would be awarded to the 
offerors whose proposals were determined to be most advantageous after 
consideration of price and other factors. 

Eight offerors submitted initial proposals.  After several rounds of 
discussions, the agency eliminated all but three offerors from the 
competitive range; Astro was one of the offerors eliminated.  Agency 
Report at 1.  After evaluating BAFOs, the Air Force determined that 
MBM's proposals represented the best overall value and awarded MBM 
both the Lackland and Wilford Hall contracts.  CO Statement at 2; 
Source Selection Decision at 1; Agency Report at 2.  After a 
debriefing, Astro protested to our Office.[1]

Among other things, Astro alleged that the Air Force did not hold 
meaningful discussions and incorrectly evaluated its proposal in four 
areas in which the evaluators perceived deficiencies and upon which 
the agency based its decision to eliminate Astro from the competitive 
range.  Astro challenged the agency's conclusions that:  [deleted]  

Our Office scheduled a hearing on Astro's protests and notified the 
parties that we would hear testimony concerning the four reasons 
identified by the Air Force for eliminating Astro from the competitive 
range.  Shortly thereafter, the Air Force informed our Office that it 
intended to take corrective action in response to the protests, 
reinstating Astro to the competitive range and reopening discussions.  
Astro withdrew both protests, and we closed our files on April 21.  On 
April 27, MBM filed this protest in our Office, alleging that the Air 
Force had improperly decided to put Astro back into the competitive 
range and to reopen discussions with all competitive range offerors.

MBM states that the Air Force's decision to take corrective action was 
based solely upon the agency's determination that the original 
evaluation incorrectly concluded that Astro's proposed [deleted] and 
MBM contends that the competition should not be reopened, because the 
Air Force's original conclusion that Astro's [deleted] was correct.  
MBM Protest Letter, May 21, 1998, at 2-3.  MBM points out that Astro's 
[deleted].  Id. at 2.  MBM also contends that the Air Force 
discussions with Astro were adequate since the agency led Astro into 
the general area of its concern about the [deleted] during 
discussions.  Id. at 3.  MBM argues that, even if the agency did not 
hold adequate discussions and incorrectly evaluated Astro's proposal 
on [deleted], Astro was not prejudiced, because its proposal was 
eliminated from the competitive range for the four separate reasons 
listed above and, therefore, Astro's proposal "would have remained 
unacceptable and the contracting officer's determination to exclude 
Astro from the competitive range would have stood unchanged."  Id. at 
2.

Contracting officials in negotiated procurement have broad discretion 
to take corrective action where the agency determines that such action 
is necessary to ensure fair and impartial competition.  We do not 
believe that an agency must conclude that the protest is certain to be 
sustained before it may take corrective action; where the agency has 
reasonable concern that there were errors in the procurement, even if 
the protest could be denied, we view it as within the agency's 
discretion to take corrective action.  See Network Software Assocs., 
Inc.--Entitlement to Costs, B-250030.4, Jan. 15, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  46 
at 3 (mere fact that agency decides to take corrective action does not 
establish that a statute or regulation has clearly been violated).  
Moreover, we will not object to the specific proposed corrective 
action, so long as it is appropriate to remedy the concern that caused 
the agency to take corrective action.  See Sherikon, Inc., B-250152.4, 
Feb. 22, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  188 at 3.  

The Air Force reports that it decided to reopen discussions because, 
in defending the original protests, it became clear that Astro was 
never told that its [deleted] was considered [deleted] or that the 
evaluation team was confused regarding [deleted]  and, as a result, 
the decision to eliminate Astro from the competitive range could not 
be supported.  Agency Report at 4-5.  A contracting officer is 
required to include all proposals that have a reasonable chance of 
being selected for award in the competitive range and to hold written 
or oral discussions with all competitive range offerors.  Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.609(a), 15.610(b) (June 1997).  
During discussions, the contracting officer is to advise an offeror of 
any deficiencies in its proposal, to resolve any uncertainties 
concerning the technical proposal, and to allow the offeror an 
opportunity to revise its proposal in response to discussions.  FAR 
15.610(c).  Since there were perceived proposal weaknesses which the 
Air Force had not discussed with Astro, and those weaknesses formed 
part of the basis for the determination that Astro's proposal did not 
have a reasonable chance of award, the Air Force's proposed 
reinstating of Astro to the competitive range and reopening of 
discussions is reasonable.

We are unpersuaded by the protester's speculative argument that 
Astro's proposal would have been determined to be unacceptable even 
without consideration of the agency's concern regarding its [deleted] 
and the [deleted].  These two issues represented two out of the four 
weaknesses which, taken together, were identified to the source 
selection authority as the reason for eliminating Astro's proposal 
from the competitive range.  We have no basis upon which to determine, 
as the protester suggests, that the contracting officer's decision to 
exclude Astro's proposal from the competitive range would not have 
changed if Astro had clarified or revised its proposal in response to 
discussions on these two concerns.  We therefore conclude that the Air 
Force had a reasonable basis for its concern that Astro may have been 
prejudiced by the agency's failure to discuss these matters.

MBM also asserts that it will suffer competitive prejudice if the 
competition is reopened because its prices and subcontracting strategy 
were revealed to the other offerors after MBM was awarded the 
contracts.  MBM Protest Letter, May 21, 1998,  at 3, 6.  The Air Force 
reports that, in an effort to make the reopened competition as fair as 
possible, it will release the pricing coefficients of each competitive 
range offeror, including Astro, to all other competitive range offers 
during reopened discussions.  CO Memorandum (undated); Agency Report 
at 2.  We view the risk of an auction as secondary to the need to 
preserve the integrity of the competitive procurement system through 
appropriate corrective action.  Power Dynatec Corp., B-236896, Dec. 6, 
1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  522 at 3; see also The Cowperwood Co., B-274140.2, 
Dec. 26, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  240 at 2-3.  Here, since the agency had 
legitimate concerns about the conduct of the discussions with Astro, 
reopening of discussions is appropriate corrective action.
 
The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. Astro's initial protest (reference No. B-279191), filed on Feb. 5, 
1998, was based upon information obtained during the post-award 
debriefing.   After receiving additional information from the Air 
Force, Astro filed a supplemental protest (reference No. B-279191.2) 
on Feb. 24.