Trusted Hand Service, Inc., B-285355, August 21, 2000

B-285355 Aug 21, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Contracting agency did not mislead protester into raising its price where although it informed the protester that its price was low in comparison to the government estimate. Subfactors to be considered under technical capability were management approach and past performance. Both proposals were rated as low risk for past performance and as unacceptable but susceptible to being made acceptable for management approach. We had been concerned initially that your overall pricing was based on a low number of hours. There were a few high prices that I see you have adjusted downward. Overall the original pricing was low and you have revised them even lower. Stating that he had heard that the frequency of services was going to be reduced. View Decision Matter of: Trusted Hand Service, Inc. File: B-285355 Date: August 21, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Trusted Hand Service, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Sparkle Cleaning Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N66604-00-R-0152, issued by the Department of the Navy for custodial and sidewalk snow removal services at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, Rhode Island. The protester complains that the agency enticed it to increase its price and then selected Sparkle for award based on its lower price. We deny the protest. The RFP, which requested prices for a base and 4 option years, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract combining definite-quantity line items and indefinite-quantity line items. The solicitation furnished detailed information regarding the nature, volume, location, and frequency of the various cleaning services to be performed. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, with technical capability of significantly greater importance than price. Subfactors to be considered under technical capability were management approach and past performance. RFP Sec. MX35. Nine offerors submitted proposals prior to the January 6, 2000 closing date. The contracting officer determined that only the two lowest-priced offers, those of Trusted Hand and Sparkle, should be included in the competitive range. Competitive Range Determination, Mar. 3, 2000, at 1. Both proposals were rated as low risk for past performance and as unacceptable but susceptible to being made acceptable for management approach. Technical Evaluation Report, Feb. 24, 2000, at 1. The contracting officer conducted discussions with both offerors and requested revised proposals. Both offerors corrected all technical deficiencies. Agency Report, June 9, 2000, at 9. Sparkle raised its price significantly (from $4,527,086 to $6,996,776), while Trusted Hand reduced its price from $5,318,456 to $5,189,529. The contracting officer, concerned by the substantial increase in Sparkle's price, reopened discussions with Sparkle and instructed it to review its pricing and provide a final revision. The contracting officer asked Trusted Hand to review its pricing as well, noting that: In comparison to the Government estimate, we had been concerned initially that your overall pricing was based on a low number of hours. There were a few high prices that I see you have adjusted downward, but overall the original pricing was low and you have revised them even lower. The Government believes that very low prices may lead to administrative problems, and, therefore, become false economy. Our Government estimate may be out of date, and you may be correct in your pricing. However, I would like you to review again your pricing and provide either a confirmation of pricing or a revision . . . . Letter from Contracting Officer to Trusted Hand (Apr. 11, 2000). Upon receipt of the agency's letter, a representative of Trusted Hand contacted the contracting officer, stating that he had heard that the frequency of services was going to be reduced, and inquiring whether this was the case. The contracting officer informed Trusted Hand that she was not aware of an anticipated reduction in the frequency of services. The contracting officer instructed Trusted Hand to calculate its price based on the information in the solicitation and informed it that should the frequency of services be reduced after award, the government would expect a corresponding reduction in price. /1/ Agency Report, supra, at 11. The contracting officer then contacted Sparkle and conveyed the same information. Id. Sparkle responded to the contracting officer's second request for a revised proposal by decreasing its price to $5,373,100.50. Trusted Hand, on the other hand, increased its price to $5,419,027.11.