TITLE: B-296609, United Paradyne Corporation, August 19, 2005
BNUMBER: B-296609
DATE: August 19, 2005
******************************************************
B-296609, United Paradyne Corporation, August 19, 2005

   Decision

   Matter of: United Paradyne Corporation

   File: B-296609

   Date: August 19, 2005

   Joseph J. Hasay for the protester.

   Carol A. Satterfield, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency may properly include in a work statement for fuels management
   services a minimum staffing requirement that the agency has shown to be
   necessary, without violating Federal Acquisition Regulation
   sections 11.002(a)(2)(i), 37.602-1(b), which generally require that, to
   the maximum extent practicable, the agency's needs be described in terms
   of performance-based standards.

   DECISION

   United Paradyne Corporation protests request for proposals (RFP) No.
   FA8601-05-R-0050, issued by the Department of the Air Force, which
   contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract for fuels management
   services at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

   We deny the protest.

   The work to be performed under the contract includes providing all
   personnel, equipment, tools, material, supervision, and other items and
   services necessary to perform the Fuels Management Operations as defined
   in the performance work statement (PWS) attached to the RFP. The PWS
   referenced requirements stated in a number of Air Force publications and
   regulations, including Air Force Instructions (AFI) 23-201, "Fuels
   Management." PWS App. 2. AFI 23-201, paragraph 3.3, states the Air Force
   policy that at least two contractor employees must handle a refueling
   task. Contracting Officer's Statement at 4-5. The PWS states the following
   additional staffing requirements relevant to this protest:

   4.4.1.1.  Fuels Operations and [Resource Control Center (RCC)] (Building
   154, Area C):

   4.4.1.1.1.  Fuels Operation located in Building 154, Area C, shall be
   operational and physically manned 24 hours per day, seven days per week,
   (Monday through Sunday) including federal holidays. Physical manning for
   each shift shall be of sufficient numbers to meet all daily workload
   requirements without exception. . . . Additionally, physical manning of
   all shifts shall be of sufficient numbers to ensure strict adherence to
   the two-person policy as specified in AFI 23-201, paragraph 3.3 . . .

   4.4.1.1.2.  RCC Control:

   4.4.1.1.2.1.  Responsibilities: RCC is the focal point for all fuels
   operations and acts as the single point of contact for the Fuels
   Management Branch, during other than normal duty hours. Primary
   communication with external organizations is by phone and emergency
   notification of real-world contingencies, incidents, accidents, weather
   warnings, etc... are received over the computer via the Automated
   Notification System. RCC's effectiveness is dependent on the physical
   presence of an individual to carry out the above duties while maintaining
   positive control over all fuels facilities and flightline operations.

   4.4.1.1.2.  Manning: Contractor shall provide sufficient manning, a
   minimum of one individual per shift, to ensure a continual physical
   presence in the RCC office 24 hours per day, seven days per week , (Monday
   through Sunday), including federal holidays. Furthermore, RCC controllers
   shall not be used to augment or supplement other fuel functions, if it
   would require the individual to leave the RCC office unmanned (without a
   physical presence). For example, the controller shall not be used as a
   second person to refill a fuel unit, act as a hydrant pumphouse operator,
   perform duties of laboratory safety person, etc... since this requires the
   RCC to be left unmanned (without a physical presence).

   The closing date for submitting initial proposals was July 5. RFP at 1.
   The agency issued three amendments to the RFP, the last of which extended
   the initial closing date to July 13.

   In its initial protest, filed June 13, United Paradyne argued that the PWS
   contained requirements contrary to the Federal Acquisition Regulation
   (FAR) requirements concerning statements of work for performance-based
   contracts.

   FAR sect. 11.002(a)(2)(i) provides that, to the maximum extent
   practicable, agencies are to state their requirements with respect to an
   acquisition of supplies or services in terms of functions to be performed,
   performance required, or essential physical characteristics. FAR
   sect. 37.602-1(b) provides with regard to performance-based contracting:

   When preparing statements of work, agencies shall, to the maximum extent
   practicable--

   (1) Describe the work in terms of "what" is to be the required output
   rather than either "how" the work is to be accomplished or the number of
   hours to be provided . . .

   (2) Enable assessment of work performance against measurable performance
   standards;

   (3) Rely on the use of measurable performance standards and financial
   incentives in a competitive environment to encourage competitors to
   develop and institute innovative and cost-effective methods of performing
   the work . . .

   The only instance mentioned in the initial protest of how the PWS was in
   violation of the FAR provisions concerning performance-based contracting
   was the agency's requirement for a minimum of one person to be physically
   present at the RCC. The protester states this requirement is contrary to
   the regulatory requirement for performance-based standards, and is not
   needed in order to ensure that the RCC is operational at all times. The
   requirement, combined with the "two-person policy" for refueling,
   essentially will require the contractor to assign three employees to the
   third shift. The protester is the incumbent contractor under the two
   preceding contracts and states that it has performed the third shift with
   only two employees. United Paradyne states that it kept the RCC fully
   operational with two employees, even during the limited time when both
   employees were away from the RCC office performing refueling tasks,
   through the use of radio communications.

   The agency states that it requires a continuous physical presence at the
   RCC office for safety, security and environmental reasons. The RCC is the
   primary monitor of fuels operations and must act as the single point of
   contact for flights during other than normal duty hours, must provide
   positive control over all fuels facilities and flight line operations,
   must notify all fuels personnel of weather warnings, must terminate fuel
   operations when lightning is within 5 miles, and must perform other
   similar duties that require continuous staffing of this critical function.
   The agency reported that the requirement for at least one person to be
   continuously present at the RCC office is necessary because, although
   radio is the primary means of communication, some elements of the base
   populace critical to emergency situations are only able to communicate via
   telephone. Agency Report at 2; Contracting Officer's Statement at 4-5.

   The record provides no basis to find the agency's requirement unreasonable
   or improper. The FAR requires the agency to use performance-based
   standards only to the maximum extent practicable. The agency reports that
   contact between agency and contractor personnel is not always possible by
   means other than telephone. Although the protester generally disagrees, it
   has not shown that the agency has not accurately represented the
   situation. Additionally, the agency appears reasonable in stating that, if
   the contractor has only two employees on duty and both are performing a
   refueling task, as is required by the two-person policy, neither can
   perform critical RCC functions that arise during refueling. While the
   protester seeks a performance-based standard that would allow it to
   occasionally leave the RCC office unstaffed during refueling tasks, the
   agency has demonstrated a reasonable basis for its position that an
   unstaffed RCC office is unacceptable. Under the circumstances, we conclude
   that the agency had a reasonable basis for finding that it is not
   practicable to leave this staff to the discretion of the contractor using
   a purely performance-based standard.[1]

   While the protester stated in its initial protest that the RFP contains
   "numerous" examples of improper terms in the PWS in violation of the FAR
   provisions governing performance-based contracting, the protest identified
   only the example discussed above. In its comments responding to the agency
   report submitted on July 25, United Paradyne for the first time identified
   additional examples. These specific examples were not timely submitted and
   will not be considered. In order for our Office to meaningfully consider
   protest allegations, our Bid Protest Regulations require that protest
   issues be presented prior to the time set for receipt of proposals if
   alleging improprieties apparent on the face of a solicitation. 4 C.F.R.
   sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2005). The piecemeal presentation of protest issues is
   not permissible; rather, each allegation must independently satisfy the
   timeliness requirement. Qualmed, Inc., B-257184.2, Jan. 27, 1995, 95-1 CPD
   para. 94 at 13; Sea-Land Serv., Inc., B-246784.2, Aug. 24, 1992, 92-2 CPD
   para. 122 at 14-15. All of these alleged solicitation improprieties raised
   by the protester were apparent on the face of the solicitation as issued,
   or as subsequently amended, and should have been alleged earlier in order
   to be considered timely.[2]

   The protester also filed a supplemental protest on July 15, based on
   documents provided with the agency report. The supplemental protest
   alleges that the agency failed to conduct an Acquisition Strategy Panel
   (ASP) in accordance with Air Force Materiel Command FAR Supplement
   (AFMCFARS) regulation[3] because the commanding officer either did not
   serve as ASP chairperson or did not delegate his authority to the ASP
   chairperson, and because the ASP minutes were signed by the contract
   specialist and thus were not approved by the ASP chairperson.[4]

   In response, the agency produced a letter from the commanding officer that
   previously delegated his authority to serve as the ASP chairperson for
   procurements of this size to the "Single Manager (SM) two-letter
   equivalent position." Agency Supp. Report, Tab 5, Commanding Officer's
   Delegation Letter (Mar. 24, 2003). The agency states that the SM for this
   procurement is the person who did serve as the ASP chairperson.
   Contracting Officer's Supp. Statement at 1; Agency Report, Tab 3.4, ASP
   Minutes (May 11, 2005). The acting ASP chairperson did not sign the ASP
   minutes; the agency report, however, states that the contracting officer
   has confirmed that the acting ASP chairperson approves of the minutes.
   Contracting Officer's Supp. Statement at 1. The protester does not dispute
   the agency's response to these supplemental protest issues, but
   nevertheless generally asserts that the Air Force regulations were
   violated and the protest should be sustained. We disagree. The record
   shows that the acting ASP chairperson was authorized to act for the
   commanding officer, and has approved the minutes. The protester's
   continuing objection, that the terms of the cited Air Force rules were not
   followed precisely, seeks to raise form over substance, which does not
   provide a basis to sustain the protest. See Harvard Interiors Mfg. Co.,
   B-247400, May 1, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 413 at 9 n.13.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The agency previously attempted to accomplish its actual needs with a
   performance-based standard, and United Paradyne, the incumbent contractor,
   resisted staffing the RCC as is now expressly required by this RFP absent
   a specific requirement in its contract. The work statements under United
   Paradyne's prior contracts essentially stated that the contractor had to
   keep the office "operational," and the agency and protester differed over
   what level of minimum performance was acceptable under this standard. When
   faced with an agency demand that United Paradyne continuously staff the
   RCC office, United Paradyne repeatedly asserted that it was not required
   to do so by the terms of the contract, and asserted that the agency's
   prior revision of the statement of work between the first and second
   contracts did not identify the agency's interpretation of its staffing
   requirement for the RCC office. During one exchange between the contractor
   and the agency, United Paradyne stated that if the agency intends for the
   RCC office to be continuously staffed, "then one would think it would have
   been clearly spelled out in the PWS . . . ." Protest, encl. F, United
   Paradyne Letter to the Air Force (Mar. 16, 2005). Although United Paradyne
   eventually agreed to provide the additional staffing under that contract,
   it continued to assert that the PWS did not require it and insisted on a
   contract adjustment based on changed conditions. Protest, encl. J, United
   Paradyne E-mail Message to the Air Force (May 25, 2005). The agency
   subsequently determined that it would not exercise any option years under
   the contract and would resolicit in order to obtain price competition on
   its actual needs.

   [2] Most of the examples were apparent on the face of the RFP as it
   existed at the time of the initial protest and the protester could have
   identified them in its initial protest. To the extent the protester
   alleges improprieties first introduced in amendments to the RFP issued
   after the initial protest, the allegations should have been protested by
   the date for submission of proposals that applied to the amendment in
   which the alleged impropriety first appeared. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1).
   However, the protester did not identify any of these additional
   allegations until well after the final closing date of July 13.

   [3] AFMCFARS sect. 5307.104-90(b) and Air Force FAR Supplement (AAFARS)
   sect. 5307.104-90(b) both state the agency's policy concerning who can be
   the ASP chairperson for various categories of acquisitions. Although
   AFMCFARS does not address the agency's policy for approval of the ASP
   meeting minutes, AAFARS sect. 5307.104-90(d) does state that approval for
   the minutes shall be obtained from the ASP chairperson.

   [4] The protester also requested documents related to the training of
   agency personnel involved in acquisition planning. To the extent the
   protester's statements in these requests constitute an allegation that
   agency personnel were not adequately trained, the allegation is not a
   matter that our Office will review absent a showing of possible fraud,
   conflict of interest, or actual bias. Glatz Aeronautical Corp.,
   B-293968.2, Aug.10, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 160 at 3 n.1; Arthur Lees,
   B-281954, May 6, 1999, at 1 n.2. No such showing has been made here.