TITLE:  Tony's Landscaping, Inc., B-283794, November 23, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283794
DATE:  November 23, 1999
**********************************************************************
Tony's Landscaping, Inc., B-283794, November 23, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Tony's Landscaping, Inc.

File: B-283794

Date: November 23, 1999

Manuel Blanco for the protester.

Jerry W. Aldridge, and John W. Huckle, Esq., Department of the Air Force,
for the agency.

Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency was not required to conduct discussions but could have a limited
exchange with proposed awardee pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation sect.
15.306(a)(2) for the purpose of clarifying and correcting proposed awardee's
pricing error, where the existence of the clerical error and the price
actually intended was clear from the proposal.

DECISION

Tony's Landscaping, Inc. protests the proposed award of a contract to
Miranda's Landscaping, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
F04684-99-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for grounds
maintenance at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The protester
complains that the Air Force improperly allowed Miranda's Landscaping to
correct its proposal price.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued as a competitive, section 8(a) set-aside, sought proposals
to perform a variety of grounds maintenance services for a base year with 4
option years. For each contract year, offerors were requested to provide
fixed prices under section I of the RFP under four service categories (for
example, grounds maintenance (contract line item (CLIN) 0001), tree line
maintenance (CLIN 0002), roadside maintenance and herbicide application
(CLIN 0003), and herbicide/sterilant application (CLIN 0004)). RFP at 3-12.
The pricing blanks for these CLINS were marked with an asterisk. Section I
included two other CLINS for each contract year: CLIN 0005, task orders,
whose pricing blanks were marked with a double asterisk, and CLIN 0006, a
cost-reimbursable item for which a $60,000 estimated price per year was
provided for evaluation purposes. Section I also included the following
notation:

NOTE: Items/Columns with an * notation are to be completed by offerors. Item
with ** notation is funded by individual Task Orders.

Instructions as to how task orders would be issued and priced were provided
in appendix G of the RFP. In this regard, the appendix requested, for each
contract year, offerors' burdened labor rates for specified labor categories
and provided for each labor category an estimated number of hours against
which the proposed labor rate would be multiplied to calculate the offerors'
evaluated task order costs. RFP app. G, at 16-21.

In addition to proposed pricing, the RFP requested that each offeror
complete a past performance questionnaire and provide an oral presentation
that would describe the offeror's staffing and organization, discuss the
offeror's understanding of CLINs 0001 through 0004, and describe the
offeror's methodology and approach to implementing a quality system to
satisfy the contract requirements. RFP at 18-19.

The RFP provided for award without discussions. RFP at 17 (incorporating by
reference Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 52.212-1). Offerors were
informed that for those proposals that were determined to be technically
acceptable the Air Force would trade off offerors' past performance risk and
evaluated price to determine which offer was the most advantageous to the
government. RFP at 21. In this regard, price and past performance risk were
stated to be of equal importance. Offeror were informed that the agency
would add the fixed prices for all contract years from section I to the
estimated costs from section G to determine the lowest total evaluated
price. RFP at 22.

Five proposals were received in response to the RFP. Contracting Officer's
Statement at 1. Three proposals, including those of the protester and the
proposed awardee, were determined to be technically acceptable. Only the
protester's and proposed awardee's proposals were considered for award
because the third offeror's price was considered to be too high. The agency
then compared the proposed awardee's exceptional past performance risk
rating and $9,144,185 evaluated price to the protester's very good past
performance risk rating and $8,918,249 evaluated price. The Air Force
initially concluded that the protester's proposal reflected the best value
to the government, given its apparent lower evaluated price, and the
offerors were so notified. Id.

Prior to award being made, Miranda's Landscaping complained to the
contracting officer that its proposed price was actually lower than the
protester's. Id. at 2. The Air Force discovered that Miranda's Landscaping
had in fact priced the task orders twice; it provided pricing in section I
under CLIN 0005 and the same pricing for the task orders under appendix G,
such that when the agency added the section I pricing of Miranda's
Landscaping to its appendix G estimated costs, the proposed awardee's task
order pricing was counted twice. The Air Force concluded that the
duplication of task order prices was a clerical error that should be
corrected under FAR sect. 15.306(a)(2). When the task order pricing was removed
from section I, Miranda's Landscaping's evaluated price of $8,539,560 was
determined to be lower than the protester's. Id. Because Miranda's
Landscaping's proposal was both the highest-rated under the past performance
risk factor and the lowest-priced, the agency determined that it should be
selected for award. The parties were notified, and this protest followed.

The protester argues that the agency should not have corrected the proposal
pricing error of Miranda's Landscaping as a clerical error, but was required
to conduct discussions with the offerors and request best and final offers.
We disagree.

Pursuant to FAR sect. 15.306(a)(2), agencies may have limited exchanges with an
offeror for the purpose of clarifying "certain aspects of proposals (e.g.,
the relevance of an offeror's past performance information and adverse past
performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an
opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors." These
limited exchanges do not constitute discussions, which would generally
require the conduct of discussions with all offerors within the competitive
range. FAR sect. 15.306(d); see Joint Threat Servs., B-278168, B-278168.2, Jan.
5, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 18 at 12.

In this case, the existence of the mistake--the proposed awardee's double
pricing of the same work--and the price actually intended was clearly
established from the RFP and the proposal itself; that is, the same prices
for the same work appear in both places. The protester does not contend
otherwise. Thus, we agree with the agency that the proposed awardee's
pricing error was a clerical error that could be corrected without
conducting discussions. See Joint Threat Servs., supra, at 12-13. We also
note that Miranda's Landscaping could not obtain any advantage from pricing
this work twice because the contractor will only be paid for this work based
upon the hours actually worked at the labor rates proposed. Under these
circumstances, there is simply no basis on this record to object to the
agency's clarification and correction of the proposed awardee's proposal.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States