TITLE:   Red River Service Corporation, B-282634; B-282634.2, July 15, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-282634; B-282634.2
DATE:  July 15, 1999
**********************************************************************
Red River Service Corporation, B-282634; B-282634.2, July 15, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Red River Service Corporation

File: B-282634; B-282634.2

Date: July 15, 1999

Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Law Office of Theodore M. Bailey, for the
protester.

Ross L. Crown, Esq., Eastham Johnson Monnheimer & Jontz, for Phillips
National, Inc., an intervenor.

Richard Welsh, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency.

Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Award based on proposal that included unbalanced pricing was proper where
agency specifically and reasonably determined that the unbalancing did not
pose an unacceptable risk to the government and would not result in the
government's paying unreasonably high prices.

DECISION

Red River Service Corporation protests the award of a contract to Phillips
National, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62467-98-R-1037,
issued by the Department of the Navy for multi-family housing maintenance
services in Millington, Tennessee. Red River argues that the proposal
submitted by Phillips should have been rejected because it contains
unbalanced pricing.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, for a base period with four 1-year options, provided that
a contract would be awarded on the basis of the best value to the
government, with the combined technical evaluation factors (past
performance, experience, methods and understanding, and resources), being
approximately equal in weight to price. RFP sect. M.2. The solicitation
consisted of definite- and indefinite-quantity line items, for both of which
offerors were to propose fixed unit prices. RFP sect. B.

The Navy received seven proposals. A technical evaluation board (TEB) rated
the technical proposals as highly satisfactory, acceptable, marginal or
unacceptable under each factor. Agency Report Legal Statement (ARLS) at 2-3.
A price evaluation board (PEB) evaluated the price proposals. Following two
rounds of discussions, Phillips's and Red River's proposals were the
highest-rated (ranked first and second, respectively), ARLS at 4-6, and
Phillips's final proposed price, $[deleted], was substantially lower than
Red River's, $[deleted]. The source selection board (SSB) concluded that
Phillips's proposal represented the best value to the government. SSB
Memorandum, Apr. 13, 1999, at 3. The source selection authority (SSA)
concurred with this determination and award was made to Phillips. Id.

Red River protests that Phillips's proposal contained substantially
overstated prices for some items--especially many of the definite quantity
line items--and substantially understated prices for others--especially the
indefinite quantity line items, and also that many line items were
front-loaded, with higher prices in the base year than in the option years.
Red River concludes that Phillips's offer should have been rejected as
unbalanced. [1]

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price,
the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or
understated. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.404-1(g)(1). While
unbalanced pricing may increase risk to the government, agencies are not
required to reject an offer solely because it is unbalanced. Id. Rather,
where the contracting agency receives an unbalanced offer, the contracting
officer is required to consider the risks to the government associated with
the unbalanced pricing in making the source selection decision, and whether
a contract will result in unreasonably high prices for contract performance.
FAR sect. 15.404-1(g)(2). Reflecting these regulatory provisions, the
solicitation here specifically provided that a proposal could be rejected if
the agency determined that, due to unbalanced pricing, the proposal posed an
unacceptable risk to the government. RFP sect. L.5(f)(8).

The Navy does not dispute that Phillips's offer contained unbalanced
pricing. In this regard, the Navy reports that, during its initial review,
the PEB was concerned with various aspects of Phillips's price proposal,
including its overall low price, low prices for the indefinite-quantity
work, and high prices for some items and low prices for others. ARLS at 7.
The PEB also noted that Phillips based its pricing on its own risk
assessment, but did not explain in the proposal what that risk assessment
was. Pre-Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum at 7; Price Evaluation
Team Memorandum, Dec. 4, 1998, at 4-5. During discussions, the agency asked
Phillips to justify both its proposed prices for certain fixed-price line
items, Pricing Questions for Phillips National, Inc. at 1, questions 1, 2,
and 3, and its prices for many of the indefinite quantity line items, as
well as its overall low price for the indefinite quantity line items. Id. at
1-2, question 4. The Navy also advised Phillips that the estimated
quantities provided in the solicitation were realistic estimates of the
quantities to be ordered during the term of the contract, and that it was
concerned that Phillips's strategy of unbalancing its proposal could result
in an unacceptable risk to the government.

In response to the agency's expressed concerns, Phillips changed some of its
prices, but left many unchanged. Phillips also acknowledged that some of its
prices were low and others high. Response to Discussion Questions, Feb. 12,
1999, at 2-4. Phillips explained that its pricing was based on its own
competitive pricing strategy, and its many years of experience performing
housing maintenance contracts, as well as a site visit, pictures of the
housing to be maintained, the RFP, and its belief that, because the
[deleted]. Finally, Phillips assured the Navy that it was comfortable that
its total price was sufficient to perform all work required, and that all
required work would be performed.

The Navy was satisfied, based on Phillips's response and Phillips's
extensive experience performing housing maintenance contracts, that the
rationale behind Phillips's pricing was sound, and that Phillips was aware
of the risks involved in that strategy. The Navy also concluded from
Phillips's explanation that its pricing was fair and reasonable. ARLS at 7.
While Red River disagrees with the Navy's conclusions, in our view, the Navy
could reasonably conclude that Phillips's pricing represented a legitimate
business judgement that did not pose an unacceptable risk to the government,
and that it would not pay an unreasonably high price for performance.
Accordingly, the Navy was not required to reject Phillips's proposal.

Red River also challenges the agency's evaluation of Phillips's proposal
under the methods and understanding factor, arguing that the agency did not
properly consider that Phillips would be unable to perform at the prices
offered for certain line items. Under this factor, the agency was required
to evaluate offerors' staffing and staffing rationale for certain tasks. RFP
sect. M.2(c). However, the solicitation did not indicate that proposed prices
would be used to evaluate offers under this (or any other)

technical factor. Accordingly, the agency properly did not consider price in
evaluating Phillips's proposal under the methods and understanding factor.
See Computer Sys. Dev. Corp., B-275356, Feb. 11, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 91 at 3.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. Red River also initially argued that: (1) the evaluation of its proposal
under the experience factor was improper; (2) the agency failed to provide
it with meaningful discussions; (3) Phillips's proposal was improperly
evaluated under the past performance factor; and (4) Phillips's proposal
failed to comply with the requirements of the solicitation regarding the
staffing of a service desk. In its report on the protest, the Navy
specifically addressed these arguments, and Red River did not attempt to
rebut the agency's positions in its comments on the report. We therefore
consider these issues abandoned. Arjay Elecs. Corp., B-243080, July 1, 1991,
91-2 CPD para. 3 at 1 n.1.