QSS Information Systems, Inc., B-281275, January 19, 1999

B-281275 Jan 19, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's offered price properly was adjusted upward to include estimated amounts for materials. Offerors were to submit separate price and technical proposals. Award was to be made on a best value basis by first ranking each technically acceptable proposal on the basis of total evaluated price. The description for each CLIN referred offerors to an attachment which was essentially a worksheet for computing the total estimated price for the applicable year. Each worksheet contained: (1) a chart of seven labor categories for which the offeror was to provide hourly rates. (Data was listed as an item. The total evaluated contract price was to be determined by totaling the five CLIN prices. View Decision Matter of: QSS Information Systems, Inc. File: B-281275 Date: January 19, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION QSS Information Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Wyle Laboratories under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33601-97-R-9013, issued by the Department of the Air Force for technical and logistics support for the Air Force Research Laboratory/Human Effectiveness Directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. /1/ We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated a time-and-materials contract for a base year with four 1-year options. RFP Sec. L-65C. Offerors were to submit separate price and technical proposals, plus past and present performance information. RFP Sec. L-556. Award was to be made on a best value basis by first ranking each technically acceptable proposal on the basis of total evaluated price, assigning each a performance risk rating, and then performing a trade-off between price and performance. RFP Sec. M-550P(b), (c). The RFP warned that the government intended to award without discussions. RFP Sec. M-550P(d). RFP section B contained five contract line items (CLIN), each covering the services to be performed for one of the 5 potential contract years. The description for each CLIN referred offerors to an attachment which was essentially a worksheet for computing the total estimated price for the applicable year. Each worksheet contained: (1) a chart of seven labor categories for which the offeror was to provide hourly rates, which would be multiplied by the estimated number of hours for each category to arrive at a total labor price for each contract year; (2) an estimated price of $100,000 for materials; (3) a percentage for materials handling, if applicable, plus a blank for the determined price, if applicable; (4) an estimated price of $10,000 for subcontracting; (5) a percentage for subcontracting services, if applicable, plus a blank for the determined price, if applicable; (6) an estimated price of $10,000 for travel. (Data was listed as an item, but the worksheet stated that it would not be separately priced.) The total estimated price for each CLIN would be calculated by adding all of these elements, and the total evaluated contract price was to be determined by totaling the five CLIN prices. RFP Sec. M-550P(c)(1). All four proposals received, including QSS's, were found technically acceptable. However, in calculating the CLIN prices on its worksheets, QSS failed to include the specified $100,000 for materials, $10,000 for subcontracting, and $10,000 for travel. The agency concluded that QSS thus had understated its total price by $600,000 ($120,000 for each year), and added this amount to QSS's offered price of $3,850,009.60. This raised QSS's evaluated price to $4,450,009.60. Because the RFP provided for a 10-percent small disadvantaged business (SDB) evaluation preference, RFP Sec. IA-230, and QSS alone certified itself as an SDB, a 10-percent factor was added to all offers but QSS's. This increased Wyle's evaluated price from $3,625,262 to $3,987,788.20, but due to the upward adjustment of QSS's price, Wyle's evaluated price was low. Since Wyle's proposal also received a low performance risk rating (QSS's was rated moderate risk), it was determined to represent the best value to the government, and award thus was made to Wyle without discussions. /2/ QSS objects to the $600,000 upward adjustment of its offered price, arguing that its CLIN prices represented its offered price, irrespective of omissions on the worksheets, and that it thus was the low offeror entitled to award in light of the RFP's definition of evaluated price as the sum of the line item prices. QSS maintains that the RFP nowhere stated that the amounts listed on the worksheets were mandatory and that any requirement to include these amounts was unclear from the RFP. The agency's upward adjustment of QSS's price was unobjectionable. While the RFP did not expressly state that the amounts pre-printed on the worksheets were mandatory, there was a specific reference to the worksheets next to the space provided for each CLIN price on the schedule (section B).