C.W. Over and Sons, Inc.

B-274365 Dec 06, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Federal Acquisition Regulation requirement that the value of an indefinite quantity contract be more than nominal does not apply to individual tasks under a contract that includes a provision guaranteeing that minimum contract value will be $800. Solicitation requirement that contractor perform certain tasks that cannot be definitively priced prior to award does not create unreasonable risk where such potential tasking requirements are minimal and the price for such work will be the subject of negotiation between the contractor and the agency. Protester's identification of a small number of prices that may not reflect the most recent actual costs does not require canceling the solicitation because offerors' proposed coefficients are intended to reflect the risk associated with such price variations. View Decision Matter of: C.W. Over and Sons, Inc. File: B-274365 Date: December 6, 1996 Federal Acquisition Regulation requirement that the value of an indefinite quantity contract be more than nominal does not apply to individual tasks under a contract that includes a provision guaranteeing that minimum contract value will be $800,000. Solicitation requirement that contractor perform certain tasks that cannot be definitively priced prior to award does not create unreasonable risk where such potential tasking requirements are minimal and the price for such work will be the subject of negotiation between the contractor and the agency. Where solicitation lists prices for more than 25,000 tasks, protester's identification of a small number of prices that may not reflect the most recent actual costs does not require canceling the solicitation because offerors' proposed coefficients are intended to reflect the risk associated with such price variations. Attorneys DECISION C.W. Over and Sons, Inc. (Over) protests the provisions of request for proposals (RFP) No. MDA904-96-R-0702, issued by the Maryland Procurement Office, National Security Agency (NSA), to perform a variety of construction, renovation, and repair services. The solicitation contemplates award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract under which the agency will issue delivery orders for specific tasks. Over, the incumbent contractor, asserts that the solicitation contains various flaws. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Over is currently performing a contract under which it provides construction services to NSA which Over describes as "identical" to the services sought under the protested solicitation. Over's current contract was awarded in 1994; there are two remaining options, each for a 1-year period, which the agency does not intend to exercise due, in part, to the agency's belief that it can reduce its costs through competition. Prior to the agency's issuance of this solicitation, Over requested the agency to exercise the remaining options of its current contract. By letter to the agency dated July 3, 1996, Over stated: The purpose of this letter is to offer you an unsolicited proposal . . . . In return for an agreement from you that the government will exercise the remaining two options of your contract with my firm, I will relocate my warehouse and project management functions off of Ft. Meade and into facilities under my control [[1 without passing these additional costs I am incurring to the government. At the same time, I am willing to enter into a discussion of adjusting my coefficients contained in these two remaining option[s] to achieve some reduction in their cost to you." Declining to accept Over's offer, the agency issued the solicitation on July 5, 1996, and, as in Over's current contract, incorporated a unit price book (UPB) containing more than 25,000 line items of pre-priced construction tasks. [2] The prices in the UPB are calculated to reflect the standard direct labor costs and materials for each task, but not the contractor's overhead and profit. The solicitation calls for offerors to propose various fixed coefficients reflecting the offerors' overhead and profit; the coefficients will be applied to the UPB prices to establish contract prices for the listed tasks. [3] Regarding tasks not listed in the UPB, the solicitation references various Means Cost Data publications, [4] from which the levels of effort necessary to perform unlisted tasks may be derived, stating that contract prices for such non-prepriced items will be derived from the Means Cost Data publications, applicable Davis- Bacon Act wage rates, and the contractor's coefficients. The solicitation provides that proposals will first be evaluated for technical acceptability, and that award will be made on the basis of the technically acceptable proposal offering the best value to the government, considering price and past performance, and that price will be the most significant factor.