Triple P Services, Inc.

B-271629.3 Jul 22, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Provision announcing agency's intent to perform a "cost realism" analysis in a request for proposals (RFP) for a fixed-price contract is unobjectionable where the RFP states that the analysis is for the limited purpose of aiding the agency in measuring the offerors' understanding of the RFP's technical requirements. Protest that solicitation is ambiguous with respect to the agency's intent to conduct discussions with offerors is denied where protester's interpretation of solicitation is unreasonable and contrary to applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation provision relating to the award of contracts without discussions. Protest that solicitation requires information in unnecessary detail and provides the incumbent with an unfair competitive advantage is denied where required information is reasonably available to non-incumbent offerors. View Decision Matter of: Triple P Services, Inc. File: B-271629.3 Date: July 22, 1996 Provision announcing agency's intent to perform a "cost realism" analysis in a request for proposals (RFP) for a fixed-price contract is unobjectionable where the RFP states that the analysis is for the limited purpose of aiding the agency in measuring the offerors' understanding of the RFP's technical requirements, and RFP includes as part of the evaluation of technical proposals an assessment of the offerors' understanding of the RFP's technical requirements. Protest that solicitation is ambiguous with respect to the agency's intent to conduct discussions with offerors is denied where protester's interpretation of solicitation is unreasonable and contrary to applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation provision relating to the award of contracts without discussions. Protest that solicitation requires information in unnecessary detail and provides the incumbent with an unfair competitive advantage is denied where required information is reasonably available to non-incumbent offerors. Attorneys DECISION Triple P Services, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT10-95-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army for operation of 23 dining facilities located at Fort Benning and Camp Merril, Georgia, and Camp Rudder, Florida. The protester contends that the RFP's price evaluation provision is defective, and that the RFP is ambiguous with respect to the agency's intent to conduct discussions. Triple P also maintains that the information the RFP requires offerors to include in their proposals gives the incumbent an unfair competitive advantage. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued September 29, 1995, contemplates the award of a firm, fixed-price-plus-award-fee contract for a base year, with up to four 1-year option periods. Award is to be made to the offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable and lowest in total price. Section M of the RFP states that proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability under the following factors: (1) comprehension of the RFP requirements; (2) general management; and (3) past performance. The RFP has been amended several times, and as discussed in greater detail below, Triple P takes issue with several of the resulting changes. Price Evaluation Section M of the RFP states as follows: "PRICE EVALUATION. Cost realism will be used as an aid to determine the offeror's comprehension of the requirements of the RFP as well as to assess the validity of the offeror's approach. Proposals will be evaluated to assess the degree to which proposed price accurately reflect[s] proposed performance. A price which is found to be either unreasonably high or unrealistically low in relation to the proposed work will result in the overall proposal being considered unacceptable, and further evaluation will be discontinued." The protester argues that this provision is inconsistent with the "BASIS FOR AWARD" announced in the RFP, i.e., technically acceptable, low price. Triple P maintains that the effect of this provision is to improperly permit the agency to conclude that a low price is an indication that an otherwise technically acceptable proposal should be rejected solely by virtue of its price being too low, regardless of the technical merit of the proposal. As the protester correctly points out, a determination that an offeror's price on a fixed-price contract is too low generally concerns the offeror's responsibility (i.e., the offeror's ability and capacity to successfully perform the contract at its offered price), not technical acceptability. See Coastal Science and Eng'g, Inc., 69 Comp.Gen. 66 (1989), 89-2 CPD para. 436 (a low fixed-price offer cannot be downgraded by virtue of its low price absent a finding of nonresponsibility); Monopole S.A., Inc., B-254137, Nov. 4, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 268; Video Ventures, Inc., B-240016, Oct. 19, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 317; Ball Technical Prods. Group, B-224394, Oct. 17, 1986, 86-2 CPD para. 465.