Serv-Air, Inc.; Kay and Associates, Inc.

B-258243.4 Mar 03, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The General Accounting Office (GAO) will not object to corrective action taken by the agency in response to a GAO decision sustaining a protest and recommending the reopening of discussions where the agency restricts the scope of revisions that offerors may make to their proposals in response to the discussions. Such action will remedy the procurement impropriety upon which the prior protest was sustained. Will do so without raising the possibility of technical leveling or unduly delaying the source selection process. The protester contends also that the agency's requirements have been reduced and that it should amend the RFP to reflect those requirements. Were included in the competitive range. View Decision Matter of: Serv-Air, Inc. File: B-258243.4 Date: March 3, 1995 The General Accounting Office (GAO) will not object to corrective action taken by the agency in response to a GAO decision sustaining a protest and recommending the reopening of discussions where the agency restricts the scope of revisions that offerors may make to their proposals in response to the discussions; such action will remedy the procurement impropriety upon which the prior protest was sustained; and will do so without raising the possibility of technical leveling or unduly delaying the source selection process. Attorneys DECISION Serv-Air, Inc. protests the determination of the United States Customs Service, under request for proposals (RFP) No. CS-94-004, issued to obtain aircraft maintenance services, to limit discussions and proposal revisions to the offerors' cost proposals. The protester contends also that the agency's requirements have been reduced and that it should amend the RFP to reflect those requirements. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals to provide maintenance under a cost-plus-award- fee contract of aircraft used to detect and apprehend aircraft, marine, and land vehicles attempting to smuggle contraband into the United States. Four proposals, including those from the protester, Kay and Associates, and Beech Aerospace, Inc., were included in the competitive range. The contract was awarded to Beech on August 12, 1994. Kay and Serv-Air each protested the selection on numerous grounds. Serv-Air challenged, among other things, the agency's evaluation of its cost and technical proposal. In our decision, Serv-Air, Inc.; Kay and Assocs., Inc., B-258243 et al., Dec. 28, 1994, 95-1 CPD Para. , we sustained Kay's protest based on our conclusion that the agency improperly failed to conduct discussions with Kay concerning its willingness to cap its general and administrative (G&A) costs. In the same decision, we denied Serv-Air's protest in part and dismissed it in part. We recommended that the agency reopen discussions with Kay in order to ascertain the appropriate G&A rates to be used in determining the G&A costs which would be incurred if the agency accepted Kay's proposal. We also stated that the agency should conduct discussions with all other competitive range offerors and request new best and final offers (BAFO). In response to our decision and recommendation, Customs provided the competitive range offerors an opportunity to submit new cost BAFOs. The request stated that "no revisions to your technical proposal shall be accepted, considered, or evaluated." Serv-Air protests that the agency's decision to restrict proposal revisions to the cost area is improper. The protester argues that because the agency has reopened discussions, it must permit offerors to revise any aspect of their proposals they desire. Serv-Air complains that the BAFO request "pays little more than lip service" to the recommendation contained in our decision. The protester states that the BAFO request is "arbitrary, unreasonable and inimical to the remedy afforded by [the General Accounting Office's (GAO)] . . . decision to correct the procurement deficiencies found after [GAO's] full review of the administrative record." Generally, offerors in response to discussions may revise any aspect of their proposals they see fit--including portions of their proposals which were not the subject of discussions. American Nucleonics Corp., B-193546, Mar. 22, 1979, 79-1 CPD Para. 197. Where the discussions are held in order to implement a recommendation of our Office for corrective action, however, discussions and proposal revisions may be limited. See System Planning Corp., B-244697.4, June 15, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 516. In this regard, the details of implementing our recommendations for corrective action are within the sound discretion and judgment of the contracting agency. OMNI Int'l Distribs., Inc., 67 Comp.Gen. 123 (1987), 87-2 CPD Para. 563. Moreover, we will not question the agency's ultimate manner of compliance so long as it remedies the procurement impropriety that was the basis for the decision's recommendation.