TITLE: Teximara, Inc., B-293221.2, July 9, 2004
BNUMBER: B-293221.2
DATE: July 9, 2004
**********************************************************************
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Decision
A
Matter of: Teximara, Inc.
A
File: B-293221.2
A
Date: July 9, 2004
A
Wayne A. Keup, Esq., Blank Rome, for the protester.
Michael J. O*Farrell, Esq., Department of the Air Force, and Laura Mann
Eyester, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies.
Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
A
Protest that solicitation that consolidated grounds maintenance with 13
other base operations support functions violated the Competition in
Contracting Act*s and the Small Business Act*s bundling rules is denied
where the agency reasonably determined that consolidation would result in
significant efficiencies and savings, and is necessary to meet its needs.
DECISION
A
Teximara, Inc. protests the consolidation of grounds maintenance with
13A other base operations support functions under request for proposals
(RFP) No.A F41689-02-Ra**0048, issued by the Department of the Air Force
for base operations support (BOS) at Kessler Air Force Base (AFB) in
Mississippi. Teximara, a small business that performs grounds maintenance,
contends that consolidation of grounds maintenance with the other
functions violates the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and the Small
Business Act.
A
We deny the protest.
A
BACKGROUND
A
The RFP is one of two solicitations issued as part of an agency effort to
conduct Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 cost
comparison studies for 17 BOS functions at Kessler AFB. One solicitation,
not protested here, is set aside exclusively for small business concerns
and consolidates the following functions: communications and information
technology, multimedia services, and publishing management. That
solicitation is valued at approximately [REDACTED] annually. Contracting
Officer*s Statement at 4.
A
The RFP protested here consolidates nine civil engineering
functions--housing, operation and maintenance, grounds and site
maintenance, emergency management, utilities and energy management,
engineering services, environmental management, resources management, and
space management--with community services, human resources, supply
services, marketing and publicity, and weather support.[1] The contract,
with a 5a**month transition period, 1-year base period, and nine 1-year
option periods, is to be awarded on the basis of *full and open
competition.* The RFP is valued at approximately [REDACTED] annually; the
grounds maintenance portion of this work is approximately either $1.6
million (according to the protester) or $1.7A million (according to the
agency). Acquisition Strategy Panel Briefing Slides at 8; Small Business
Coordination Record (RevisionA 2) at 12; Hearing Transcript (Tr.)
atA 1035.[2]
A
The overall consolidation efforts here result from a number of Air Force
concerns, including: (1) manpower constraints resulting from the fact
that the Air Force currently exceeds the manpower ceiling set by the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and therefore needs to reduce its
workforce; (2) budgetary constraints, resulting from the agency*s need to
make available resources required for necessary recapitalization and
modernization of equipment and operations, as well as the need to pay
salaries for positions not currently funded because the Air Force has
exceeded its manpower ceiling; and (3) a desire to more effectively and
efficiently accomplish the agency*s mission. Tr. at 36, 38-39, 299-300,
326, 447-50, 684. The consolidation efforts here are also based on the
Air Force*s Aa**76 strategy. In this regard, the agency has concluded
that consolidating functions is necessary because: (1) it has only a
limited capacity to conduct multiple A-76 cost comparison studies; (2) it
will reduce the additional *turmoil* to the agency workforce that would
otherwise result from conducting multiple cost comparison studies and
multiple reductions in workforce; and (3) it would allow offerors to
maximize efficiencies in a manner that would not be available with
multiple, more limited study areas. Tr.A atA 30a**34, 51-55, 450, 657,
664.
A
The Air Force determined to consolidate the specific, selected functions
based on market research which indicated to the agency that aligning areas
that are *integrally linked* *maximizes cross[-]utilization and
cross[-]training opportunities between service areas[,] thereby increasing
efficiencies.* Competition, Consolidation, and Small Business Opportunity
Analysis, at 2. As the agency explained, *maximiz[ing] efficiencies
through cross[-]utilization of resources to reduce total costs, while
maintaining and improving service levels and customer satisfaction* is
*[f]undamental to the Kessler acquisition.* Id. atA 1.
A
Teximara initially protested the RFP to our Office on November 6, 2003,
challenging the consolidation of grounds maintenance with the other BOS
functions. The Air Force then undertook to take corrective action,
stating that it would reexamine its decision to consolidate the
requirements. Based onA this action, we dismissed the protest as academic
on December 8. On MarchA 23, 2004, the agency notified counsel for the
protester that it had determined that the *bundling decision* could be
justified, and Teximara thereafter filed this protest with our Office.
A
CONSOLIDATION ANALYSIS
A
The Air Force prepared two detailed documents in which it explained its
rationale for consolidating grounds maintenance with the other
functions.
A
Initial Linkage Analysis
A
In an initial 80-page *linkage analysis,* prepared prior to this protest,
the Air Force set forth the overall acquisition strategy, its efforts to
maximize small business opportunities, and its *consolidation analysis*
identifying efficiencies crossing all services areas within the RFP. In
this regard, the agency cited potential management-related efficiencies,
such as *[b]roader spans of control, reduction in redundancies, increased
supplier and performance management efficiencies, economies of scale and
scope, and strategic leverage,* as well as efficiencies resulting from
cross-utilization and crossa**training in such areas as program
management, finance, procurement and supply, customer support, training,
transportation, and quality assurance. Competition, Consolidation, and
Small Business Opportunity Analysis, atA 4-7.
A
In addition, the linkage analysis included specific examples of the
efficiencies generated from the overlap between the 14A BOS functions in
the RFP. Analyzing each function individually, the agency identified
overlap with the other functions in terms of common skill sets, equipment,
duplicate processes, and/or management and oversight, and cited examples
of potential efficiencies and redundancies. For example, the Air Force
compared the requirement for operations and maintenance with each of the
other functions and identified areas of overlap and efficiencies. It then
compared energy and utilities with each of the functions and identified
areas of overlap and efficiencies, compared emergency management with each
of the other functions, and so on for each of the 14 functions.
A
With regard to grounds and site maintenance, the Air Force identified
specific examples of overlap in tasks also performed by emergency
management, operations and maintenance, energy and utilities, housing,
engineering, community services, and environmental management. Where the
tasks overlapped, the analysis identified instances where consolidation
would result in workforce efficiencies (crossa**utilization and
crossa**training of personnel), equipment efficiencies
(crossa**utilization of tools, equipment, and vehicles), training and
certification efficiencies, and environmental compliance efficiencies.
Initial Linkage Analysis atA 40-41.
A
For instance, regarding the overlap between grounds and site maintenance
and emergency management, the agency determined that since both functions
perform disaster recovery efforts such as preparing sand bags, preparing
shelters, cutting back growth, and clearing debris, there were
opportunities for cross-utilizing and cross-training the workforce. Also,
the agency noted that both functions use some of the same maintenance
equipment and supplies (e.g., special and general purpose vehicles,
materials, hand tools, and personal equipment) so that duplicate equipment
could be eliminated, resulting in inventory and maintenance savings.
Likewise, as another example, the agency determined that grounds and site
maintenance personnel could be crossa**utilized and cross-trained with
environmental management personnel to perform mowing, application of
pesticide and herbicides, seeding, runway clearing, and other functions in
support of habitat control; and that duplicate equipment could be
eliminated because both functions use some of the same equipment (e.g.,
mowers, sprayers, and weed eaters). Similarly, the agency determined that
cross-utilization of personnel and equipment could occur between grounds
maintenance and community services, which maintain athletic fields and
parks; and between grounds maintenance and housing, which inspect the
grounds. Id.
A
Supplemental Linkage Analysis
A
In a 34-page supplemental linkage analysis, prepared in response to this
protest, the Air Force described in more detail the functional overlap,
first between grounds maintenance and site maintenance, and then between
grounds and site maintenance combined with the other BOS functions in the
RFP. For each functional comparison, the agency included a matrix that
provided examples, on a task-by-task basis, of where efficiencies could be
gained from cross-utilizing or cross-training personnel, eliminating
redundancies in equipment or vehicles, and taking advantage of management
and training efficiencies; this matrix also included a breakout by task of
the savings that could be generated as a result of consolidation.
A
For example, in the functional comparison of grounds with site
maintenance, the matrix provided examples of overlap in performing the
following tasks: pest control; vegetation control (herbicides); heavy
equipment operation; landscaping and grounds restoration; debris
accumulation, collection, and processing; project planning; self-help
consulting; mowing, edging, and trimming; and fence and sign inspection
and maintenance. For each of these tasks, the agency described with
specificity redundancies in personnel, equipment, vehicles, management,
and training associated with multiple functions performing some portion of
the task, and quantified the savings that could be generated from
eliminating the redundancies. For instance, the Air Force estimated that
consolidating grounds with site maintenance for purposes of performing
pest control would result in [REDACTED] savings in personnel (the
equivalent of [REDACTED] full time equivalent employee (FTE)), [REDACTED]
savings in equipment, [REDACTED] savings in vehicles, and [REDACTED]
savings in management and training. Supplemental Linkage Analysis at 2.
The agency performed a similar analysis for each of the above-identified
tasks in comparing grounds with site maintenance.
A
The agency likewise compared grounds and site maintenance combined with
the other BOS functions, focusing on the overlap in grounds related work.
For example, the agency identified redundancies, and calculated potential
savings in manpower, equipment, vehicles, and management and training
under the following tasks: disaster cleanup, hazmat containment and
control, and disaster preparedness (comparing grounds and site maintenance
with emergency management), Tr.A atA 862a**65, 876a**77; timers, alarms,
controls, the Bird Air Strike Hazard (BASH) program,[3] plumbing, and
general labor skills (comparing grounds and site maintenance with
operations and maintenance) [4]; utilities and water (comparing grounds
and site maintenance with energy and utilities)[5]; inspections (comparing
grounds and site maintenance with housing); landscape support (comparing
grounds and site maintenance with engineering services); and athletic
field inspection, maintenance, preparation and repair (comparing grounds
and site maintenance with community services).
A
After performing its task-by-task analysis comparing grounds maintenance
to all of the BOS functions in the RFP, the agency calculated an overall
annual savings from consolidation of [REDACTED] ([REDACTED] in manpower
savings, [REDACTED] in equipment and material savings, [REDACTED] in
vehicle savings, and [REDACTED] in management and training savings). Of
this, approximately [REDACTED] ([REDACTED] in manpower savings, [REDACTED]
in equipment/material savings, [REDACTED] in vehicle savings, and
[REDACTED] in management and training savings) will result from
consolidating grounds with site maintenance, and [REDACTED] ([REDACTED] in
manpower savings, [REDACTED] in equipment/material savings, [REDACTED] in
vehicle savings, and [REDACTED] in management/training savings) is largely
attributable to consolidating grounds maintenance with the remaining
functions in the RFP. Supplemental Linkage Analysis at 34.
A
DISCUSSION
A
CICA Bundling
A
Teximara contends that the Air Force violated CICA by bundling grounds
maintenance with the other BOS functions in the RFP. It maintains that
the RFP, as currently structured, precludes the firm from submitting a
proposal because it does not have the capacity to perform other than the
grounds maintenance function.
A
CICA generally requires that solicitations permit full and open
competition and contain restrictive provisions and conditions only to the
extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency. 10 U.S.C. S
2305(a)(1) (2000). Since *bundled* (or *consolidated*) procurements
combine separate, multiple requirements into one contract, they have the
potential for restricting competition by excluding firms that can furnish
only a portion of the requirement. Phoenix Scientific Corp., B-286817,
Feb. 22, 2001, 2001 CPD P 24 at 5. This is also true in the context of a
competition like the one here, which is conducted pursuant to OMB Circular
A-76. EDP Enters., Inc., B-284533.6, May 19, 2003, 2003 CPD PA 93 at 4.
Thus, because of the restrictive impact of bundling, we will sustain a
protest challenging a bundled solicitation issued in the context of an
A-76 competition unless the agency has a reasonable basis for its
determination that bundling is necessary to satisfy the agency*s needs.
Id.; seeA Virginia Elec. and Power Co.; Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co.,
B-285209, Ba**285209.2, Aug.A 2, 2000, 2000 CPD P 134 at 11. We have
recognized that bundling may serve to meet an agency*s needs where the
agency reasonably determines that consolidation will result in significant
cost savings or efficiencies. See, e.g., Virginia Elec. and Power Co.;
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., supra, at 11-12 (protest denied where agency
demonstrated that consolidation would result in significant cost savings,
as well as more efficient use of personnel); EDP Enters., Inc., supra, at
6 (recognizing that *management efficiencies could reasonably justify an
agency*s needs, particularly where cross-utilization and crossa**training
are planned*).
A
Although the Air Force contends that bundling here does not restrict
competition, even if we assume (for purposes of this analysis) that it
does, we find that the Air Force has reasonably justified including
grounds maintenance in its consolidated contracting approach. As
explained below, we find that the agency has demonstrated significant
efficiencies related to the overlap between grounds maintenance and the
other RFP functions, that the savings attributable to these efficiencies
(estimated as approximately [REDACTED]) are significant in amount when
compared to the value of the grounds and site maintenance work, and that
comparison to the value of the grounds and site maintenance work is a
reasonable basis of comparison. In sum, we find that the agency*s
detailed analysis sufficiently justified bundling here.
A
As an initial matter, we note that Teximara *does not dispute that the
AirA Force was able to demonstrate that certain *synergies* and
*efficiencies* would be realized by bundling grounds maintenance with site
maintenance and, in turn, with the other [RFP] functions.* Teximara*s
Post-Hearing Comments at 1. Teximara, however, does question the extent
of the savings associated with such efficiencies.[6] As discussed below,
we find Teximara*s challenge to the extent of the estimated savings to be
unpersuasive.
A
While Teximara claims that the agency*s estimate of cost savings was done
quickly (in response to the protest) and was based on only unsupported
assumptions, the record indicates that the underlying linkage analysis of
functional overlaps and potential efficiencies was the result of several
years of analysis, Tr.A atA 49, 602, and that the resulting cost estimates
reflected the considered opinions of technical and cost experts based on
the statement of work, performance requirements documents, unit manpower
documents, equipment and vehicle price lists, and their own expertise in
consultation with other functional experts in the field. Tr. at 720-21,
731a**34, 736, 759-60. Further, our review of the record confirms that
the agency*s analysis was extraordinarily detailed and comprehensive. As
discussed above, the Air Force specifically identified the functional
overlap, first between grounds maintenance and site maintenance, and then
between grounds and site maintenance combined with the other BOS functions
in the RFP, focusing on the overlap with grounds maintenance work. For
each functional comparison, the agency determined, on a task-by-task
basis, where efficiencies could be gained from cross-utilizing or
cross-training personnel, eliminating redundancies in equipment or
vehicles, and taking advantage of management and training efficiencies;
the agency then quantified the savings that could be generated from
eliminating the redundancies and otherwise taking advantage of the
potential efficiencies.
A
Although Teximara has identified a small error in the calculations, it has
not shown that the agency*s assumptions were unreasonable, or that
significant savings would not occur. Specifically, it appears that the
agency*s manpower assumptions regarding the pest control and herbicide
tasks were slightly different from actual staffing. While the agency
assumed that the current grounds maintenance contractor (Teximara) had
four individuals performing the pest control and herbicide tasks on a
full-time basis, actually, four individuals perform the functions on a
part-time basis under Teximara*s current contract. However, it appears
from the record that when the actual manpower figures are considered,
including both the contractor*s and the agency*s personnel performing
similar work, significant savings are still possible; instead of the
estimated [REDACTED] potential savings to be gained from a more efficient
approach to performing the two tasks, the savings are likely to total
[REDACTED]. See Tr.A at 226.[7]
A
While this error decreases the total estimated savings, it appears from
the record that the actual savings to be realized from consolidation will
otherwise increase due to efficiencies relating to supply services (e.g.,
purchasing supplies), financial and management tracking, and human
resources, the savings from which are not included in the Air Force*s
projected [REDACTED] estimate. Supplemental Linkage Analysis at 31. The
Air Force also identified a number of management and *process*
efficiencies, the savings from which likewise are not included in the
estimate. E.g., Supplemental Linkage Analysis at 4, 6-7, 10, 16, 24, 29.
A
We find that the reasonably projected overall annual savings from the
consolidation of the grounds maintenance function with, first the site
maintenance function, and then grounds maintenance and site maintenance
combined with the remaining RFP functions--whether the approximately
[REDACTED] savings assumed by the agency, or a somewhat lower level to
reflect the error discussed above--are significant. This level of
savings, which the agency witnesses testified was based on *conservative*
estimates, is approximately 9.7 percent of the annual cost of the grounds
and site maintenance functions at Kessler AFB.[8] The parties dispute
what universe of costs these savings should be compared to--what the
appropriate denominator should be. Teximara and the SBA argue that the
[REDACTED] savings should be compared to the total annual value of the
contract ([REDACTED]), which results in savings of less than 1A percent.
While we recognize that one can reasonably disagree about the appropriate
denominator, we find that the one advocated by Teximara and the SBA is
inappropriate, because it compares *apples to oranges.* This is because
the [REDACTED] savings represents efficiencies attributable almost
entirely to grounds maintenance; it does not include the savings from
synergies between the other functions on tasks that are not related to
grounds maintenance, Tr. at 138, as would be necessary to provide an
*apples to apples* comparison to the total contract value.
A
Teximara also argues that the agency failed to calculate the savings from
alternative strategies, such as bundling smaller groups of requirements.
None of these arguments, however, call into question the agency*s
assertion that bundling is likely to generate significant efficiencies and
savings, or furnishes a basis for questioning the consolidation here. As
suggested by the focus of the agency*s analysis--that is, on the overlap
of the functional requirements and the resulting efficiencies that could
be gained from cross-utilizing or cross-training personnel, eliminating
redundancies in equipment or vehicles, and taking advantage of management
and training efficiencies--and as confirmed by the testimony of the
agency*s experts, removing the grounds maintenance function (or the
grounds and site maintenance functions) would result in a loss of
synergies and the anticipated savings. Tr. at 368, 609, 624a**25, 634,
968-69. Indeed, Teximara itself has essentially conceded this point, as
when it acknowledged that the *record is fairly clear* that if grounds and
site maintenance were bundled separately from the other functions, *the
*lost* savings would be [REDACTED].*[9] Teximara Memorandum to GAO, June
7, 2004, at 1.
A
In sum, we find that the agency has reasonably shown that the anticipated
efficiencies and savings resulting from consolidating grounds maintenance
with the RFP*s other BOS functions are significant and that consolidation
is therefore necessary to meet its needs.
A
Small Business Act Analysis
A
Teximara also asserts that the consolidation of functions violates the
Small Business Act. In this regard, it asserts, along with the SBA, that,
in justifying its bundling determination, the Air Force failed to comply
with certain provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S 7.107
that implement applicable Small Business Act restrictions. FAR S 7.107
requires that, where an A-76 cost comparison will be performed, and the
proposed acquisition strategy involves substantial bundling (that is,
bundling where the annual contract value is $10 million or more), the
acquisition strategy must:
A
(1) Identify the specific benefits anticipated to be derived from
bundling;
(2) Include an assessment of the specific impediments to participation by
small business concerns as contractors that result from bundling;
(3) Specify actions designed to maximize small business participation as
contractors, including provisions that encourage small business teaming;
(4) Specify actions designed to maximize small business participation as
subcontractors (including suppliers) at any tier under the contract, or
order, that may be awarded to meet the requirements;
(5) Include a specific determination that the anticipated benefits of the
proposed bundled contract or order justify its use; and
(6) Identify alternative strategies that would reduce or minimize the
scope of the bundling, and the rationale for not choosing those
alternatives.
FAR S 7.107(e); see also 13 C.F.R. S 125.2(d)(7). Teximara primarily
challenges the agency*s compliance with the requirements to specify
actions designed to maximize small business participation as prime
contractors and identify alternative strategies that would reduce or
minimize the scope of the bundling.[10]
A
The record indicates that the Air Force undertook to maximize small
business participation to the maximum extent possible consistent with
achieving significant savings and efficiencies. These efforts include
setting aside for small businesses [REDACTED] worth of prime contract
dollars under the smaller BOS solicitation, requiring a minimum of 25
percent small business participation under the larger BOS contract, and
encouraging an even greater percentage of small business participation in
the performance of the larger BOS contract through the award fee incentive
provisions of the RFP. Furthermore, the Air Force will continue to
reserve, exclusively for small businesses, the performance of
approximately $15 million in construction and other *miscellaneous* work.
As discussed below, we find that these efforts satisfied the agency*s
obligations under FAR S 7.107(e).
A
Although Teximara asserts that the Air Force failed to maximize small
business prime contracting opportunities, we note that the requirement
under FAR SA 7.107(e) is that the agency*s acquisition strategy must
*[s]pecify actions designed to maximize small business participation as
contractors.* Here, the agency complied with the requirement to specify
in its acquisition strategy its actions to maximize small business prime
contracting opportunities by setting aside for small businesses [REDACTED]
worth of prime contract dollars under the smaller BOS solicitation.[11]
AsA aA result, while currently approximately $27.1 million in work is
being performed annually by small business prime contractors (including
approximately $11.9A million in contracts within both the larger and
smaller BOS areas of studies, approximately $8.6 million in construction
contracts, and $6 million in *miscellaneous* contracts such as laundry
services), the Air Force anticipates that even after consolidation,
approximately $24.6 million worth of work will be awarded annually to
small business prime contractors (including [REDACTED] under the smaller
BOS contract, $8.6 million in construction, and $6A million in
*miscellaneous* contracts). Contracting Officer*s Statement at 4; Tr.A at
1085. We find that the agency satisfied its obligation under this
provision by specifically considering and adopting means by which it could
maximize small business participation as prime contractors in a manner
consistent with its need for cost savings and efficiency.[12] Teximara
cites no requirement, nor are we aware of any, for the Air Force to do
more.
A
Teximara also asserts that the Air Force failed to identify alternative
strategies that would minimize or reduce the scope of bundling. However,
the record shows that, throughout the development of its acquisition
strategy, the Air Force engaged in an ongoing dialogue concerning
alternative strategies. For example, it considered conducting 2 studies
(the smaller and larger BOS studies), 4 or 5 studies (based on smaller
numbers of bundled functions), and 17 separate studies (with none of the
functions bundled). Tr. at 101, 295, 441-42; Business Strategy Plan at
6. The agency also considered whether to withdraw grounds maintenance
from the RFP and procure these services as a separate small business
set-aside, or retain it as part of the consolidated effort. Tr. at
121-24, 302, 321-22. The agency determined, however, that it was not
willing to lose the efficiencies that would be generated by the 2-study
approach by removing grounds maintenance from the consolidated effort.
Tr. at 458, 945-46, 968a**69; see Teximara Memorandum to GAO,
JuneA 7,A 2004, at 1. We find that these efforts satisfy the requirements
of FAR S 7.107 with regard to considering alternative strategies.[13]
A
In sum, we find no basis to question, either under CICA or the Small
Business Act, the Air Force*s consolidated acquisition approach here.
A
The protest is denied.[14]
A
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
A
A
A
------------------------
[1] Hereafter, references to the *RFP* or *BOS* refer to the larger of the
two solicitations unless otherwise noted.
[2] Our Office held a 2-day hearing, where we took the testimony of eight
agency witnesses and a representative of the protester, and explored the
agency*s rationale for its bundling decision.
[3] The BASH program seeks to eliminate the hazards to airplanes caused by
birds flying into the propeller. Tr. at 878.
[4] The agency determined that grounds maintenance employs plumbers and
timer/control technicians to work on the irrigation and sprinkler systems;
these services could be furnished by staff from other functions, such as
operations and maintenance. Tr. at 882-83.
[5] Both the grounds and site maintenance and energy and utilities
functions employ plumbers. Although the grounds maintenance plumbers may
not be able to perform the more complex energy and utility work, the
agency determined that the grounds maintenance plumber positions could be
eliminated and performed by the other functions (either energy and
utilities or operations and maintenance). Tr. at 891-92.
[6] Teximara*s earlier pleadings challenged the agency*s asserted overlap
and efficiencies between grounds maintenance and the other RFP functions.
However, because it conceded in its post-hearing comments that such
efficiencies exist, we do not address its earlier arguments. We have,
however, reviewed the agency*s asserted efficiencies and examples of
functional overlap, including those areas initially challenged by
Teximara, and find them to be reasonably supported.
[7] Teximara also suggests that the estimated savings failed to account
for any loss of efficiencies resulting from potential subcontracting by
the prime contractor. However, the protester has not explained why
efficiencies cannot be maximized via the contractual agreement between the
prime and its subcontractors, such that the projected savings could be
realized, as envisioned by the agency. Further, while the protester
suggests that the provision of government-furnished equipment (GFE) will
reduce the projected savings at least in the first year of performance,
the protester has not shown that the initial furnishing of GFE will
significantly reduce the projected savings over the life of the 10-year
potential contract period. Tr.A at 262, 266-68. Further, while Teximara
speculates that the estimated [REDACTED] savings may not be attributable
solely to consolidation, but instead may include savings attributable to
the A-76 process, the hearing testimony indicated that, in fact, the
[REDACTED] does not include A-76 savings and is attributable solely to the
consolidation efforts. Tr. at 210, 265, 941-42, 944.
[8] As noted above, the value of grounds maintenance work, as estimated by
the Air Force, is approximately $1.7 million and the value of site
maintenance work is approximately $1.5 million. Although Teximara asserts
that the value of site maintenance cannot reasonably be lower than grounds
maintenance, the record shows that grounds maintenance requires 31 FTEs to
perform the work, while site maintenance requires only 25. Tr. at 914.
In addition, we note that the [REDACTED] savings is almost entirely
attributable to grounds maintenance work and, if compared solely to the
grounds maintenance contract, the savings rises to 18A percent. Our
analysis above, however, recognizes that some small portion of these
savings is attributable to site maintenance and therefore we compare the
savings ([REDACTED]) to the value of the grounds and site maintenance work
combined (approximately $3.2A million).
[9] Teximara also challenges the inclusion of a number of non-civil
engineering functions, such as weather support, in the RFP. Given our
conclusion that the agency has justified consolidating grounds maintenance
with the other civil engineering functions, and since Teximara does not
appear to be able to perform a contract that includes all of these civil
engineering functions, Teximara is not an interested party to protest the
inclusion of the non-civil engineering functions within the RFP.
A
[10] Teximara also challenges the Air Force*s compliance with the FAR
SA 7.107 requirement for a specific determination that the anticipated
benefits of the proposed bundled contract justify its use. As discussed
above, however, we find that the Air Force has reasonably determined that
there will be anticipated benefits from bundling and reasonably concluded
that the benefits warrant bundling here.
[11] While the SBA asserts that the set-aside under the smaller BOS
solicitation should not be counted as a small business prime contracting
opportunity under the larger BOS solicitation because the two
solicitations are for *separate and distinct procurements,* SBA*s Comments
atA 4, the SBA*s position fails to account for the fact that the Air
Force*s procurement strategy provides for the acquisition of base
operations support services generally, albeit by means of two different
contracts. We are aware of no requirement that an agency, having carved
out for exclusive small business participation some of the services being
procured, then must ignore those small business-reserved services in
considering the small business participation to be achieved by its overall
acquisition strategy.
[12] The agency explains in this regard that the acquisition strategy here
was adopted only after extensive consultation with the SBA*s procurement
center representative (PCR), and with the PCR*s full concurrence; the PCR
never raised a concern about the number of available contracts, but
instead focused only on the dollar value of the work that would be
performed by small business concerns. Tr. at 422, 466-67, 469, 596.
[13] Furthermore, as discussed above, Teximara is not an interested party
to protest that the agency failed to consider bundling fewer base
operation support services under the RFP; again, since Teximara does not
claim that it could perform the other base operation support services
functions when bundled with grounds maintenance, it is not an interested
party to protest the inclusion of the other functions under the RFP.
[14] Teximara requests we find it entitled to the costs of pursuing this
protest. While recovery of such costs is appropriate where we sustain a
protest, 4A C.F.R. SA 21.8(d), here, we deny Teximara*s protest. Thus,
there is no basis for recommending recovery of Teximara*s protest costs.