TITLE:  Planned Systems International, Inc., B-290626, September 4, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-290626
DATE:  September 4, 2002
**********************************************************************
Planned Systems International, Inc., B-290626, September 4, 2002

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Planned Systems International, Inc.
    
File:            B-290626
    
Date:              September 4, 2002
    
Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., and Dorn C. McGrath III, Esq.,  Reed Smith,
for the protester.
Captain Parag J. Rawal, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Procuring agency properly calculated protester's quoted price based upon
the labor hour estimates identified by the request for quotation (RFQ),
rather than the protester's own estimates, where the RFQ only sought
vendors' fixed labor hour rates which were to be applied against the
stated labor hour estimates to determine vendors' net quoted prices and
award was to be made upon the basis of price.
DECISION
    
Planned Systems International, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase
order to Federal Resources Corporation under that firm's Federal Supply
Schedule (FSS) contract, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No.
DAMD17-02-T-0137, issued by the United States Army Medical Research
Acquisition Activity for video teleconferencing services.  Planned Systems
contends that the Army improperly recalculated its quoted price.
    
We deny the protest.
    
The Army issued the RFQ on April 12, 2002 to obtain fixed unit-price
quotes for various video teleconferencing services under the FSS to
support the United States Army Medical Information Systems and Services
Agency at San Antonio, Texas, for a 3-month base period and 2 option
years.  The RFQ identified 12 contract line items (CLIN), for each of
which vendors were to provide a unit price and an extended (net) price. 
Nine of the CLINs provided a specific quantity of labor hours, which
represented the government's estimate of the work for the item and against
which a vendor's unit price would be applied to determine the extended
total for these CLINs.[1]   See RFQ S: B, at 2-6, and Independent
Government Estimate at 17-19.  For example, CLIN 0005, which was for the
provision of a hardware/software installation technician for the first
option year, stated an estimate of 9,800 labor hours.  Other than the
price schedule in section B, the RFQ did not include any specific
instructions to quoters concerning the preparation or evaluation of
quotations.
    
The Army solicited quotes from four FSS vendors, including Planned Systems
and Federal Resources.  All of the vendors but Planned Systems furnished
quotes that were based upon the estimated quantity of labor hours stated
in the RFQ.  Planned Systems' quote, however, was based upon providing
less than the estimated quantity of labor hours for six CLINs.  For
example, for CLIN 0005 Planned Systems quoted a fixed labor hour rate and
identified the number of labor hours for the CLIN as 9,400 hours (rather
than the 9,800 identified by the RFQ); Planned Systems then multiplied its
labor rate against its own *proposed* 9,400 hours to determine its
extended price for this CLIN.
    
Although the protester's overall quoted price appeared to be lower than
that of the other vendors, the Army recognized that Planned Systems had
not based its quote upon the labor hours identified in the RFQ, as had the
other vendors.  To evaluate Planned Systems' quote, the Army recalculated
the quote by multiplying Planned Systems' quoted unit prices by the number
of labor hours for each item identified in the RFQ.  This resulted in
Planned Systems' quoted price being increased by approximately $70,000. 
Based upon this adjustment, the Army found that Federal Resources had
submitted the lowest quote.  The agency issued an order to Federal
Resources, and Planned Systems protested to the agency.  After the Army
denied Planned Systems' agency-level protest, this protest followed.
    
Planned Systems contends that the Army should not have adjusted its
extended CLIN prices, arguing that the reference in its quote to different
labor hours than those contained in the RFQ was immaterial, given that the
quote contained a *firm-fixed price net amount for the combined CLINs for
each year.*  Protest at 4.  Planned Systems argues that the RFQ provided
for the evaluation of quote on a *total aggregate bottom line 'NET AMT'
price* basis and that Planned Systems would be required to perform all of
the agency's requirements at the protester's total *net amount* price (as
based upon Planned Systems' lower labor estimates).  Id.  Planned Systems
asserts that interpreting its submission this way is reasonable, since the
RFQ did not include preparation instructions, or any provisions on how the
government would evaluate submissions.[2]
    
Where, as here, price is the only term requested by a solicitation and no
evaluation criteria are specified, price is necessarily the sole
evaluation criterion.  United Marine Int'l LLC, B-281512, Feb. 22, 1999,
99-1 CPD P: 44 at 4.  The question presented in this protest is how price
was to be evaluated.
    
The protester's argument that the Army must accept the protester's
*fixed-price net amount,* which was based upon the protester's own lower
labor estimates, fundamentally misunderstands what was requested by the
RFQ.  Despite the lack of explicit instructions regarding quote
preparation and evaluation, we find that the RFQ unequivocally provided
for the evaluation of quotes on the basis of the solicitation estimates. 
That is, the RFQ in section B listed, for the CLINs in question here, the
precise quantity of labor hours for that CLIN.  Vendors were requested to
provide only their *unit price,* which for these CLINs would be the
vendors' fixed labor hour rate, and to provide an extended CLIN price,
which reflected the labor hour rate multiplied against the labor hour
estimate.  The RFQ did not request that the vendors provide their own
estimates of the amount of labor required to perform the CLINs.
    
We find reasonable the Army's evaluation of the protester's quote.  Faced
with a quote that was not based upon the solicitation's estimated labor
hours, the agency properly calculated the protester's net quote price by
multiplying the protester's fixed unit prices (that is, labor hour rates)
against RFQ estimates.  In the context of this solicitation, allowing one
vendor to use lower labor hour estimates than that required for, and
relied upon by, the other vendors would have resulted in an unfair and
unequal competition.  See Ross Aviation, Inc., B-219658, Dec. 11, 1985,
85-2 CPD P: 648 at 4.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

   ------------------------

   [1] The other line items sought prices for other direct costs such as
travel and training.
[2] Planned System also asserts that the RFQ was materially defective
because the solicitation did not inform vendors how options would be
evaluated.  See Protester's Comments at 4.  Planned Systems further
complains that it accurately based its quote on a federal productive
staff-year of 1,880 hours, and that the RFQ's higher labor estimates may
violate the Service Contract Act of 1965.  Protest at 3; Protester's
Comments at 3-4.  These post-award complaints are untimely challenges of
alleged apparent solicitations improprieties that were required to be
filed prior to the time set for receipt of initial submissions.  4 C.F.R.
S: 21.2(a)(1) (2002).