Consolidated Services, Inc., B-276111.4, December 29, 1997

B-276111.4 Dec 29, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency reasonably concluded that awardee's price was realistic. Provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was technically acceptable and whose aggregate price for all items (base and option years) was low. Offerors were to submit separate technical and cost proposals. Cost and pricing data were not required. Offerors were to "submit information other than cost and pricing data to help establish price reasonableness or price realism.". Was to be submitted on standard form (SF) 1448. The RFP further advised as follows: 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. View Decision Matter of: Consolidated Services, Inc. File: B-276111.4 Date: December 29, 1997 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Consolidated Services, Inc. (CSI) protests the award of a contract to American Service Contractors (ASC) under Department of the Army request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT10-95-R--0010, for dining facility operations at Fort Benning, Georgia and two other locations. The award followed a reevaluation undertaken by the Army in response to an earlier protest by CSI against the award to ASC (B-276111.2, which we dismissed as academic by decision dated August 4, 1997). Based on the reevaluation, the agency affirmed its original decision and made award to ASC on September 5. CSI challenges the adequacy of the price evaluation. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite quantity, award fee type contract for a base year, with 4 option years. It sought unit and extended prices for estimated days of food service or number of feedings, by building or field area, for a total of more than 250 line items. The RFP listed various technical evaluation factors, including comprehension of the RFP requirements, which included the subfactor staffing/methodology, and provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was technically acceptable and whose aggregate price for all items (base and option years) was low. Offerors were to submit separate technical and cost proposals. Cost and pricing data were not required, but offerors were to "submit information other than cost and pricing data to help establish price reasonableness or price realism." This information--including price breakdowns for each performance period showing cost elements such as direct and indirect labor rates/salaries, fringe benefits, overhead and total cost per position--was to be submitted on standard form (SF) 1448, "Proposal Cover Sheet (Cost and Pricing Data Not Required)." The RFP required that cost proposals "present a clear audit trail to all elements of cost" and that "all cost elements [be] fully explained and justified." The RFP further advised as follows: 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 agency reevaluated the five proposals at issue and confirmed their technical acceptability. In its price evaluation, the agency used the average total price of the five low proposals--[deleted]--as a baseline for comparison purposes. [1] ASC's total price of [deleted] was [deleted] percent under the average price, while CSI's price of [deleted] was [deleted] percent above the average. The difference in the two prices was [deleted] or [deleted] percent. The remaining three offers [deleted] and [deleted] ranged from [deleted] percent under to [deleted] percent above the average price. In light of the competition received--12 proposals, 8 of which were technically acceptable--the agency concluded that the price differences among the proposals and the average price "supported cost realism," and that a detailed analysis of the individual cost elements was not necessary. Nonetheless, the agency reports it did proceed to use a "[c]ost analysis . . .