Richen Management, LLC

B-409706.3 Oct 24, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Richen Management, LLC, of Dover-Foxcroft, Maine, protests modifications of a contract awarded to JDD, Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-13-R-3510, for janitorial services for the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine. The protester asserts that the agency had a pre-award intent to modify the contract and that the modifications to the contract exceeded the scope of the original contract. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Richen Management, LLC File:  B-409706.3 Date:  October 24, 2016 Richard McCue, for the protester. Lucie J. McDonald, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency had pre-award intent to modify the scope of work of a contract is denied where there is no basis on this record to conclude that agency had such pre-award intent or that amending the solicitation would have significantly affected the competitive position of the offerors.  DECISION Richen Management, LLC, of Dover-Foxcroft, Maine, protests modifications of a contract awarded to JDD, Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-13-R-3510, for janitorial services for the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine.  The protester asserts that the agency had a pre-award intent to modify the contract and that the modifications to the contract exceeded the scope of the original contract. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on March 28, 2013, for janitorial services and set aside for HUBZone small businesses, contemplated the award of a combination fixed-price and indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a term of 1 year with four 1-year options to the firm providing the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer.  RFP at 1, 7.  The RFP contained a requirement for performance of janitorial services at two Common Output Levels (COL)--COL 3 and COL 4--with COL 3 being a higher and more costly level of janitorial service than COL 4.  Agency Report (AR) at 6.  The RFP required offerors to submit a lump sum price for COLs 3 and COLs 4 and the ID/IQ portion of the contract.  RFP at 7.  The RFP advised offerors that the price evaluation would be based on the aggregate totals for COLs 3 and COLs 4 and the total IDIQ prices for the base and the option years.  Id.  The government reserved the right to make award at either COLs 3 or COLs 4.  Id. The agency received proposals from several offerors, including the protester and the awardee; the proposals from both firms were evaluated as technically acceptable.  JDD offered the lowest, total evaluated price in accordance with the price evaluation set forth in the RFP.  On April 1, 2014, award was made to JDD at a price of $1,674,241.84--$1,476,381.84 for the fixed-price work, and $197,860.00 for the ID/IQ work.  AR at 4; see also Protest at 5 citing Notice of Award (noting that the five-year aggregate value of the award was $8,371,207.40).  Since the issuance of the solicitation in March 2013 and contract award in April 2015, contract modifications have increased the value of the fixed-price portion of the base-year contract from $1,476,381.84 to $3,710,358, a difference of $2,233,976.16.  These modifications include adding and deleting services to buildings or areas, adding services to COL 4 requirements, and eventually changing the service from COL 4 to COL 3.  AR, Exh. 3, Decl. of Supervisory Contract Specialist at 2.  Richen asserts that the modifications were outside the scope of the original contract, and that therefore the agency was required to cancel the contract and resolicit the services.  Protest at 6.  Richen also argues that the Navy was aware of the need for future modifications prior to contract award.  Id. at 5-6 (asserting that agency knew “well ahead of time” of the need to make “Huge” modifications to the contract).  Specifically, the protester argues that the Navy knew at the time of award that it did not intend to use COL 4 services, but instead needed COL 3 services.  Id.