S. J. Thomas Co., Inc., B-283192, October 20, 1999

B-283192 Oct 20, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is defective because its evaluation scheme does not include evaluation of price or cost to the government. Two of which will be awarded pursuant to full and open competition and one of which will be awarded pursuant to the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program. The fixed-price contracts will be for base periods of 1 year with options for 4 additional years. All work will be performed pursuant to delivery orders that may. The RFP states that GSA will order a minimum of $33. Does not include any detailed specifications describing the type of work that will be required under future task orders. The RFP also does not state the labor categories (or include estimates of the number of hours within any labor category) that will be needed to perform the work. View Decision Matter of: S. J. Thomas Co., Inc. File: B-283192 Date: October 20, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION S. J. Thomas Co., Inc. (Thomas) protests that request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-03P-99-AZD-0047, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for repairs and alterations to government buildings, is defective because its evaluation scheme does not include evaluation of price or cost to the government. We sustain the protest. Issued on May 28, 1999, the RFP solicited proposals for fixed-price indefinite-quantity contracts for general repair and alteration services, with design/build capabilities, at government facilities in Philadelphia and surrounding Pennsylvania counties, southern New Jersey, and Delaware. RFP vol. I, at 1. The RFP contemplates award of three contracts, two of which will be awarded pursuant to full and open competition and one of which will be awarded pursuant to the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program. RFP amend. 1, Para. 8, at 3. The fixed-price contracts will be for base periods of 1 year with options for 4 additional years. Id. Para. 13, at 5. All work will be performed pursuant to delivery orders that may, at the discretion of the contracting officer, be competed among the awardees. RFP vol. I, Sec. 300, Para. 8.0, at 95-96. The RFP states that GSA will order a minimum of $33,333.33 of work from each contractor during each year of the contract. Id. Sec. 1.10, at 91. The RFP includes a set of general specifications or "Masterspecs" describing in general terms how construction work should be performed, but does not include any detailed specifications describing the type of work that will be required under future task orders. The RFP also does not state the labor categories (or include estimates of the number of hours within any labor category) that will be needed to perform the work. The only pricing information that the RFP requires offerors to include in their proposals for evaluation purposes is their mark-up rates, which are to include all contractor overhead, general and administrative costs, bonds, insurance, other indirect costs, profits, and other fees that the firm will use, on a "not to exceed" basis, for the pricing of projects. RFP amend. 2, at 3-4. The solicitation directed offerors to "break out these mark-up rates separately and provide explicit detail as to . . . how they will be applied to direct labor and material costs for a project." Id. The RFP states that contract awards will be based on the submission of the technical and pricing data deemed by GSA to represent the greatest value to the government. RFP amend. 1, Para. 2, at 2. The RFP lists the technical evaluation criteria, in descending order of importance, as follows: A. Past performance on similar projects B. Technical and organizational approach C. Key personnel qualifications RFP vol. I, at 116-18. The RFP states that technical information will be weighted significantly heavier than price information. RFP amend. 1, Para. 2, at 2. The protester contends that the RFP is improper because it requests no information regarding, and contemplates no evaluation of, an offeror's basis for bidding a project, and the protester argues that evaluation of the mark-up rates alone will be meaningless. Protest at 5-6. Thomas asserts, for example, that one offeror proposing lower mark-up rates than a second one may, in fact, be submitting a proposal representing a higher cost to the government if that first offeror's proposal is premised on the assumption that a greater number of labor hours will be needed to complete a particular project. Protester's Comments on GSA's Dismissal Request at 1-2. Specifically, the protester contends that the RFP is deficient because it does not require offers to include sufficient price or cost information to allow the agency to evaluate price or cost to the government as required under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15-304(c)(1).