TITLE: B-311200; B-311200.2, Joint Venture Penauille/BMAR & Associates, LLC, May 12, 2008
BNUMBER: B-311200; B-311200.2
DATE: May 12, 2008
**********************************************************************************
B-311200; B-311200.2, Joint Venture Penauille/BMAR & Associates, LLC, May 12, 2008

   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

   Matter of: Joint Venture Penauille/BMAR & Associates, LLC

   File: B-311200; B-311200.2

   Date: May 12, 2008

   T. Wayne Gray, Esq., Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., and Megan M. Mocho, Esq.,
   Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester.
   Philip J. Davis, Esq., William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq.,
   John R. Prairie, Esq., and Lina D. Soni, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Team
   BOS Sigonella, an intervenor.
   Amy M. Steed, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
   Charles W. Morrow, Esq., Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg,
   Esq., Office of General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of
   the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging price evaluation is sustained, where the procuring
   agency unreasonably determined that the protester's lower-priced line
   items for a small portion of the work created an "extremely high"
   performance risk and based its decision on an erroneous belief that the
   contractor could reject work that was ordered.

   DECISION

   Joint Venture Penauille/BMAR & Associates, LLC (JVPB) protests the award
   of a contract to Team BOS Sigonella (BOS) under request for proposals
   (RFP) No. N33191-07-R-0221, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering
   Command, Europe and Support Services, for facilities support services.
   JVPB contends that the Navy improperly rejected its proposal as being
   unreasonably low in price.

   We sustain the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP sought to procure "Base Operating and Support Services" at the
   Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy, under a fixed-price contract, with
   a combination of fixed-quantity and indefinite-quantity line items. The
   period of performance included a 45-day phase-in period, 1-year base
   period, and four 1-year option periods.[1] RFP sect. F.1. The selected
   contractor was required to provide facility support, management and
   administration, and environmental services that were identified in the
   performance work statement (PWS). The facility support services included
   facility investment, janitorial services, pest control services, refuse
   collection and recycling, "Other (Minor Work)," grounds maintenance,
   street sweeping, and shuttle bus services. Id. sect. C, PWS, at 1. At
   issue in this protest is the minor work requirement of the facility
   support services, which the RFP defined as follows:

     Minor work orders are used for minor construction, fabrication,
     alteration, maintenance, repairs, special events support and office
     moves requiring no more than EUR [Euros] 10,000 in labor, materials and
     equipment. Example of minor work jobs are: minor construction, special
     event site preparation, replace fire alarm panels, replace pumps,
     replace carpet, replace tiles, furniture moving, pump out man hole, etc.
     . . . .

   Id. at 40. Minor work was further classified as either "priority" or
   "routine," although neither term was identified in the RFP. The work was
   also grouped into "categories" based solely on the value of the work to be
   performed. Id.

   Included with the RFP was an "Exhibit Line Item" (ELIN) schedule. For each
   of the required services in the PWS, including minor work, the ELIN
   schedule identified fixed-quantity and indefinite-quantity line items for
   which the offerors were to provide unit and total prices for identified or
   estimated quantities of work.[2] For minor work, the "[p]erformance
   standards" for both fixed-quantity and indefinite-quantity work were the
   same, except that offerors were guaranteed an identified quantity of
   fixed-quantity work, and indefinite-quantity work would only be ordered
   "if and when needed." Id. at 43. With regard to minor work, the ELIN
   schedule for fixed-quantity work provided as follows (while we list here
   the categories for "priority" work, the categories for "routine" work were
   identical):

     Category I, Priority Minor Work (from EUR 0.01 to EUR 2,000.00)

     Category II, Priority Minor Work (from EUR 2,000.01 to EUR 5,000.00)

     Category III, Priority Minor Work (from EUR 5,000.01 to EUR 7,500.00)

     Category IV, Priority Minor Work (from EUR 7,500.01 to EUR 10,000.00)

   RFP, attach. J-0200000-1.1, ELIN Schedule, at 10. For indefinite-quantity
   minor work, the ELIN schedule stated (again, while we list the information
   for "priority" work, the same statement was listed for the "routine" work
   categories):

     Priority Minor Work (Category I) See Requirement 1503090 in Section C[3]

     Priority Minor Work (Category II) See Requirement 1503090 in Section C

     Priority Minor Work (Category III) See Requirement 1503090 in Section C

     Priority Minor Work (Category IV) See Requirement 1503090 in Section C

   Id. at 23.

   The agency explains that the price ranges, listed above in the ELINs for
   fixed-quantity minor work, defined the categories of minor work. That is,
   minor work valued at EUR 0.01 to EUR 2,000.00 was designated as "Category
   I," minor work valued at EUR 2,000.01 to EUR 5,000.00 was designated as
   "Category II," etc. For fixed-quantity minor work, offerors could
   challenge the categorization of work, pursuant to the following PWS
   provision:

     (3)    Recategorization

     If the contractor does not agree with the categorization of a minor work
     order, the contractor shall return the work order by letter to the
     [contracting officer] within (2) working days of issuance, annotated to
     indicate non-acceptance. The returned work order shall be accompanied by
     the contractor's estimate or explanation. After reviewing the
     contractor's estimate, the [contracting officer] will attempt to
     negotiate an agreement. If an agreement cannot be reached, the
     [contracting officer] may direct the contractor to proceed or arrange to
     have the work performed by other means . . .

     If the Government agrees the work will exceed the category dollar
     ceiling, the minor work order will either be cancelled or recategorized.

   RFP sect. C, PWS, at 41. Effectively, if the contractor believed that a
   particular "minor work" order should be paid at a higher rate, it could
   tell the contracting officer that the work fell into a higher (that is, a
   higher-priced) category. The agency interpreted this provision to also
   apply to the indefinite-quantity minor work.

   The RFP provided for award on a "best value" basis, considering five
   equally-weighted technical factors and price. The technical factors were
   identified as organizational experience, organizational past performance,
   management approach, staffing plan and resources, and safety. The
   combination of the five technical factors was considered to be of equal
   importance to the price factor. For the price evaluation, the RFP stated
   that the "offeror's total price for all line items for the phase-in and
   base period and four option periods will be compared to the total price of
   the other offerors as well as the Independent Government Estimate [IGE]. .
   . ." In addition, the RFP provided that "[p]rice proposals may be
   evaluated for realism, completeness, balance, and reasonableness." RFP
   sect. M-2.

   Five offerors responded to the solicitation, and the proposals of three
   offerors, including JVPB and BOS, were found to be in the competitive
   range. Discussions were held with each of the three offerors, after which
   all submitted revised proposals.[4] A technical evaluation board (TEB)
   evaluated proposals and assigned "good" ratings to both JVPB's and BOS's
   proposals under each of the technical factors, except that BOS's proposal
   was found to be superior under the organizational past performance factor
   and was rated "excellent" under this factor. AR, exh. 16, Final SSB
   Report, at 3.

   A price evaluation board (PEB) evaluated the offerors' proposed prices and
   noted that JVPB provided the lowest-priced proposal at EUR [DELETED], and
   BOS provided the next lowest-priced proposal at EUR 41,386,407. Based on a
   comparison of offerors' prices to one another,[5] the PEB determined that
   all offerors' prices were "acceptable," except that JVPB's prices were
   found to be "unacceptable" for the indefinite-quantity portion of the
   minor work.[6] AR, exh. 15, Final PEB Report, at 10. In support of this
   conclusion, the PEB noted that JVPB and BOS proposed the following prices
   for minor work:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Category  |Price Range|  JVPB   |       JVPB       |   BOS   |   BOS    |
   |          |           |         |                  |         |          |
   |          |           |  Fixed  |    Indefinite    |  Fixed  |Indefinite|
   |          |           |Quantity |     Quantity     |Quantity | Quantity |
   |----------+-----------+---------+------------------+---------+----------|
   |Priority I|EUR 0.01 - |[DELETED]|[DELETED]         |[DELETED]|[DELETED] |
   |          |           |         |                  |         |          |
   |          |2,000.00   |         |                  |         |          |
   |----------+-----------+---------+------------------+---------+----------|
   |Priority  |EUR        |[DELETED]|[DELETED]         |[DELETED]|[DELETED] |
   |II        |2,000.01 --|         |                  |         |          |
   |          |           |         |                  |         |          |
   |          |5,000.00   |         |                  |         |          |
   |----------+-----------+---------+------------------+---------+----------|
   |Priority  |EUR        |[DELETED]|[DELETED]         |[DELETED]|[DELETED] |
   |III       |5,000.01 --|         |                  |         |          |
   |          |           |         |                  |         |          |
   |          |7,500.00   |         |                  |         |          |
   |----------+-----------+---------+------------------+---------+----------|
   |Priority  |EUR        |[DELETED]|[DELETED]         |[DELETED]|[DELETED] |
   |IV        |7,500.01 --|         |                  |         |          |
   |          |           |         |                  |         |          |
   |          |10,000.00  |         |                  |         |          |
   |----------+-----------+---------+------------------+---------+----------|
   |Routine I |EUR .01 -- |[DELETED]|[DELETED]         |[DELETED]|[DELETED] |
   |          |           |         |                  |         |          |
   |          |2,000.00   |         |                  |         |          |
   |----------+-----------+---------+------------------+---------+----------|
   |Routine II|EUR        |[DELETED]|[DELETED]         |[DELETED]|[DELETED] |
   |          |2,000.01 --|         |                  |         |          |
   |          |           |         |                  |         |          |
   |          |5,000.00   |         |                  |         |          |
   |----------+-----------+---------+------------------+---------+----------|
   |Routine   |EUR        |[DELETED]|[DELETED]         |[DELETED]|[DELETED] |
   |III       |5,000.01 --|         |                  |         |          |
   |          |           |         |                  |         |          |
   |          |7,500.00   |         |                  |         |          |
   |----------+-----------+---------+------------------+---------+----------|
   |Routine IV|EUR        |[DELETED]|[DELETED]         |[DELETED]|[DELETED] |
   |          |7,500.01 --|         |                  |         |          |
   |          |           |         |                  |         |          |
   |          |10,000.00  |         |                  |         |          |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, exh. 15, Final PEB Report, at 4-5.

   The PEB determined that JVPB's proposed indefinite-quantity prices for the
   minor work were "unreasonable," and posed a "significant" and "extremely
   high level" of performance risk. Id. at 5, 10. In explaining this
   conclusion, the PEB noted that JVPB's indefinite-quantity prices were
   approximately [DELETED] percent lower than its own fixed-quantity prices,
   and were lower than other offerors' indefinite-quantity prices for the
   same work. The PEB also noted that JVPB's proposed indefinite-quantity
   prices were "below the price range established for each category of Minor
   Work, except Category I." Id. at 4. The PEB believed that JVPB's low
   prices would encourage the firm to reject orders for indefinite-quantity
   minor work to avoid losing money on low-priced orders. Id.; Agency
   Response to GAO's Interrogatories (Apr. 30, 2008), at 5. For these
   reasons, the PEB concluded that JVPB's proposal was unacceptable.

   The TEB and PEB reported their findings to the source selection board
   (SSB), which agreed with and adopted the boards' findings. The SSB
   recommended award to BOS as the "best value" to the government, and the
   source selection authority (SSA) concurred. The SSA awarded the contract
   to BOS, and JVPB protested.

   DISCUSSION

   JVPB challenges the Navy's determination that its indefinite-quantity
   pricing for minor work was unreasonably low and unacceptable, arguing that
   the determination was based on a faulty price realism analysis.[7]

   Before awarding a fixed-price contract, an agency is required to determine
   that the offered price is fair and reasonable. Federal Acquisition
   Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.402(a). An agency's concern in making a price
   reasonableness determination focuses on whether the offered prices are too
   high, not too low. Medical Matrix, LP, B-299526, B-299526.2, June 12,
   2007, 2007 para. 123 at 9 n.6. Although not required, an agency may also
   provide for a price realism analysis in a solicitation for award of a
   fixed-price contract for the purpose of assessing an offeror's
   understanding of the requirements and the risk inherent in an offeror's
   proposal. L-3 Commc'ns, KDI Precision Prod., Inc., B-290091 et al., June
   14, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 155 at 5-6. In this regard, the risk of poor
   performance when a contractor is forced to provide services at little or
   no profit is a legitimate concern in evaluating proposals. Molina Eng'g,
   Ltd/Tri-J Indus., Inc. Joint Venture, B-284895, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD
   para. 86 at 4. We will review the price evaluation conducted to determine
   whether it was reasonable and consistent with the RFP evaluation criteria.
   The Arora Group, Inc., B-277674, Nov. 10, 1997, 98-1 CPD para. 64 at 4.

   Here, the record does not show that the agency performed a reasonable
   price evaluation. Although the Navy rejected JVPB's proposal on the basis
   of low indefinite-quantity pricing for minor work, the record does not
   provide any evidence that the agency considered whether this reflected a
   lack of understanding of the requirements, or that there was a credible
   risk to performance. The agency did not consult with the TEB to consider
   whether JVPB could perform the work at the prices proposed. In fact, the
   SSB concluded that JVPB "successfully demonstrated a good understanding of
   the requirements."[8] AR, exh. 16, Final SSB Report, at 4.

   The agency explains that "significant" proposal risk stems from its belief
   that "under the [indefinite-quantity] portion [of minor work], the
   Contractor has the option of returning, and ultimately rejecting work if
   they do not agree with the Category the Government is issuing it under."
   AR, exh. 15, Final PEB Report, at 4-5. In this regard, the agency is
   referring to the "Recategorization" provision of the PWS that allows the
   contractor to challenge the categorization of fixed-quantity minor
   work--that is, whether the work should be classified as category I, II,
   III, or IV. RFP sect. C, PWS, at 41. According to the agency, this
   provision also applies to indefinite-quantity minor work.

   We first note that it is not evident from the record that the
   "Recategorization" provision applies to the indefinite-quantity minor
   work. The provision is not included or referenced in the
   indefinite-quantity portion of the PWS addressing minor work. Although the
   PWS for indefinite-quantity minor work incorporates by reference
   fixed-quantity "[p]erformance standards," id. at 43, the
   "Recategorization" provision is not listed as a performance standard.
   Likewise, the ELIN schedule for indefinite-quantity minor work references
   "Requirement 1503090 in Section C" (i.e., the PWS), but the
   "Recategorization" provision appears at 1503040 of the PWS.

   Furthermore, in response to inquiries from our Office, the agency conceded
   that neither the "Recategorization" provision, nor any other provision of
   the RFP, permits the contractor to reject minor work orders issued by the
   contracting officer. Agency Response to GAO's Interrogatories (Apr. 30,
   2008), at 4. Thus, the reason given contemporaneously for rejecting JVPB's
   proposal was conceded to be erroneous. The agency now argues that JVPB's
   low indefinite-quantity pricing will encourage the firm to challenge
   categories (essentially arguing that it should be paid a higher price for
   the particular "minor work" to be performed), which will place a
   "significant administrative burden" on the agency in responding to these
   challenges. Id. at 5. Even though, as discussed above, it is not clear
   from the record that the "Recategorization" provision applies to the
   indefinite-quantity minor work, the fact that a contractor may exercise a
   contract right is not a legitimate reason for rejecting its proposal.

   Moreover, the indefinite-quantity portion of minor work represents only a
   small fraction of the overall contract and may never be ordered. See RFP
   sect. C, PWS, at 43 (indefinite-quantity minor work will be ordered only
   "if and when needed"). Thus, even if JVPB's prices were considered too low
   for this aspect of minor work, this does not seem to support the agency's
   conclusion that the performance risk to the overall contract is "extremely
   high."

   Also, if low prices "incentivize" a contractor to challenge minor work
   categories, as the agency now contends, then the awardee is similarly
   "incentivized." As the record shows, BOS's proposed prices for minor work
   were lower than JVPB's for all of the fixed-quantity categories, and were
   just below the established ranges for all minor work categories (both
   fixed-quantity and indefinite-quantity), except for category I. As noted
   by the protester, because of its low prices, BOS may be even more
   "incentivized" to challenge categories for both fixed-quantity minor work
   (where order quantities are guaranteed) and indefinite-quantity minor work
   (where orders are placed only when needed). Indeed, it would appear that,
   since fixed-quantity orders will definitely occur, the likelihood of
   category challenges with fixed-quantity work is greater than with
   indefinite-quantity work. Thus, it is not apparent how the protester's
   pricing of indefinite-quantity minor work will cause significantly more of
   an administrative burden to the agency under the "Recategorization"
   provision than the awardee's pricing.

   In sum, we sustain the protest because the Navy's price evaluation of the
   protester's proposal lacks a reasonable basis, and is not supported by the
   contemporaneous evaluation record. Under the circumstances, we recommend
   that the agency reevaluate proposals, conduct discussions if necessary,
   perform a price/technical tradeoff if required, and make a new source
   selection decision. The agency should also consider whether to clarify for
   offerors whether proposed prices for minor work must be within the
   category ranges stated in the ELIN schedule. In addition, we recommend
   that the agency reimburse JVPB the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing
   the protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 4 C.F.R. sect.
   21.8(d)(1). JVPB's certified claim for costs, detailing the time spent and
   the costs incurred, must be submitted to the agency within 60 days of
   receiving this decision. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(f)(1).

   The protest is sustained.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The phase-in period contained only fixed-quantity work, while the base
   and option periods contained both fixed-quantity and indefinite-quantity
   work.

   [2] Identified quantities were provided for fixed-quantity line items, and
   estimated quantities were provided for indefinite-quantity line items.

   [3] "Section C" refers to the PWS, which was located in section C of the
   solicitation.

   [4] During discussions, JVPB was asked to explain why its fixed-quantity
   prices were "so much higher" than its indefinite-quantity prices for minor
   work. See AR, exh. 15, Final PEB Report, at 3. In response, JVPB raised
   its indefinite-quantity prices, but did not provide any narrative
   explanation to the agency.

   [5] The PEB did not compare offerors' prices to the IGE because it found
   that the IGE was "not a valuable tool in this particular acquisition." The
   PEB explained that because services at Sigonella were being consolidated
   for the first time under this RFP, the IGE "may not have accurately taken
   [into] account the many benefits, such as economies of scale," due to this
   consolidation. Rather, the IGE was based on historical data, where
   services were being procured under a variety of service contracts. AR,
   exh. 8, Initial PEB Report, at 3.

   [6] JVPB's proposed fixed-quantity prices for minor work were found to be
   reasonable and acceptable.

   [7] JVPB also protests the agency's affirmative determination of
   responsibility with regard to BOS, based on JVPB's belief that one of
   BOS's team members did not comply with RFP requirements relating to the
   "Anti-Mafia and other Italian laws," and is not authorized to enter into
   contracts relating to this procurement. Suppl. Protest at 3; JVPB's
   Comments at 14. Because the determination that an offeror is capable of
   performing a contract is largely committed to the contracting officer's
   discretion, GAO will generally not consider a protest challenging such a
   determination, except where the protest alleges that definitive
   responsibility criteria in the solicitation have not been met, or
   identifies evidence raising serious concerns that, in reaching a
   particular responsibility determination, the contracting officer
   unreasonably failed to consider available relevant information or
   otherwise violated statue or regulation. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(c) (2008).
   Here, the record shows that the agency considered all of the submissions
   required by the RFP in reaching its responsibility determination, and was
   not aware of any information that would cause it to question the BOS
   team's responsibility. JVPB has not shown that further investigation of
   the issues raised in its protest was required, or that the responsibility
   determination was improper.

   [8] We recognize that the SSB concluded, without explanation, that the
   "weakness in [JVPB's] price reasonableness suggests a lack of
   understanding of the [s]olicitation requirements." AR, exh. 16, Final SSB
   Report, at 5. However, the SSB did not reconcile this conclusion with
   other statements it made with regard to the technical evaluation, such as:
   JVPB "successfully demonstrated a good understanding of the requirements,"
   "present[ed] a technical approach and capabilities that exceed[ed] the
   solicitation performance and capability standards," and presented an
   "overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government's requirements." Id.
   at 4.