Meridian Management Corp., B-278099, December 4, 1997

B-278099 Dec 04, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest alleging that agency improperly requested multiple rounds of best and final offers is denied where the record shows that. The RFP for these support services for FEMA was issued March 27. One proposal was found unacceptable. The remaining proposals were found capable of being made acceptable. The agency concluded that all of the remaining offerors were technically acceptable. During the review of BAFOs the contract specialist noticed that offerors were using different Department of Labor wage rates for one of the labor categories identified in the RFP. Because the agency decided that misleading information in the RFP was the source of the ambiguity. The corresponding wage rate change was an increase from $7.89 per hour for the position. View Decision Matter of: Meridian Management Corp. File: B-278099 Date: December 4, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Meridian Management Corporation protests the award of a contract to Omni Corporation pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. EME-97-RP-0019, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for maintenance, housekeeping, repairs and minor construction at the agency's National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, Maryland. We deny the protest. The RFP for these support services for FEMA was issued March 27, 1997, seeking fixed-price offers for a base year and four 1-year options. The RFP anticipated award to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced technically acceptable offer. RFP Sec. M.3. By the RFP's initial due date, FEMA received several proposals, including those submitted by Meridian and Omni. Upon completion of the initial evaluation, one proposal was found unacceptable; the remaining proposals were found capable of being made acceptable. After a round of written discussion questions, the agency requested best and final offers (BAFO) by July 9. After evaluation of the BAFOs, the agency concluded that all of the remaining offerors were technically acceptable, and that Meridian had submitted the lowest price. According to the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) report, during the review of BAFOs the contract specialist noticed that offerors were using different Department of Labor wage rates for one of the labor categories identified in the RFP. Because the agency decided that misleading information in the RFP was the source of the ambiguity, the contracting officer issued amendment 006 to the RFP changing the title of one position from Laborer/Grounds Maintenance to Laborer. SEB Report, Sept. 9, 1997, at 2. The corresponding wage rate change was an increase from $7.89 per hour for the position, to $9.71 per hour. Offerors were then requested to submit a second BAFO by July 17, 1997. RFP, Amend. 006. Upon receipt and evaluation of the second BAFO, Omni's price was the lowest of all the offerors'; Meridian's price was second low. However, prior to making award to Omni, the agency discovered what it viewed as an ambiguity in the RFP regarding the treatment of transition costs. After concluding that the offerors should be given specific instructions on those costs, FEMA provided such instructions by letter dated August 20. The letter also requested that offerors submit a third BAFO by August 25. Upon conclusion of its review of the third round of BAFOs, FEMA decided that Omni's was the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer, and on September 9, FEMA awarded the contract to Omni at a price of $16,782,672. Meridian argues that FEMA improperly requested multiple BAFOs from the offerors in order to permit Omni to prevail in the competition by lowering its price and improving its standing among the competitors. Meridian's challenge is premised upon the assumption that agency officials have conducted this procurement with a desire to favor only one offeror. Not only does our review of the record indicate that there is no evidence of improper motive on the part of agency officials, but Meridian itself acknowledges that "there appears to be no evidence of a direct price disclosure or technical leveling." Meridian's Comments on the Agency Report, Oct. 31, 1997, at 1. Without such evidence, we will not attribute prejudicial motives to agency contracting officials on the basis of mere inference or supposition. Meridian Management Corp., Inc.; NAA Servs. Corp., B-254797, B-254797.2, Jan. 21, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 167 at 6. Meridian also argues that the agency violated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.611(c) when it requested a second and third round of BAFOs in this procurement. We disagree. Although the FAR clearly discourages agencies from reopening discussions after receipt of BAFOs, the contracting officer is not without discretion in this matter.