B-298865; B-298865.2, Joint Venture Penauillie Italia S.p.A.; Cofathec S.p.A.; SEB.CO S.a.s.; CO.PEL.S.a.s., January 3, 2007

B-298865; B-298865.2, Joint Venture Penauillie Italia S.p.A.; Cofathec S.p.A.; SEB.CO S.a.s.; CO.PEL.S.a.s., January 3, 2007 TITLE: B-298865; B-298865.2, Joint Venture Penauillie Italia S.p.A.; Cofathec S.p.A.; SEB.CO S.a.s.; CO.PEL.S.a.s., January 3, 2007 BNUMBER: B-298865; B-298865.2 DATE: January 3, 2007 **************************************************************************************************************************** B-298865; B-298865.2, Joint Venture Penauillie Italia S.p.A.; Cofathec S.p.A.; SEB.CO S.a.s.; CO.PEL.S.a.s., January 3, 2007 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: Joint Venture Penauillie Italia S.p.A.; Cofathec S.p.A.; SEB.CO S.a.s.; CO.PEL.S.a.s. File: B-298865; B-298865.2 Date: January 3, 2007 T. Wayne Gray, Esq., Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., and David J. Craig, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP for the protester. Reed L. von Maur, Esq., for Team BOS/Naples--Gemmo S.p.A./DelJen, an intervenor. Damon Martin, Esq., and Richard G. Welch, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's rejection of protester's proposal as incomplete is denied where the proposal lacked required information regarding option year pricing, and the agency was not legally required to allow the protester to revise its proposal. DECISION Joint Venture Penauillie Italia S.p.A., Cofathec S.p.A., SEB.CO S.a.s., and CO.PEL.S.a.s. (JVP) protests the award of a contract to Team BOS/Naples--Gemmo S.p.A./DelJen (BOS/Naples) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-06-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for base operations. The protester contends that the agency improperly determined that its proposal was incomplete, and therefore ineligible for award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought proposals to provide base operations services for the Navy in the Naples, Italy area. Offerors were required to propose janitorial, grounds maintenance, refuse collection and disposal, building maintenance, elevator maintenance, alarm system maintenance, and maintenance construction. The RFP anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract with indefinite-delivery orders, with a 1-year base performance period and nine 1-year option periods, and advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following factors: experience/past performance; management plan; staffing plan and resources; and price. The three non-price factors were of equal weight and, combined, were "slightly more important than price." RFP sect. M-1, para. 1. As relevant here, the RFP evaluation criteria stated that the agency would examine offerors' price proposals based on the "total price of the base period and all option periods," and that price proposals would be evaluated on the basis of realism, completeness, balance and reasonableness. RFP sect. M, para. M-2. Offerors were instructed to submit "unit prices and amounts (in EURO) for contract line items (CLINS) contract subline items (SLINS), and exhibit line items (ELINS) as indicated in the schedules and accompanying exhibits." RFP sect. B, para. B.2. With regard to these price items, offerors were required to submit price proposals that contained "Completed Section J, Attachment 1, Exhibits A thru K, ELINs." RFP sect. L-8, para. b.1.C. The solicitation also specifically cautioned offerors to include schedules for ELIN prices for the base period and all nine of the option periods. In this regard, the agency highlighted the fact that, although the RFP provided an ELIN schedule for only the base year, offerors were required to submit schedules for ELIN prices for the option years as well, stating: CAUTIONS TO OFFERORS . . . THE BASE PERIOD OF THE CONTRACT IS FOR 12 Months THE CONTRACT HAS FOUR OPTION Periods and the possibility of earning 5 additional award option periods BIDDERS SHALL OFFER THEIR PRICE FOR BASE PERIOD AND ALL 9 OPTION PERIODS. Please note that the ELIN schedule provided is only for the Base Period and it is the responsibility of the Offeror to develop and submit an ELIN schedule for each of the Option Periods including the Award Option Periods. See Section J, Attachment A. RFP sect. B, Additional Data for sect. B. The RFP required offerors to submit proposals via e-mail. On or before the April 4, 2006 closing date, the agency received proposals from 11 offerors, including JVP and BOS.