BNUMBER:  B-281199.2 
DATE:  March 4, 1999
TITLE: Symvionics, Inc., B-281199.2, March 4, 1999
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Symvionics, Inc.

File:     B-281199.2

Date:March 4, 1999

Charlotte Rothenberg Rosen, Esq., and Monica C. Parchment, Esq., 
Tucker, Flyer & Lewis, for the protester.
John E. Lariccia, Esq., and Martin F. McAlwee, Esq., Department of the 
Air Force, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest of agency determination based on cost comparison under 
which agency failed to seal its management plan/most efficient 
organization (MP/MEO), contrary to Office of Management and Budget 
Circular No. A-76 guidelines, is denied where the agency had the 
approved MP/MEO secured until the cost comparison was conducted and 
the failure to seal it did not materially affect the cost comparison. 

2.   Under A-76 cost comparison, agency properly corrected proposed 
agency use of impermissible volunteer effort by adding sufficient 
personnel and labor hours to replace the volunteer effort.  

3.  Protest that A-76 cost comparison was defective because agency 
failed to specifically allocate replacement hours or to describe in 
detail how replacement personnel would handle tasks previously 
proposed for volunteers is denied where the number of personnel and 
labor hours, in context, are more than sufficient to cover volunteer 
effort and to meet all performance work statement responsibilities. 

DECISION

Symvionics, Inc., protests the determination by the Department of the 
Air Force, pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular 
No. A-76, that it would be more economical to operate housing 
management functions at Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB), Florida using 
in-house, Air Force civilian personnel, rather than to contract for 
these services.  Symvionics alleges that the Air Force violated 
various provisions of OMB Circular No. A-76 in conducting the 
comparison under request for proposals (RFP) No. F08650-98-R-0009 that 
provided the basis for the agency's determination.  Symvionics 
contends that, absent the alleged violations, the competition would 
have resulted in a determination that the protester's proposal was 
more economical. 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP was issued on March 25, 1998 for the purpose of conducting a 
cost comparison between Symvionics and the Air Force for providing 
military family housing management services at PAFB.  Prior to issuing 
the RFP, the Air Force had selected Symvionics to participate in the 
competition based on a request from the Small Business Administration 
that the acquisition be reserved for Symvionics under the 8(a) 
set-aside program.  The period of performance included a phase-in 
period and a base period, with three 1-year options.  The RFP provided 
for the use of negotiation procedures and indicated that award would 
be made to the most economical offeror based on the outcome of the 
cost comparison.  RFP  sec.  M-1.  Symvionics's technical and cost 
proposals were due by May 5, 1998.  In accordance with OMB Circular 
No. A-76, the Air Force's management plan/most efficient organization 
(MP/MEO) and its estimated cost were to be placed under seal prior to 
the date established for receipt of Symvionics's proposal.

The RFP's performance work statement (PWS) set forth the scope of work 
and defined the housing management tasks and functions.  RFP  sec.  C.  
With the exception of certain responsibilities, such as supervision of 
unaccompanied housing managers and a maintenance contract (Hearing 
Transcript (Tr.) at 9), the PWS identified the same tasks and 
responsibilities as those accomplished by the Housing Flight Office at 
PAFB.[1]  These included management of the off-base housing program 
(task 5.9), commander's interest program (task 5.12), and furnishings 
management (task 5.13).  The contractor was responsible for 
determining the appropriate number and skill level of its proposed 
personnel based upon the specific tasks identified in the PWS. 

The Air Force's MP/MEO for this acquisition, which was based on the 
scope of work identified in the PWS, was originally developed by a 
government contractor.  The purpose of the MP/MEO was to determine and 
document the specific management and functional process improvements 
upon which the optimum structure and labor requirements were based.  
At the time of the A-76 study and competition, the PAFB housing flight 
manager (hereinafter Ms. A) was primarily responsible for further 
developing the MP/MEO.  Declaration of Ms. A, Dec. 4, 1998 (Ms. A 
Decl.),  para.  1.  Ms. A had the title of housing flight chief (HFC) and 
the grade of GS-12.  In the first draft of the MP/MEO, completed in 
mid-February 1998, the housing manager, identified as the person 
responsible for overall management of the housing office, was listed 
at the grade of GS-9/10.  According to Ms. A, under the PWS the 
housing manager had fewer responsibilities than she had as a GS-12, 
and she envisioned the position as starting at a GS-9 with promotion 
potential to GS-10.  Tr. at 13-14, 30.  While Ms. A worked on the 
MP/MEO, she was in contact with a management analyst (hereinafter Mr. 
B) who was the principal point of contact for the 45th Space Wing 
Manpower Office at PAFB.  Declaration of Mr. B, Nov. 6, 1998 (Mr. B 
Decl. 1),  para.  1.  Mr. B was responsible for assigning appropriate costs 
for all aspects of the MP/MEO including personnel costs.  Id.; Tr. at 
127, 129.  Because the Air Force's cost comparison software (COMPARE) 
would only accept a specific grade, Ms. A and Mr. B assigned a grade 
of GS-10 to the housing manager position.  Mr. B Decl. 1  para.  2; Tr. at 
21, 30-31, 131.

The February draft MP/MEO also had the housing manager report directly 
to the Commander, 45th Civil Engineering Squadron (CES).  Tr. at 21.  
Later, based on the experience of other Air Force bases, Ms. A added a 
supervisory position above the housing manager, known as "housing 
flight chief" [hereinafter "new HFC"].  This new HFC was to serve as a 
single point of contact for all of the housing functions formerly 
supervised by Ms. A, including those within the A-76 study, and the 
housing manager would report to the new HFC instead of reporting 
directly to the CES Commander.  Ms. A Decl.  para.  2; Tr. at 22.  Because 
the new HFC was considered to be outside the MP/MEO, no direct cost 
was assigned for this position.  Tr. at 133-34; Declaration of Mr. B, 
Dec. 4, 1998 (Mr. B Decl. 2),  para.  8.

On or about April 10, Ms. A sent a draft MP/MEO which identified the 
housing manager as a GS-9 with responsibility to report to the new 
HFC.  This draft also provided for volunteers to perform some PWS 
tasks.   Subsequently, the Air Force decided to eliminate the new HFC 
position and determined that the housing manager must be a GS-10.  Tr. 
at 29-30, 50; Ms. A Decl.  para.  4.  On or about May 4, Ms. A prepared 
changes to the MP/MEO to reflect the grade change and to delete all 
references to the HFC.  Tr. at 33-35; Ms. A Decl.  para.  4.  She then 
delivered the changes to Mr. B, who on May 5 made the necessary 
changes to the COMPARE program and inserted the change pages into two 
of his copies of the April 10 MP/MEO.  Mr. B Decl. 1  para.  3; Tr. at 159, 
161, 163.[2] 

On May 5, the independent review officer (IRO) (hereinafter Mr. C) 
reviewed and certified this final plan as well as the cost comparison.  
Declaration of Mr. C, Nov. 13, 1998 (Mr. C Decl.),  para.  2; Mr. B Decl. 1  para.  
3; Mr. B Decl. 2  para.  1; Tr. at 166, 240.  The cost comparison was sealed 
and delivered to the contracting officer prior to receipt of 
Symvionics's proposal.  Declaration of contracting officer, Dec. 4, 
1998, 
 para.  2.  The MP/MEO was not included in this package, but the contracting 
officer was not aware that it was missing at that time.  After May 5, 
the Air Force reviewed the Symvionics proposal, requested 
clarifications, and obtained a revised cost proposal from Symvionics.

On May 27, the Air Force proposal envelope was opened for comparison 
with Symvionics's proposal.  At that time, the contracting officer 
discovered that the Air Force MP/MEO was not included therein.  No 
changes had been made to the MP/MEO from May 5 through 27.  Tr. at 
170.  She decided to continue with the comparison and Symvionics's 
cost information was entered into the COMPARE program.  This 
comparison showed that it was more economical to contract with 
Symvionics.  

When this comparison was reviewed, the Air Force discovered that it 
had improperly added to its own estimated cost the 10 percent cost 
differential which, under the A-76 procedures, should have been added 
to Symvionics's cost.  Using an unrevised copy of the April 10 MP/MEO, 
the Air Force also "discovered" that the housing manager's personnel 
cost had been based on a GS-10 instead of a GS-9 as called for in that 
draft version of the plan.  When the cost comparison was redone to 
correct these mistakes, it showed that it was more economical for the 
Air Force to perform.  By letter of June 1, the Air Force notified 
Symvionics of the revised cost comparison and advised it that the 
comparison would undergo a 15-day review.  On June 3, the Air Force 
mistakenly furnished Symvionics with a copy of the April 10 MP/MEO on 
which it had based the cost revision.  This MP/MEO reflected a GS-9 
housing manager position and included the new HFC position.  Later in 
June, the Air Force discovered its mistake regarding the proper grade 
of the housing manager and ran the cost comparison again, this time 
with personnel costs which included a GS-10.  After the restoration of 
the correct grade, the cost comparison continued to show that it was 
more economical for the Air Force to perform in-house.

On June 18, Symvionics appealed the cost comparison process to the Air 
Force.  Among other issues, Symvionics challenged the housing 
manager's grade, the failure to include costs for the new HFC, and the 
proposal to use volunteers for some PWS tasks.  In its response to 
this appeal, the Air Force agreed that the proposal of volunteers was 
improper, but rejected the other appeal grounds.  When the agency 
added what it considered to be the appropriate cost of one and 
one-half GS-5 step 5 housing specialists to cover the volunteers' 
time, the addition did not raise the Air Force's estimated cost above 
Symvionics's cost.  The Air Force denied the appeal.

Symvionics filed a second agency-level appeal, noting that the Air 
Force had failed to comply with Air Force Pamphlet 26-12 which 
requires the appointment of an administrative appeal review team.  The 
Air Force agreed that it erred and appointed an administrative appeal 
procedure authority (AAP).  After reviewing the matters raised by 
Symvionics, on September 18, the AAP denied Symvionics's appeal.  In 
his denial, the AAP determined that Symvionics was correct with regard 
to the issue of volunteers and recommended that a full time, GS-7 step 
5 be added to replace the volunteer hours.  The AAP also recommended 
that the MP/MEO be revised to account for personnel cost changes and 
that a new comparison be made.  The new comparison again showed a cost 
advantage to the Air Force plan.  After receiving the denial, 
Symvionics filed this protest.  

STANDARD OF REVIEW

OMB Circular No. A-76 describes the executive branch's policy on the 
operation of commercial activities that are incidental to performance 
of government functions.  It outlines procedures for determining 
whether commercial activities should be operated under contract by 
private enterprise or in-house using government facilities and 
personnel.  Our Office will review A-76 decisions resulting from an 
agency's issuance of a competitive solicitation for the purpose of 
comparing the cost of private and governmental operation of the 
commercial activity to determine whether the comparison was faulty or 
misleading.  Madison Servs., Inc., B-277614, Nov. 3, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  
136 at 4; Crown Healthcare Laundry Servs., Inc., B-270827, B-270827.2, 
Apr. 30, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  207 at 3.

In reviewing an A-76 cost comparison, our decision turns on whether 
the agency complied with the applicable procedures in selecting 
in-house performance over contracting.  Tecom, Inc., B-253740.3, July 
7, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  11 at 3.  Further, in order for our Office to 
sustain the protest, the record must evidence not only that the agency 
failed to follow established procedures, but also that this failure 
could have materially affected the outcome of the cost comparison.  
Id.; Alltech, Inc., B-237980, Mar. 27, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  335 at 4.  

In its protest to our Office, Symvionics challenges the Air Force's 
failure to seal the MP/MEO in accordance with A-76 guidelines; its 
failure to identify any costs for the HFC position; its failure to 
propose a GS-12 step 4 as its housing manager; and the propriety of 
the Air Force's substitution, on appeal, of a single government 
employee for volunteers.  Our review indicates that while the Air 
Force made various procedural errors, none of them materially affected 
the outcome of the cost comparison.[3]

SEALING OF THE MP/MEO

The MP/MEO and in-house estimated cost are to be delivered as "sealed 
documents to the contracting officer prior to the due date for the 
receipt of bids or technical proposals."  OMB Circular No. A-76, 
Revised Supplemental Handbook ch. 3,  para.  F.2 (March 1996).  The period 
for submitting contract offers is to be extended until the MEO and 
in-house estimates are sealed and no private sector offer is to be 
opened or reviewed prior to the sealing of the government's in-house 
estimate.  Id.  Symvionics complains that the agency did not seal the 
in-house estimate until, not prior to, the due date of May 5 and that 
it never sealed the MP/MEO.  

While the failure to seal these documents prior to the due date was 
improper, under the circumstances here, it is clear that Symvionics 
was not prejudiced as a result.  The record establishes that the 
in-house estimate was approved and sealed prior to the time when the 
agency received Symvionics's proposal.  Tr. at 166, 240; Mr. B Decl. 1  para.  
3; Mr. B Decl. 2  para.  1; Mr. C Decl.  para.  2.  Further, while the MP/MEO was 
not sealed, it was approved on May 5, prior to receipt of the 
Symvionics proposal.  Mr. C Decl.  para.  2; Mr. B Decl. 1  para.  3, 4.  In this 
regard, the chief, manpower office certified that the "in-house 
organization reflected in the cost comparison is the most efficient 
and cost effective organization that is fully capable of performing 
the scope of work and tasks required by the [PWS]."  Cost Comparison 
of In-House vs. Contract Performance, Signatures Page  para.  21.  Likewise, 
the IRO certified that he had "reviewed the [PWS], Management Plan, 
In-house cost estimates and supporting documentation available prior 
to bid opening and . . . determined that: (1) the ability of the 
in-house MEO to perform the work contained in the [PWS] at the 
estimated costs . . . is reasonably established and, (2) that all 
costs entered on the cost comparison have been prepared in accordance 
with the requirements of Circular A-76 and its Supplement."  Id.  para.  23.  

Copies of this MP/MEO were kept in locked drawers by the IRO and Mr. 
B, the cost analyst, on and after May 5 and were not removed until 
after the cost comparison was made on May 27.  There is no evidence 
that the estimated cost or MP/MEO were changed in any substantive way 
from May 5 through May 27.  The only substantive changes were made 
during the review process and pursuant to the recommendations of the 
AAP and did not incorporate any information from the protester's 
proposal.[4]  Thus, it is clear from the record Symvionics was not 
prejudiced by the agency's failure to follow this procedural 
requirement.

CONTENTS OF THE MP/MEO

Based on its receipt of an MP/MEO which showed a GS-9 housing manager 
and a reporting chain including the new HFC position, Symvionics 
questions the contents of the MP/MEO and the absence of any direct 
costs attributable to the HFC position.[5]  From our review of the 
record, including the various iterations of the MP/MEO, and testimony 
at the hearing, it is plain that the intended MP/MEO proposed a GS-10 
for housing manager and eliminated the position of the new HFC.  In 
this regard, according to Ms. A, the personnel office determined that 
the housing manager could not be proposed at any level below GS-10.  
Tr. at 29-30; Ms. A Decl.  para.  4.  Likewise, command, manpower, 
contracting, and personnel officials agreed that a separate HFC 
position would not be created.  Tr. at 50; Ms. A Decl.  para.  4.  In their 
view, the new HFC simply represented "an extra body" for the 
convenience of the commander; all PWS responsibilities were already 
covered in the MEO.  See Tr. at 29-30.  Accordingly, by May 4, Ms. A 
had removed the references to the new HFC position and had changed the 
housing manager's grade to GS-10 step 5.  
Tr. 34-37; Ms. A Decl.  para.  4.  She delivered these changes to Mr. B, who 
incorporated them into two of his copies of the MP/MEO.  Tr. at 
159-61. [6] Mr. B also ensured that the estimated in-house cost 
reflected a GS-10 and associated costs for the housing manager 
position.  Tr. at 162-63; Mr. B Decl. 1  para.  3.

It was these changed copies reflecting a GS-10 that Mr. B delivered to 
the IRO and the chief of the manpower office for review and which they 
approved.  Tr. at 240; Mr. B Decl. 1  para.  3.  While the IRO had no 
independent recollection that the HFC was removed at that time (Tr. at 
241), there is no evidence that the position was included in the 
MP/MEO he reviewed.  In this regard, the IRO submitted a copy of the 
MP/MEO which he reviewed and it contains a GS-10 housing manager and 
no references to the new HFC position.  Because there is no HFC 
position in the approved MP/MEO, there is no need to provide any 
direct cost associated with the position.  Symvionics's allegations to 
the contrary are simply speculation which provides no basis to sustain 
its protest. 

In any event, even if the MP/MEO which was reviewed and approved had 
contained a GS-9 housing manager and the new HFC position, or were 
some combination of the two MP/MEOs, Symvionics would not be 
prejudiced.  If the housing manager were a GS-9, the agency's costs 
would be lower than Symvionics's by a greater margin than those 
represented by the actual use of a GS-10.  With regard to the new HFC, 
the record establishes that the position would not have represented 
any direct cost for purposes of comparison.  First, the proposed 
position would be present regardless of whether the agency or the 
contractor was awarded the contract.  Tr. at 24.  Where, as here, a 
position exists regardless of whether the work is contracted out, the 
position may properly be considered a "wash cost" and our Office will 
not review an allegation that the position was improperly excluded 
from the comparison.  Transcontinental Enters., Inc., B-230216.2, Nov. 
22, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  501 at 5.

Second, the primary reason for eliminating the new HFC position was 
the absence of any responsibilities at that level which were not 
covered within the MP/MEO.  Tr. at 25, 29.  The HFC was essentially an 
additional reporting layer between the housing manager and the CES 
Commander.  The presence of the new HFC did not change the 
responsibility of the housing manager under the MP/MEO.  Tr. at 25.  
Thus, the elimination of the new HFC position simply meant that the 
housing manager would report directly to the CES Commander, instead of 
the new HFC.  There is nothing in the record to indicate that this 
simple change in the reporting chain represented any increase in 
responsibilities or costs.  The only reallocation of HFC 
responsibilities concerned those which were associated with non-PWS 
responsibilities, e.g., supervision of the dorm managers, which were 
not part of the A-76 study and were to be passed on to existing 
supervisory commands.  Tr. at 208-10.  Under these circumstances, 
there is no basis to attribute a direct labor cost for the position.  
Since no direct cost would be associated with the new HFC position, 
its presence in the MP/MEO could not have any effect on the cost 
comparison.[7]  Further, to the extent the GS-10 MP/MEO represents 
"changes" made after receipt of the Symvionics proposal, the protester 
was not prejudiced because the elimination of the HFC position had no 
cost impact and the change to a GS-10 increased the agency's costs, 
which benefitted Symvionics under the comparison.

HOUSING MANAGER GRADE

The only position specifically identified in the PWS was that of the 
contract manager who was responsible for overall management of the 
housing office.  This proposed manager was required to have 5 years 
management and 3 years housing management experience.  The RFP 
incorporated by reference Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  
52.222-42, "Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires."  In 
accordance with the Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended, and 
Department of Labor Regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 4) the clause 
identified "the classes of service employees expected to be employed 
under the contract and state[d] the wages and fringe benefits payable 
to each if they were employed by the contracting agency."  RFP at 13.  
The clause identified the housing manager as a "GS-1173-12 (Step 4). " 

Based on this clause, Symvionics argues that it was misled by the RFP 
to propose a housing manager at a grade level commensurate with a 
GS-12 step 4.  Since the Air Force proposed a GS-10 step 5 housing 
manager, the protester maintains that either the agency's cost should 
be increased to that of a GS-12 or the protester should be allowed to 
revise its proposal to include a housing manager at a lower grade.  We 
disagree. 

First, the clause in question also provided, "THIS STATEMENT IS FOR 
INFORMATION ONLY:  IT IS NOT A WAGE DETERMINATION."  RFP at 13; FAR  sec.  
52.222-42.  As such, it was not reasonable for Symvionics to rely on 
the reference to a GS-12 as a specified grade.  The PWS provided 
information on the responsibilities of the housing manager and 
workload estimates.  From this, Symvionics was to propose a housing 
manager at the grade and experience level necessary to meet those 
requirements, and was not required to match the grade referenced in 
the RFP.  Likewise, the reference did not serve to bind the agency to 
a particular grade level.  

Moreover, it is clear from the record that Symvionics did not rely on 
this provision to its detriment.  In this regard, the protester states 
that it proposed a housing manager at the approximate grade of a GS-11 
step 6, not a GS-12 step 4.  Further, while Symvionics states that its 
housing manager is paid at a GS-11 step 6 grade, based on proposed 
wages, the Air Force housing manager receives a larger base salary 
than Symvionics's manager.  Even when the direct, benefit, and 
overhead costs for both positions are considered, the Air Force has 
proposed to spend more on this position than has Symvionics.  Under 
these circumstances, there is no basis for concluding that the agency 
improperly failed to adjust its housing manager costs to reflect a 
higher grade level.

REPLACEMENT OF VOLUNTEERS

In its original MP/MEO, the agency proposed to use volunteers to 
augment its staffing on 2 of the 13 PWS tasks.  With regard to task 
5.9, "Manage Off-Base Housing Program," the Air Force had proposed to 
use real estate professionals in the housing office to answer 
questions and assist service members and their families in locating 
suitable off-base rentals or homes for sale.  MP/MEO at 27. There was 
no estimate of the number of hours to be saved by using these 
volunteers, but the MP/MEO referred to the savings as "significant."  
With regard to task 5.12, "Commander's Interest Program," the Air 
Force proposed to use volunteers from the local retiree community to 
assist with "unprogrammed miscellaneous tasks."  Id. at 28.  This 
effort was estimated at 225 hours of the 584 hours to be devoted to 
these responsibilities.[8]  The responsibilities of these volunteers 
had in the past included greeting visitors, answering the telephone 
and directing callers to appropriate employees, and some basic filing 
work.  Tr. at 64.  In the agency's experience, the volunteers 
generally took longer to perform tasks.  Id.  Use of these volunteers 
was largely a method of boosting morale for the retiree population.  
Ms. A Decl.  para.  7.

In response to Symvionics's appeal, the AAP recommended the addition 
of a single GS-7 step 5 as a replacement for the effort originally 
proposed for the volunteers.  While the agency added the additional 
employee, its amended MP/MEO removed references to the use of 
volunteers without describing in detail how the additional hours would 
be allocated to the government's effort.  

Symvionics first argues that it was improper for the agency to make 
the correction that it did.  In the protester's view, the agency's 
original approach was technically unacceptable and it was improper to 
allow the government to change that approach from using multiple 
volunteers for multiple tasks to using a single employee to cover the 
volunteer hours.  Symvionics argues that it should be provided an 
opportunity to submit a revised final offer.  We disagree.  

It is permissible under an A-76 cost comparison for an agency to 
adjust its in-house offer (here, the MP/MEO) to correct the 
possibility that the government offer was not based on the scope of 
work specified in the solicitation.  OMB Circular No. A-76, Revised 
Supplemental Handbook ch. 3,  para.  K.5.  Unlike proposals, the correction 
of which is governed by the FAR, government offers for cost comparison 
purposes are governed by OMB Circular A-76.  As we recognized in 
Winston Corp.--Recon., B-229735.3, Oct. 4, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  311 at 3, 
the Circular empowers agencies to review and, where necessary, to 
correct the government's offer.  While any changes to the government 
offer should be reasonably based on the scope of work, the standard 
which the FAR requires offerors to meet in order to be entitled to 
revise their proposals is not relevant to the question of whether an 
estimate of in-house costs is reasonably based.  Here, the agency 
recognized that its proposal of volunteer hours was improper and took 
appropriate corrective action to replace the hours with a full-time 
employee which necessarily increased the agency's estimated cost to 
reflect the additional effort.  The fact that the additional cost is 
attributable to added personnel does not make the adjustment improper.

Symvionics next argues that the adjustment is improper because the 
amended MP/MEO was not properly revised to show how the additional 
employee's hours would be allocated to the tasks.  In this regard, 
under the "Organizational Structure and Staffing Design," the amended 
MP/MEO simply deleted the entire text section on off-base housing and 
deleted all references to volunteers under the "Other Miscellaneous 
Tasks, Meetings, and Requirements."[9]  While it is true that the Air 
Force has not revised its amended MP/MEO to show the allocation of 
hours to specific tasks, the record otherwise demonstrates that all 
PWS tasks are covered in the amended effort. 

In this regard, elsewhere in the Organizational Structure section, the 
amended MP/MEO lists the tasks to be performed by the agency's housing 
specialist team including direction and supervision of off-base 
housing referral and relocation services; counseling customers on 
equal opportunity policy and monitoring off-base compliance; 
processing landlord, tenant, agency, and utility complaints; 
investigating and preparing reports on discrimination complaints; 
conducting adequacy inspections of off-base units; providing housing 
referral; assisting in locating off-base housing; provision of a 
rental unit condition checklist; and maintaining current off-base 
housing literature and handouts.  Amended MP/MEO at 48, 52.  In 
addition, the PWS breakout identifies all PWS subtasks under task 5.9 
and allocates more than 300 hours annually for them.  While the hours 
saved by use of these volunteers was identified as "significant" in 
the original MP/MEO, (at 27), their primary advantage and 
responsibility was their unique access to the local real estate 
multiple listing service.  Tr. at 60, 71.  According to the amended 
MP/MEO and PWS breakdown of hours, other responsibilities under this 
task were to be handled by government employees in the housing office.  
The volunteers' performance of PWS responsibilities would be limited 
and sometimes duplicative of the government employees since the 
housing office would continue to collect and make available to patrons 
information on local real estate opportunities.  Tr. at 62-63.  
Further, the Air Force used multi-skilled personnel to share 
responsibilities rather than applying the additional GS-7 specifically 
to the 5.9 task.  Ms. A Decl.  para.  5.  Accordingly, despite the lack of 
specific allocation, there is ample evidence that all task 5.9 
responsibilities under the PWS, including the former volunteer hours, 
are covered under the amended MP/MEO. 

Similarly, with regard to the task 5.12 responsibilities, the 
Organizational Structure section was revised to delete references to 
volunteers.  The remaining text clearly outlines the agency's intent 
to perform all PWS tasks encompassed by the 584-hour estimate for 
these requirements (amended MP/MEO at 29) and the PWS breakout 
identifies the PWS subtasks with more than 2,000 hours annually 
allocated to their performance.  The text also makes reference to the 
Air Force's approach of using cross-trained individuals sharing tasks 
as a team.  See Tr. at 69.  The hours thus "are embedded throughout 
the PWS Functions" identified elsewhere in the amended MP/MEO.  
Amended MP/MEO at 29.  

Symvionics also challenges the agency's conclusion that a single 
employee can replace all the time attributable to the volunteers.  In 
this regard, Symvionics notes that it proposed a single employee to 
handle off-base housing management.  In the protester's view, the 
agency's added GS-7 will thus have to devote all of his or her time to 
off-base housing tasks, leaving the other volunteer work unaddressed.  
Further, in comparing total hours of effort, Symvionics also notes 
that it proposed the use of a vendor for furniture pick-up and 
delivery tasks, which the agency has not considered in its 
calculations.  By our calculation, the vendor's level of effort is 
equivalent to a maximum of 480 hours per year.[10]  Based on our 
review of the record it is clear that the agency's additional employee 
hours are more than enough to replace the volunteer effort and that of 
Symvionics's vendor. 

Symvionics proposed the use of eight personnel (1832 annual productive 
hours each), plus a part-time program director (64 hours per year), 
for an annual total of 14,720 hours.  As revised on appeal, the Air 
Force's amended MP/MEO proposes 15,876 hours for nine full time 
personnel (1,764 annual productive hours each).  Assuming an Air Force 
level of effort equal to that of Symvionics, the addition of the extra 
GS-7 employee represents 1,156 more hours of effort than that proposed 
by the protester.  This is more than enough to exceed the 480 hours of 
pick-up vendor time and 225 volunteer hours for unprogrammed 
miscellaneous responsibilities under task 5.12.[11]  Symvionics's 
belief that the new GS-7's effort will or should be strictly devoted 
to task 5.9 responsibilities does not mean that the Air Force must 
follow that approach.  The Air Force plan included the use of 
multi-skilled and cross-trained individuals to share the various 
responsibilities under the MP/MEO.  In this regard, the Air Force 
proposed a team approach of seven personnel, led by the housing 
manager, to accomplish the family housing tasks, including off-base 
housing, assignment and termination of family housing, housing 
management taskings, financial management, facility maintenance, and 
the commander's interest program.  The personnel's "versatility 
permit[ted] them to cross functional lines" in providing required 
services.  MP/MEO at 69-70.  

Moreover, even to the extent the new GS-7 worked solely on task 5.9 
responsibilities, those employees who were originally proposed to 
perform those tasks would be available to devote their task 5.9 hours 
to the volunteer effort.  Because the Air Force has exceeded the 
number of personnel and hours of effort proposed by Symvionics, at a 
lower comparative cost, it is clear that the protester was not 
prejudiced by the agency's failure to specifically allocate the added 
hours in its amended MP/MEO.[12] 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. On December 17 and 18, 1998 our Office conducted a hearing in this 
matter with witnesses appearing in person and by telephone.

2. In the haste to make the final changes, some were not made.  For 
example, the housing manager was listed as a GS-9/10 and the date of 
the MP/MEO remained April 10 instead of being changed to May 4.  Tr. 
at 38, 53; Mr. B Decl. 2  para.  4.

3. Symvionics has raised a number of arguments in support of its 
protest and the agency has responded to them.  We have reviewed them 
all and find that none has merit.  This decision will address only the 
more substantial issues.

4. The only apparent change made on or after May 5 concerns a 
typographical error which was corrected in the IRO's copy of the 
MP/MEO, but was not corrected in Mr. B's copy.  Mr. B's copy was 
corrected in conjunction with the appeal.  It is not clear when the 
change was made to the IRO's copy.  Since the change concerns only a 
single reference to the position title in the housing manager's 
position description, the change, whenever it was made, had no 
substantive effect on the competition or cost comparison.

5. In a related argument, Symvionics contends that there is nothing in 
the record to indicate that anyone ever reviewed the impact on the 
estimated cost of the removal of the HFC and reallocation of his 
responsibilities.  The absence of any record on this matter is 
understandable since the record otherwise establishes that there could 
be no cost impact attributable to the elimination of the new HFC 
position.  

6. We note that it was the failure to enclose one of these approved 
MP/MEO's in the sealed package with the estimated cost and/or to 
update all copies of the MP/MEO that led to the protester's receipt of 
a draft MP/MEO and to the confusion that followed.  Obviously, the 
appropriate course is for agency personnel to ensure that all 
pertinent documents are approved and sealed prior to the receipt of 
the contractor's proposal.  Should the agency fall behind schedule or 
find last minute changes to be necessary, OMB guidelines specifically 
provide for extending the contractor's delivery deadline until the MEO 
and estimated cost are sealed.  OMB Circular No. A-76, Revised 
Supplemental Handbook ch. 3,  para.  F.2.  It would also be efficacious for 
agency personnel to ensure that preliminary versions are marked as 
"drafts" and are dated so that changes can be traced through time. 

7. According to Mr. B, under A-76 guidelines, the cost of higher 
command supervision was included in a flat 12-percent overhead cost 
based on the number of personnel assigned.  Tr. at 134, 138; Mr. B 
Decl. 2  para.  8.  Since no personnel costs associated with the HFC were 
included or required, the overhead cost remained the same regardless 
of the inclusion of the new HFC position.  Tr. at 134, 138.

8. The other task 5.12 responsibilities included the distinguished 
visitors program, lawn inspections/awards, town meetings, homebuyers 
seminar, quality inspections and relocation assistance. 

9. Symvionics also notes that the agency's amended MP/MEO contains 
inconsistent figures regarding the number of hours for certain tasks.  
In this regard, there is a table showing the number of hours for each 
of the 13 tasks which is not wholly consistent with the PWS breakdown 
of the effort.  We have reviewed these listings and the 
inconsistencies appear to be the product of the agency's haste in 
revising the MP/MEO as part of the appeal process, rather than a 
failure to properly allocate additional hours. 

10. In its protest, Symvionics calculates this level of effort based 
on an average of five pick-ups of furniture per week, lasting about 2 
hours each, and each requiring a minimum of two personnel (2 hours x 2 
people x 5 pick-ups = 20 hours per week x 52 weeks = 1040 hours). 
Protester's Post Hearing Comments at 55.  In fact, contrary to this 
argument, Symvionics proposed its vendor services as an annual figure 
of $13,200, including the cost of vehicles, as follows:  2 hours per 
move, with 10 moves per month (2 hours x 10 pick-ups/month x 12 months 
= 240).  Symvionics Cost Proposal at 14.  Even if Symvionics proposed 
to use two vendor employees for each move, the total would be a 
maximum of 480 hours per year.  

11. We have not subtracted any hours for the real estate volunteers.  
Instead, we have assumed that, by first equalling the Symvionics 
annual labor effort which necessarily includes all PWS Off-Base 
Housing Management tasks, there is no need to consider a separate 
figure for the limited work proposed for those volunteers.  

12. Symvionics also claims various technical approaches to reduce 
staff hours which it argues the agency did not take into account.  
Such labor saving approaches are difficult to quantify and the 
protester has not provided any estimate of effort saved.  Further, the 
Air Force also has proposed staff-hour saving approaches including its 
proposal to share most tasks among a group of cross-trained, 
experienced housing specialists.  See Tr. at 62.  Accordingly, we have 
no basis for changing our conclusion that the Air Force MP/MEO, as 
amended, more than covers all PWS responsibilities.