B-310301.5, Re-Engineered Business Solutions, Inc., April 4, 2008

B-310301.5 Apr 04, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Re-Engineered Business Solutions, Inc. (RBS) protests the amendment of request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QV1-07-R-0004, issued by the Army for public works and logistics services at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, New York. The Army issued the amendment to implement corrective action taken in response to previous protests. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310301.5, Re-Engineered Business Solutions, Inc., April 4, 2008 Decision Matter of: Re-Engineered Business Solutions, Inc. File: B-310301.5 Date: April 4, 2008 Wayne A. Keup, Esq., for the protester. Michael A. Gordon, Esq., for Native American Contracting Services, LLC, an intervenor. Maj. ChristinaLynn E. McCoy, Department of the Army, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Corrective action, taken by contracting agency in response to prior protests, of amending a solicitation and requesting revised proposals, is unobjectionable where the solicitation provided for the award of a cost reimbursement contract, but erroneously requested the offerors submit price (rather than cost) proposals and provided for a price (rather than cost realism) evaluation. DECISION Re-Engineered Business Solutions, Inc. (RBS) protests the amendment of request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QV1-07-R-0004, issued by the Army for public works and logistics services at FortHamilton in Brooklyn, New York. The Army issued the amendment to implement corrective action taken in response to previous protests. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to the government, considering the evaluation factors of management ability, technical merit, past performance, and cost/price. RFP amend. 5, at 13. The RFP informed offerors that in determining which proposal represented the best value to the government, management ability would be considered more important than technical merit, and that technical merit would be considered more important than past performance. Id. at 14. The solicitation added that the –non-cost/price evaluation factors, when combine[d], are significantly more important than price.— Id. Although the solicitation provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract, it did not provide for a cost realism evaluation by the agency. Rather, the RFP stated under the cost/price evaluation factor that –[t]he Government will evaluate each offeror's proposed pricing to establish that it is reasonable,— and added that –[a]t the Contracting Officer's discretion, price reasonableness may be presumed without further review based on adequate price competition.— Id. at 15. The RFP also provided here that –[t]he Government reserves the right to reject, without further consideration and without notice to the offeror, any offer where the proposal pricing is determined to be unreasonable.— Id. The RFP included detailed proposal preparation instructions, and consistent with the solicitation's statements regarding the evaluation of price (rather than cost), requested the submission of a –price proposal volume.— RFP at 122. In this regard, the solicitation requested that offerors complete a detailed price schedule, which set forth a number of contract line items (CLIN). Each of these CLINs, which contained the notation –unit price— and included the acronym –CPAF— (cost-plus-award-fee), provided for the insertion of a total –estimated cost,— including direct and indirect costs, base fee, and maximum award fee, for each of the contract line items (CLIN) included in the price schedule. RFP at 2-53. The RFP also requested that proposals include –[a] justification of proposed cost and price,— and added that –[a]ny inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price shall be explained in the proposal.— RFP at 122. The solicitation cautioned that –[a]ny significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the offeror's understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.— Id. The agency received proposals from seven offerors, including RBS. Agency Report (AR), Tab 24, Source Selection Decision, at 1. The agency evaluated the proposals, and in doing so conducted a –review of the price reasonableness of the submitted pricing proposals containing Cost Plus Award Fee contract line items.— AR, Tab 20, Price Analysis Review of Proposals, at 1. The agency ultimately selected the proposal submitted by RBS for award. Two other offerors, which had also submitted proposals in response to the solicitation, filed protests with our Office, challenging the propriety of the award to RBS.