Madison Services, Inc., B-277614, November 3, 1997

B-277614 Nov 03, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights That agency's review procedure was biased is denied where protest allegations are not supported by the record. Which shows that agency personnel simply made a mistake in preparing agency's in-house cost estimate and that the mistake was corrected during agency's review process. Is denied where agency's decision was reasonably based on the results of a cost comparison conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular No. The protester has not shown that the cost comparison was faulty or misleading. The General Accounting Office will not review allegations that certain aspects of the contracting agency's cost comparison were incorrect where the protester did not raise the issues in its agency-level cost comparison appeals. View Decision Matter of: Madison Services, Inc. File: B-277614 Date: November 3, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Madison Services, Inc. protests the Air Force's decision to retain in- house performance of base operating services at Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi. The decision, made in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76 procedures, was based on a comparison of Madison's offer submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. F41689-95-R-0025 with the Air Force's in-house cost estimate. Madison contends that the cost comparison was flawed for various reasons discussed below. We deny the protest. Issued on January 8, 1996, as a total small business set-aside, the RFP solicited offers for performing base operating services at Columbus Air Force Base for a basic contract period of 1 year with options for 3 additional years. The RFP divided the base operating services into three functional areas--civil engineering, transportation, and supply (of which only the civil engineering and transportation functions are at issue in this protest). The civil engineering function included responsibility for operations, military family housing maintenance, and lodging and linen exchange. The transportation function included traffic management and vehicle operations and maintenance. The RFP invited commercial offerors to submit technical and price proposals for any one or all of the functional areas. The RFP stated that commercial offers would be evaluated on technical factors and price to determine which offers, or combination of offers, were most advantageous to the government. The RFP stated that an A-76 cost comparison, comparing the prices of the most advantageous commercial offers with the government's estimate of the cost of in-house performance, would then be conducted to determine whether it was more efficient to have the services performed by commercial entities or to continue to have the services performed in-house. If a decision was made to contract out, the RFP generally contemplated award of an indefinite quantity, fixed price contract for the engineering portion of the requirement, [1] and indefinite quantity, fixed-price with award fee contracts for the supply and transportation portion of the requirement. Six offerors submitted several proposals for one or more functional areas (four proposals were submitted for the civil engineering function, five for the transportation function, and five for the supply function). Discussions were held, and best and final offers (BAFO) were received in October 1996 and evaluated. A second round of discussions was held and revised BAFOs were received in November. In mid-December, after evaluation of revised offers, the source selection authority determined that Madison's proposal was most advantageous for the civil engineering and transportation functions and that Eagle Aviation & Technology, Inc.'s proposal was most advantageous for the supply function. The agency performed a cost comparison study, determining that it would cost less to perform base operating services in-house, and notified Madison of its decision on March 21, 1997. [2] Madison was debriefed and, after reviewing the agency's cost comparison study and supporting data, Madison filed a base-level appeal, by letter of April 4, alleging that the cost comparison was flawed for a number of reasons. [3] After making some upward adjustments to the agency's in-house cost estimate in response to Madison's appeal, the Air Force denied Madison's base-level appeal on May 6. By letter of May 12, Madison requested a major command (MAJCOM) review of the denial of its base-level appeal. After making some additional upward adjustments to the in-house cost estimate, by letter of July 17, the MAJCOM cost comparison administrative appeal review board upheld the original decision to retain the base operating services in-house [4] and denied Madison's MAJCOM appeal. [5] Madison filed this protest shortly thereafter. The protester contends that the cost comparison study and appeal process were seriously flawed.