Vero Technical Services, B-282373.3; B-282373.4, August 31, 1999

Vero Technical Services, B-282373.3; B-282373.4, August 31, 1999 TITLE: Vero Technical Services, B-282373.3; B-282373.4, August 31, 1999 BNUMBER: B-282373.3; B-282373.4 DATE: August 31, 1999 ********************************************************************** Vero Technical Services, B-282373.3; B-282373.4, August 31, 1999 Decision Matter of: Vero Technical Services File: B-282373.3; B-282373.4 Date: August 31, 1999 George Sigler for the protester. Maj. Richard D. Desmond and Capt. Karen L. Deimler, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that proposal containing entries of "NSP" for two solicitation line items must be rejected as unacceptable is denied where solicitation did not require rejection of the offer; the "NSP" entries obligate the offeror to provide the required items. DECISION Vero Technical Services protests the award of a contract to C. Martin Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. F16602-99-R-0003, issued as a small business set-aside by the Department of the Air Force for the operation and maintenance of the Claiborne Bombing Range. The protester contends that C. Martin's proposal should have been rejected as unacceptable because it did not contain separate prices for each line item in Schedule B of the RFP. The protester also contends that C. Martin's price entries reflected an unfair competitive advantage based on "special knowledge" concerning the solicitation. Supplemental Protest, July 9, 1999, at 1. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued on December 31, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a 1-year base period with four l-year options. The RFP called for technical evaluation to determine conformance under enumerated areas and stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation, is determined technically acceptable based on the evaluation criteria, and offers the lowest evaluated price, based on the total price for the base year and all options years. RFP sect. M-502. The RFP required that offerors submit an offer for all items listed in the schedule and further stated that "[a]ny offer which fails to cite a unit price for each item may be unacceptable for award, and determined non-acceptable." RFP sect. M-501. Five proposals were received by the February 8, 1999 closing time, two of which were rejected as technically unacceptable. On February 12, requests for additional information and clarifications were sent to the three remaining technically acceptable offerors. Responses were received and evaluated. C. Martin's total price including options was low at $2,127,334.74. C. Martin's proposal contained schedule entries of "NSP" (not separately priced) for the line items comprising contract data requirements and maintenance and operation of the "Sentry Dawg." [1] Vero's total price was $2,140,446. On March 17, the Air Force notified offerors that C. Martin was the low offeror. On March 25, award was made to C. Martin and on April 30, Vero timely filed an agency-level protest arguing that C. Martin's proposal was unacceptable because it had not separately priced each line item in Schedule B as required by the solicitation. On June 21, after its agency-level protest was denied, Vero filed this protest with our Office. Vero maintains that C. Martin's proposal should have been rejected as unacceptable because it did not include a separate price for each line item for the contract data requirements and for maintenance and operation of the Sentry Dawg. We find no support for the protester's contention. The agency points out that sect. M.501 of the RFP does not require the government to reject an offer because of a failure to submit a unit price; it merely gives the government that option. The agency asserts that offerors are normally allowed to reflect data costs in manners other than as separate line item prices and maintains that it properly exercised its discretion in choosing not to reject C. Martin's offer because it did not provide unit prices for two line items. The agency's decision was unobjectionable. First, the record shows that the protester's price for the two line items in question was less than 1 percent of its total contract price. The fact that C. Martin chose not to separately price these line items does not support a conclusion, as suggested by the protester that it does not intend to provide the required items. Since the line items in question are a minor portion of the required services to be provided, it is plausible that an offeror would elect to provide these services at no additional charge to the agency. C.