ANV Enterprises, Inc.

B-270013 Feb 05, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that numerous specifications are inadequate to permit intelligent competition. Is denied where agency provided all information in its possession. The information generally was sufficient to permit intelligent competition. Agency does not have to restructure requirement in manner that will require agency to furnish equipment to the contractor. Where cost comparison will be conducted to determine whether contractor or in-house performance is more economical. Agency need not adopt hybrid alternative preferred by protester solely because it will reduce contractor risk. The cost comparison is to determine whether it will be more economical to contract for grounds maintenance services at Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi. View Decision Matter of: ANV Enterprises, Inc. File: B-270013 Date: February 5, 1996 Protest that numerous specifications are inadequate to permit intelligent competition, and that agency has not sufficiently definitized the specifications in answers to protester's questions, is denied where agency provided all information in its possession, and the information generally was sufficient to permit intelligent competition. Agency does not have to restructure requirement in manner that will require agency to furnish equipment to the contractor, where cost comparison will be conducted to determine whether contractor or in-house performance is more economical; agency need not adopt hybrid alternative preferred by protester solely because it will reduce contractor risk. Attorneys DECISION ANV Enterprises, Inc. protests alleged specification deficiencies in invitation for bids (IFB) No. F22600-95-B-0096 issued by the Air Force for purposes of a cost comparison under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76. The cost comparison is to determine whether it will be more economical to contract for grounds maintenance services at Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi, or to continue the services in-house. We deny the protest. The solicitation, which contemplates award of fixed-price contract for a base year with 4 option years, requires the contractor to supply all labor, equipment, tools, materials, transportation, supervision, and other items and services necessary for grounds maintenance. The appendix to the IFB contains a performance work statement, which includes detailed specifications with regard to all the items and services to be provided under the contract. The Air Force held a pre-bid opening conference with all potential offerors during which ANV submitted a list of 77 questions with regard to numerous specifications it believed were ambiguous. The Air Force responded to these questions in a letter to all prospective bidders. The Air Force subsequently issued three amendments, two of which further responded to ANV's questions. In addition, the IFB provides for a site visit. ANV generally maintains that, even as amended, the IFB contains numerous ambiguous specifications. ANV believes the agency did not adequately resolve most of the 77 questions on its list, and that the result is the imposition of undue risk on bidders and a competitive advantage for the agency in the cost comparison. While a procuring agency must provide prospective bidders with information sufficient to enable bidders to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis, Cobra Technologies, Inc., B-254890, Jan. 24, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 35, an IFB need not be so detailed as to eliminate all performance uncertainties and risks. RMS Indus., B-248678, Aug. 14, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 109. Some risk is inherent in most types of contracts, and offerors are expected, when computing their prices, to account for such risks and exercise business judgment in preparing their bids. Service Technicians, Inc., B-249329.2, Nov. 12, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 342. The IFB, along with the information furnished by the agency, adequately describes the work requirements. We discuss three examples below. Paragraph 5.1.1.1.8 of the specifications requires bidders to test soil for the proper fertilizer requirements, and to furnish and apply fertilizer. ANV asked whether the fertilizer is cost reimbursable, and requested that the Air Force provide information on the types and quantities of fertilizer used historically. The agency responded initially that the fertilizer was cost reimbursable and, subsequently, that the "types and approximate quantity used for a 12 month period are: 8-8-8 (1,000 bags), 3-13-13 (200 bags), 20-10-15 (520 bags), 29-3-5 (20 bags), osmocote (10 bags), ferti-lime (40 bags)," and explained that these "types and quantities were not based on soil samples and were not restricted to the areas in the solicitation." We see nothing inadequate in the information provided; the numbers are not precise, but they clearly are sufficient to give bidders an idea of the amounts used in the past.