BNUMBER:  B-281275 
DATE:  January 19, 1999
TITLE: QSS Information Systems, Inc., B-281275, January 19, 1999
**********************************************************************

Matter of:QSS Information Systems, Inc.

File:     B-281275

Date:January 19, 1999

Charles W. Page for the protester.
Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., and Maj. Isaac J. Nehus, Department of the 
Air Force, for the agency.
Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester's offered price properly was adjusted upward to include 
estimated amounts for materials, subcontracting, and travel which the 
protester had omitted in calculating its yearly price despite fact 
that solicitation indicated they would be included in all offerors' 
prices.

DECISION

QSS Information Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Wyle 
Laboratories under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33601-97-R-9013, 
issued by the Department of the Air Force for technical and logistics 
support for the Air Force Research Laboratory/Human Effectiveness 
Directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.[1]   

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated a time-and-materials contract for a base year 
with four      1-year options.  RFP  sec.  L-65C.  Offerors were to submit 
separate price and technical proposals, plus past and present 
performance information.  RFP  sec.  L-556.  Award was to be made on a best 
value basis by first ranking each technically acceptable proposal on 
the basis of total evaluated price, assigning each a performance risk
rating, and then performing a trade-off between price and performance.  
RFP  sec.  M-550P(b), (c).  The RFP warned that the government intended to 
award without discussions.  RFP  sec.  M-550P(d).  

RFP section B contained five contract line items (CLIN), each covering 
the services to be performed for one of the 5 potential contract 
years.  The description for each CLIN referred offerors to an 
attachment which was essentially a worksheet for computing the total 
estimated price for the applicable year.  Each worksheet contained:  
(1) a chart of seven labor categories for which the offeror was to 
provide hourly rates, which would be multiplied by the estimated 
number of hours for each category to arrive at a total labor price for 
each contract year; (2) an estimated price of $100,000 for materials; 
(3) a percentage for materials handling, if applicable, plus a blank 
for the determined price, if applicable; (4) an estimated price of 
$10,000 for subcontracting; (5) a percentage for subcontracting 
services, if applicable, plus a blank for the determined price, if 
applicable; (6) an estimated price of $10,000 for travel.  (Data was 
listed as an item, but the worksheet stated that it would not be 
separately priced.)  The total estimated price for each CLIN would be 
calculated by adding all of these elements, and the total evaluated 
contract price was to be determined by totaling the five CLIN prices.  
RFP  sec.  M-550P(c)(1).

All four proposals received, including QSS's, were found technically 
acceptable.  However, in calculating the CLIN prices on its 
worksheets, QSS failed to include the specified $100,000 for 
materials, $10,000 for subcontracting, and $10,000 for travel.  The 
agency concluded that QSS thus had understated its total price by 
$600,000 ($120,000 for each year), and added this amount to QSS's 
offered price of $3,850,009.60.  This raised QSS's evaluated price to 
$4,450,009.60.  Because the RFP provided for a 10-percent small 
disadvantaged business (SDB) evaluation preference, RFP  sec.  IA-230, and 
QSS alone certified itself as an SDB, a 10-percent factor was added to 
all offers but QSS's.  This increased Wyle's evaluated price from 
$3,625,262 to $3,987,788.20, but due to the upward adjustment of QSS's 
price, Wyle's evaluated price was low.  Since Wyle's proposal also 
received a low performance risk rating (QSS's was rated moderate 
risk), it was determined to represent the best value to the 
government, and award thus was made to Wyle without discussions.[2]

QSS objects to the $600,000 upward adjustment of its offered price, 
arguing that its CLIN prices represented its offered price, 
irrespective of omissions on the worksheets, and that it thus was the 
low offeror entitled to award in light of the RFP's definition of 
evaluated price as the sum of the line item prices.  QSS maintains 
that the RFP nowhere stated that the amounts listed on the worksheets 
were mandatory and that any requirement to include these amounts was 
unclear from the RFP.

The agency's upward adjustment of QSS's price was unobjectionable.  
While the RFP did not expressly state that the amounts pre-printed on 
the worksheets were mandatory, there was a specific reference to the 
worksheets next to the space provided for each CLIN price on the 
schedule (section B).  For example, next to the base year CLIN was the 
following:
  
     TOTAL ESTIMATED PRICE FOR BASE PERIOD:
     (OBTAINED FROM ATTACHMENT 1)

Further, the structure of the worksheets in no way suggested that the 
items in dispute were optional.  Specifically, the spaces provided for 
the labor category total prices were set forth in a column on the 
right-hand side of the page, which continued with the pre-printed 
prices for materials, subcontracting, and travel, as well as spaces 
for materials handling and subcontracting services prices, with a 
space at the bottom of the column for "ESTIMATED BASE PERIOD TOTAL."  
Given this layout--as well as the fact that this was a 
time-and-materials contract under which the items in question were 
reimburseable to the contractor--there simply was no reason for any 
offeror to assume that these items--any more than the number of 
estimated hours for each labor category--were somehow optional and 
could be deviated from, or omitted entirely in, the calculation of its 
total prices.  

In sum, although the RFP provided that the evaluated price would be 
the sum of the five CLIN prices, the RFP also clearly indicated that 
the CLIN prices would be calculated using the worksheets, with 
inclusion of the disputed items in the estimated total prices.  Under 
these circumstances, QSS should have understood that the pre-priced 
items had to be included in its total prices,[3] and the agency 
properly adjusted QSS's offered price upward to account for the 
omissions, and to put it on an equal footing with the other offers.[4] 

QSS argues that discussions should have been held regarding the 
omitted amounts.  As noted, however, the RFP stated that the agency 
did not intend to conduct discussions and, given our finding that the 
RFP clearly indicated that the specified amounts should be included in 
offerors' prices, we do not believe that the agency was required to 
conduct discussions simply to repeat what was already clear from the 
solicitation.[5]  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Work to be performed under the contract included preventive and 
remedial maintenance, inspection, modification, overhaul, fabrication, 
repair, calibration, certification and transport of experimental/test 
equipment and laboratory medical and non-medical instrumentation, such 
as desk-top computers, computer-controlled test equipment, special 
devices and material, and the related facility, installation, 
modification, testing and certification of data communications and 
various local area networks located throughout the laboratory.  RFP  sec.  
C-5.1

2. We note that, although QSS's offered price would have been low 
without the adjustment, the agency indicates that it is questionable 
whether QSS's offer, even in that case, would have been found the best 
value, since Wyle's evaluated price was less than 4 percent higher 
than QSS's offered price, and Wyle's offer received a low performance 
risk rating, compared to QSS's moderate risk rating.

3. We note that there was nothing in QSS's offer indicating that it 
intended to absorb the additional costs in performing the contract, 
and QSS has not indicated in its protest submissions whether the 
omissions were intended or a mistake.

4. The agency also points out that, had the mandated amounts for 
materials, subcontracting, and travel been excluded from Wyle's offer, 
another way of putting it on an equal footing with QSS, its evaluated 
price of $3,327,788.20 (after the 10-percent preference) would have 
been lower than QSS's.

5. In its original protest submission, QSS also argued that the agency 
had not provided QSS with a required debriefing.  In its report, the 
agency stated that QSS's debriefing request was not timely made, but 
that QSS nevertheless was given a written debriefing on October 20.  
QSS has not refuted the agency's response.