Allstate Van and Storage, Inc.

B-270744 Apr 17, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Navy contract award for residential packing and moving services, contending that the awardee's: (1) bid was mathematically and materially unbalanced. GAO held that: (1) the awardee's bid was not unbalanced; (2) the awardee reasonably determined its unit prices; and (3) the protester untimely filed its protest concerning alleged fluctuations in the awardee's price ratio. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: Allstate Van and Storage, Inc. File: B-270744 Date: April 17, 1996 Allegation that awardee's offer is materially unbalanced and violates solicitation's Integrity of Unit Prices clause is denied where there is no basis in record to conclude that awardee's price is mathematically unbalanced. Attorneys DECISION Allstate Van and Storage, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Pack & Crate Services, Inc. (P&C) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00244-96-D-5009, issued by the Department of the Navy for residential packing and moving services for military families located in the San Diego, California area. Allstate contends that P&C's offer is both mathematically and materially unbalanced. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued to 11 offerors on September 5, 1995, and contemplated the award of a firm fixed price, indefinite delivery requirements contract to the lowest priced offeror for the 1996 calendar year. For their proposals, offerors were required to complete and submit the solicitation's pricing schedule which solicited unit prices on a per net hundred weight basis (NCWT) for 13 types of outbound moving and storage services--identified in the pricing schedule with 13 contract line item numbers (CLIN). By the October 31, 1995 closing date, proposals were received from Allstate, P&C, and a third offeror. In early December, 1995, the Navy awarded the contract to P&C as the lowest-priced offeror. On December 14, Allstate, the second low offeror, filed this protest at our Office. Allstate contends that P&C's offer is materially unbalanced and violates the RFP's Integrity of Unit Prices clause, see Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 52.215-26, because P&C understated its proposed prices for CLIN No. 0001, Complete Outbound Services, and offered inflated prices for CLIN No. 0003, Overflow Outbound Services. CLIN No. 0001 requires the contractor to survey and pack a service member's household furnishings and belongings into government-provided 196 cubic foot standard shipping containers and ship the goods to the appropriate outbound destination. Under CLIN No. 0003, any oversize articles that will not fit into the standard containers (e.g., motorcycles, oversize sofas), as well as items requiring a smaller container (overflow articles or fragile items), are to be transported by the contractor to the contractor's local facility for special packing in a contractor-provided container and then reunited with the remaining CLIN 0001 containers for shipment to the appropriate outbound destination. P&C proposed a unit price of $7 per NCWT for CLIN No. 0001 and $110 per NCWT for CLIN No. 0003. Allstate contends that the pricing disparity between these two CLINs demonstrates that P&C's offer is mathematically unbalanced, and in violation of the Integrity of Unit Prices clause, because, according to the protester, the costs of performing these services are essentially identical. [1] Allstate further argues that this mathematical unbalancing renders P&C's offer materially unbalanced because of inherent fluctuations in the level of required services for these CLINs. Allstate maintains that performance levels from selected prior years show that services performed under CLIN No. 0001 routinely have been lower than stated solicitation estimates, while services performed under CLIN No. 0003 routinely have been higher than stated solicitation estimates. Allstate does not dispute the accuracy of the current solicitation's stated estimates; the protester admits that given the uncertainty of military moving needs, there is no better method for calculating the RFP's estimates than relying on the prior year's actual delivery order quantities--which the agency has done in this case. However, relying on our decision in Outer Limb, Inc., B-244227, Sept. 16, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 248, wherein this Office upheld a contracting officer's rejection of a bid on a requirements contract as materially unbalanced due to inherent fluctuations in the level of the procured services (collection and survey of pine cones), and citing Beldon Roofing & Remodeling Co., B-253199, B-253199.2, Aug. 18, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 103 (roofing estimates subject to fluctuation according to storm damage or previously undetected roof deterioration) and Custom Envtl. Serv., Inc., B-252538, July 7, 1993, 93-2 CPD para.