TITLE:   Vero Technical Services, B-282373.3; B-282373.4, August 31, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-282373.3; B-282373.4
DATE:  August 31, 1999
**********************************************************************
Vero Technical Services, B-282373.3; B-282373.4, August 31, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Vero Technical Services

File: B-282373.3; B-282373.4

Date: August 31, 1999

George Sigler for the protester.

Maj. Richard D. Desmond and Capt. Karen L. Deimler, Department of the Air
Force, for the agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that proposal containing entries of "NSP" for two solicitation line
items must be rejected as unacceptable is denied where solicitation did not
require rejection of the offer; the "NSP" entries obligate the offeror to
provide the required items.

DECISION

Vero Technical Services protests the award of a contract to C. Martin
Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. F16602-99-R-0003, issued as a
small business set-aside by the Department of the Air Force for the
operation and maintenance of the Claiborne Bombing Range. The protester
contends that C. Martin's proposal should have been rejected as unacceptable
because it did not contain separate prices for each line item in Schedule B
of the RFP. The protester also contends that C. Martin's price entries
reflected an unfair competitive advantage based on "special knowledge"
concerning the solicitation. Supplemental Protest, July 9, 1999, at 1.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued on December 31, 1998, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price requirements contract for a 1-year base period with four l-year
options. The RFP called for technical evaluation to determine conformance
under enumerated areas and stated that award would be made to the
responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation, is determined
technically acceptable based on the evaluation criteria, and offers the
lowest evaluated price, based on the total price for the base year and all
options years. RFP sect. M-502. The RFP required that offerors submit an offer
for all items listed in the schedule and further stated that "[a]ny offer
which fails to cite a unit price for each item may be unacceptable for
award, and determined non-acceptable." RFP sect. M-501.

Five proposals were received by the February 8, 1999 closing time, two of
which were rejected as technically unacceptable. On February 12, requests
for additional information and clarifications were sent to the three
remaining technically acceptable offerors. Responses were received and
evaluated. C. Martin's total price including options was low at
$2,127,334.74. C. Martin's proposal contained schedule entries of "NSP" (not
separately priced) for the line items comprising contract data requirements
and maintenance and operation of the "Sentry Dawg." [1] Vero's total price
was $2,140,446. On March 17, the Air Force notified offerors that C. Martin
was the low offeror. On March 25, award was made to C. Martin and on April
30, Vero timely filed an agency-level protest arguing that C. Martin's
proposal was unacceptable because it had not separately priced each line
item in Schedule B as required by the solicitation. On June 21, after its
agency-level protest was denied, Vero filed this protest with our Office.

Vero maintains that C. Martin's proposal should have been rejected as
unacceptable because it did not include a separate price for each line item
for the contract data requirements and for maintenance and operation of the
Sentry Dawg. We find no support for the protester's contention.

The agency points out that sect. M.501 of the RFP does not require the
government to reject an offer because of a failure to submit a unit price;
it merely gives the government that option. The agency asserts that offerors
are normally allowed to reflect data costs in manners other than as separate
line item prices and maintains that it properly exercised its discretion in
choosing not to reject C. Martin's offer because it did not provide unit
prices for two line items.

The agency's decision was unobjectionable. First, the record shows that the
protester's price for the two line items in question was less than 1 percent
of its total contract price. The fact that C. Martin chose not to separately
price these line items does not support a conclusion, as suggested by the
protester that it does not intend to provide the required items. Since the
line items in question are a minor portion of the required services to be
provided, it is plausible that an offeror would elect to provide these
services at no additional charge to the agency. C. Martin has bound itself
in its proposal to provide the required item since in both negotiated and
sealed bid procurements an "NSP" notation is properly understood as
expressly indicating the offeror's affirmative intent to obligate itself to
provide the item at no charge to the government, and does not constitute a
basis for rejecting an offer. Kasco Fuel Maintenance Corp., B-274131, Nov.
22, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 197 at 4; Urethane Prods. Corp., B-234694, May 25,
1989, 89-1 CPD para. 508 at 3. With respect to protester's position that all
competitive range offerors should have been advised that not all line items
had to be priced, this is not inconsistent with the RFP language, which is
precatory in this respect and appears to be primarily directed at requiring
that all of the items be offered in the proposal. Here, C. Martin in the
exercise of its business judgment decided to offer to provide without
separately pricing items that were a minor portion of the required services.
In this regard, other offerors were on notice that "NSP" is expressly listed
in the RFP as an abbreviation, which can be used in completing section B,
the schedule, and is defined to mean not separately priced. RFP sect. L-500(a).

The protester also contends that C. Martin had a competitive advantage based
on some special knowledge concerning the specific contract line items it
elected to offer as "NSP," because of its prior experience. The protester
also alleges that there was a pattern of actions on the part of agency
personnel, which it believes reflected preferential treatment of C. Martin.

Vero has merely asserted that principals of C. Martin operated the Claiborne
range at some time before the present incumbent was awarded its contract,
but has not provided any credible evidence, which supports its allegations
of bias or improper advantage. There is no evidence in the record, which
indicates either that inside information was somehow inappropriately
provided to C. Martin, or that the agency personnel were biased in favor of
C. Martin. Where, as here, a protester contends that contracting officials
were motivated by bias that caused them to favor one competitor over
another, there must be convincing evidence to support the contentions and
not mere speculation by the protester. Group Techs. Corp.; Electrospace
Sys., Inc., B-250699 et al., Feb. 17, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 150 at 11; see also
Controls Eng'g Maintenance Corp., B-247833.2, Sept. 25, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 204
at 2-3. Since the record here contains no evidence of agency favoritism
towards C. Martin, Vero's speculative allegations do not provide a basis to
sustain the protest. Science Applications Int'l Corp., B-265607, Sept. 1,
1995, 95-2 CPD para. 99 at 2-3.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General

of the United States

Notes

1. The Sentry Dawg is a transportable radar emitter, which is used for
electronic combat training. RFP sect. 2.2116, at 35.