R. & W. Flammann GmbH, B-278486, February 4, 1998

B-278486 Feb 04, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest against cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) is sustained where reasons given for the cancellation are not supported by the record. Ten proposals were received by the September 4 deadline for proposal submission. Pamet's offer was low. The Pamet representative states that on September 5 he called and questioned a second agency individual involved in the procurement and was advised that Pamet was. The incorrect figure was higher than the correct one. Flammann incorrectly added its total prices for the base and option years to reach an estimated aggregate total higher than would have been the case had the figures been correctly added. Were obvious from the pricing pages submitted by Flammann with its offer. View Decision Matter of: R. & W. Flammann GmbH File: B-278486 Date: February 4, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION R. & W. Flammann GmbH protests the Department of the Air Force's decision to reject all offers submitted under request for proposals (RFP) No. F61521-97-R-2002, issued for the painting of military family housing (MFH), and the agency's decision to resolicit these needs. Flammann believes that the agency has offered no reasonable basis for cancellation and that, as the lowest-priced offeror, it should receive award under the RFP. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued on August 4, 1997, requested prices for interior painting of estimated quantities of MFH apartments at four locations in Germany. Award would consist of a 1-year contract (or one of a shorter duration depending on the date of award) with two 1-year options. The RFP contained the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.215-16 (Alternate II) (June 1997), which provides that the "Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors." Ten proposals were received by the September 4 deadline for proposal submission. According to an agency-level protest filed by Pamet GmbH, the owner of Heil Maler GmbH, the third low offeror, telephoned a representative of Pamet on September 5 and stated that, according to an agency individual involved in the procurement, Pamet's offer was low. Pamet also states that Heil disclosed Heil's price to Pamet. (The agency also obtained a memorandum from Heil showing that these same two offerors had discussed their proposed prices shortly after the proposal submission deadline on September 4, in order to determine possible subcontracting arrangements should either of them receive the award.) The Pamet representative states that on September 5 he called and questioned a second agency individual involved in the procurement and was advised that Pamet was, indeed, the low offeror. On September 8, Flammann, the second low offeror, advised the agency that it had made two clerical mistakes in its offer. First, it advised that it had incorrectly multiplied the agency's estimated quantity for one line item by its unit price to reach an extended price. The incorrect figure was higher than the correct one. Second, Flammann incorrectly added its total prices for the base and option years to reach an estimated aggregate total higher than would have been the case had the figures been correctly added. These errors, and the intended proposed prices, were obvious from the pricing pages submitted by Flammann with its offer. The contracting officer allowed Flammann to correct the errors and, after correction, Flammann was the low offeror. When Pamet was notified on September 9 that it was no longer low because of the correction of Flammann's prices, Pamet filed an agency-level protest on September 12 against the correction of the prices in Flammann's offer. Pamet also expressed concern with the conduct of the contracting officials. As a result, the agency assigned a different contracting officer to assume responsibility for the RFP. Upon confirming that the (now) second (Pamet) and third (Heil) low offerors had disclosed pricing information to one another and that government personnel may have disclosed the identity of the low offeror, Flammann, and pricing information, the new contracting officer decided-- before any award was made--to cancel the RFP and resolicit the procurement due to possible irregularities in the acquisition process. It was his view that the possible disclosure of prices by someone in the agency to one or two of the offerors compromised the integrity of the procurement. The agency initiated an investigation of the procurement.