Protest Contending IFB Was Materially Deficient

A building maintenance firm protested a General Services Administration (GSA) invitation for bids (IFB) on a cost-reimbursement-type contract which adapted concepts and ideas from a similar attendant services contract. The protester's allegations and the GAO responses were as follows. The protester contended that use of the term "productive labor man-hour" in the contract was ambiguous, and could be interpreted to exclude work performed by subcontractors. GAO held that, although ambiguities were evident in the use of the term, when read in its entirety, it was clear that a "productive man-hour" included all productive work performed by contractor and subcontractor personnel. Since ambiguity ina legal sense did not exist, this aspect of the protest was denied. The protester pointed to award fee and incentive provisions which it considered inconsistent. The IFB specified an award for high-quality work and a savings-sharing incentive under which GSA and the contractor would share savings from performance of the work in fewer man-hours than anticipated. GAO held that the protester's contention that these goals were necessarily contradictory, based on the assumption that a reduction of man-hours applied to a job will always result in a reduction in quality, fails to recognize possible optimum personnel management benefits. Therefore, this aspect of the protest was denied. The protester objected to an Emergency Conditions provision which it claimed allowed the Government unilaterally to increase the contractor's cost without adequate compensation. This objection was found to have no merit since such costs were covered by a "Changes" clause. The protester contended that a "paid holidays" provision, which required the contractor to observe all Federal holidays, gave the Government the unilateral right to increase the contractor's cost. Since all bidders incurred the risk that a new Federal holiday could be declared, this provision did not warrant disruption of the procurement. The protester claimed that the IFB required public display of confidential financial information. Because the information was necessary to determine the responsiveness of the bid and was not made public, this aspect of the protest was denied. Two other alleged ambiguities pointed to by the protester did not warrant consideration, particularly since the protester was the incumbent contractor and familiar with the requirements of the job. Accordingly, the protest was denied.