Ashe Facility Services, Inc., B-292218.3; B-292218.4, March 31, 2004

Ashe Facility Services, Inc., B-292218.3; B-292218.4, March 31, 2004 TITLE: Ashe Facility Services, Inc., B-292218.3; B-292218.4, March 31, 2004 BNUMBER: B-292218.3; B-292218.4 DATE: March 31, 2004 ********************************************************************** Ashe Facility Services, Inc., B-292218.3; B-292218.4, March 31, 2004 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Ashe Facility Services, Inc. File: B-292218.3; B-292218.4 Date: March 31, 2004 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for the protester. Ira E. Hoffman, Esq., and James A. McMillan, Esq., Grayson, Kubli & Hoffman, for Kira, Inc., an intervenor. Richard G. Welsh, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is sustained where solicitation contained an ambiguity regarding whether the agency intended to include indefinite-quantity prices in its evaluation of total price or whether the agency intended to evaluate indefinite-quantity prices solely for reasonableness. Because the ambiguity was latent, the issue was timely when raised after award. 2. Protest that agency improperly failed to consider the protester*s key personnel under the corporate experience factor is sustained where the record reveals that the agency considered the awardee*s key personnel when it evaluated the awardee*s corporate experience. 3. Protest that awardee*s proposal contained material misrepresentations regarding its status as a qualified Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business concern is dismissed; protest ultimately involves issue of whether awardee was a qualified HUBZone concern, a matter within the exclusive statutory authority of the Small Business Administration. DECISION Ashe Facility Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Kira, Inc. for base operating support services at two Navy installations in Florida under request for proposals (RFP) No. N69272-03-R-1010, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). Ashe principally alleges that the RFP*s price evaluation provision contained a latent ambiguity and that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal, as well as the proposal submitted by Kira. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND NAVFAC issued the RFP as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) set-aside to acquire base support services at the Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida and the Naval Station Mayport, Florida, as well as certain outlying areas, for a base year with four 1-year options and three 1-year award option periods, referred to as the Regional Base Operating Support 2 (*RBOS 2*) contract.[1] The RFP divided the base support services into four main functional work areas (janitorial, pest control, refuse collection/recycling, and grounds maintenance) and within each functional area identified both fixed-price and indefinite-quantity work items. Offerors were required to separately price the fixed-price work items and the indefinite-quantity work items. Specifically, contract line item number (CLIN) 0001 required a lump sum price for all of the fixed-price work under the contract for the base period. CLINs 0003, 0005, 0007, and 0009 required lump sum prices for the fixed-price work for each of the four 1-year options, and CLINs 0011, 0013, and 0015 required lump sum prices for the fixed-price work for each of the three 1-year award option periods. These lump sum prices were drawn from exhibits A-D in section J of the RFP, which required detailed unit pricing for the fixed-price work, as well as supplemental pricing sheets.[2] The RFP also provided for a variable pricing element, which was specific to the fixed-price work under the solicitation. The agency anticipated that buildings and/or areas within buildings would be added, deleted, or changed by contract modification during the course of the contract, thus changing the contract*s value. See RFP, annex 2, at 18. Apparently in an effort to pre-establish the price of such modifications (rather than having to negotiate their price at the time the modifications arose), the RFP required offerors to submit a *cost factor* for adding work and a separate *cost factor* for deleting quantities of work for the fixed-price services under each of the four service categories.[3] RFP S: B, attach. JB-2. The RFP expressly instructed that the add/delete pricing was for the fixed-price work; there was no add/delete pricing for the indefinite-quantity work.