United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Richen Management, LLC 

File: B-406750; B-406850

Date: July 31, 2012

Richard McCue for the protester.

Meaghan Q. LeClerc, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.

Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protests challenging the terms of solicitations for the provision of services by 

arguing that the agency improperly failed to provide the names of the incumbent

contractor’s subcontractors, service call log information and more detailed repair 

history information--where the agency found the requested information to be

proprietary or not subject to release--are denied where the solicitation, along with

the agency’s answers to offerors’ questions, provided sufficient information to allow 

offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis.

DECISION

Richen Management, LLC, of Dover-Foxcroft, Maine, protests the terms of request 

for proposals (RFP) No. GS-01P-12-BW-D-0023 (-0023), issued by the General 

Services Administration (GSA), for janitorial and maintenance services at the 

Federal Building & Post Office and the Social Security Administration Office Building 

in Montpelier, Vermont, and RFP No. GS-01P-12-BW-D-0050 (-0050), issued by the 

GSA for operations and maintenance services at various U.S. Border Stations in 

Maine.

We deny the protest.

The GSA issued RFP -0023 and RFP -0050 as small business set-asides. RFP 

-0023 requested proposals for janitorial, mechanical maintenance, and snow 

removal services for two federal buildings and RFP -0050 requested proposals for 

janitorial and mechanical maintenance at nine U.S. Border Stations. The RFPs

contemplated the award of contracts to the best value offerors considering the 
Page 2 B-406750 

factors of price,

1 past performance, experience, management plan, and 

environmental consideration plan. 

The statements of work (SOW) in both RFPs provided detailed explanations of the 

required janitorial services, exterior services, and grounds maintenance services to 

include the expected quality standards for the services. RFP -0023 SOW at 29-46; 

RFP -0050 SOW at 20-36. The mechanical maintenance and repair services 

section of the SOWs detailed the operational requirements and system performance 

standards/procedures. RFP -0023 SOW at 46-66; RFP -0050 SOW at 36-57. The 

RFPs also included building information sheets and an equipment inventory list for 

each building. RFP -0023 SOW at 111-114, Equipment Inventory List, Federal 

Building, at 1-33, Social Security Administration Office Building, at 1-6; RFP -0050 

SOW at 112-128, attach. J-6, Equipment Inventory List. The SOW for each RFP 

further explained that the contractor would be expected to provide management, 

supervision, labor, materials, and equipment, and be responsible for the efficient, 

effective, economical, and satisfactory operation, through scheduled and 

unscheduled maintenance, of systems located within the property line of the 

buildings. RFP -0023 SOW at 12; RFP -0050 SOW at 2. 

With regard to RFP -0023, a pre-proposal conference letter was published on 

April 18, notifying potential offerors of a scheduled conference and site visit at the 

Montpelier Federal Building on April 25.

2

 This letter also stated that offerors were 

required to submit any questions regarding the solicitation at least 2 days prior to 

the date of the pre-proposal conference. In response to the agency’s notice, the 

GSA received 41 questions on this RFP, including some submitted by Richen. The 

agency posted answers to the first 15 questions on May 8; answers to the 

remaining questions were posted on May 11. As relevant here, Richen’s questions 

and the agency’s answers with regard to RFP -0023 were as follows:

Question 1: Can you tell me who is currently providing the 

subcontractor work []?

Answer: It is not the current policy of GSA to publish the names of 

subcontractors used under the existing contract.

 1 The RFP included both fixed-priced and indefinite-quantity line items for the 

various services requested in the statement of work.

2 A subsequent site visit was held for offerors on May 9. The contracting officer 

reports that the protester did not attend either site visit. Contracting Officer’s 

Statement at 1.
Page 3 B-406750 

Question 5: May we review the service request logs for the past 5 

years to help determine the level of service expected for this 

solicitation?

Answer: The records requested may contain proprietary and sensitive 

information. It is not possible to release those records as part of this 

solicitation.

Agency Report (AR) (RFP -0023), Tab 5, Questions and Answers, at 1-2. 

With regard to RFP -0050, a pre-proposal conference letter was published on 

May 10, notifying potential offerors of a scheduled conference and site visit at the 

U.S. Border Station, Calais New Bridge, Maine.3

 During the pre-proposal 

conference, offerors were told that all questions should be submitted in writing to 

the contracting specialist. The GSA received a total of 64 questions on this RFP, 

including some submitted by Richen. The agency posted answers to the first group 

of questions on May 17; answers to the remaining questions and all follow-up 

questions were posted between May 31 and June 7. As relevant here, Richen’s 

questions and the agency’s answers with regard to RFP -0050 were as follows:

[Question 29]: Will you provide a list of subcontractors working under 

the current contract?

[Answer]: In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 

the requested information is considered proprietary to the current 

contractor and is therefore not releasable.

[Question 30]: . . . Would it be possible to review the PM [preventive 

maintenance] records for these sites for the past 5 years?

[Answer]: As stated previously, that data is not releasable. However, 

we can give you the number of repairs, by Group, that were over and 

under $1000.00 during the last year. Those numbers are:

# of REPAIRS Group A Group B

Under $1,000.00 25 17

Over $1,000.00 15 10

AR (RFP -0050, Tab 5, Questions and Answers (May 31, 2012), at 3. 

Richen protested the terms of both RFPs. Richen contends that the agency’s 

failure to provide answers to its pre-proposal questions regarding subcontractor 

 3 Subsequent site visits were held on May 16 and May 17.
Page 4 B-406750 

information, service call logs and more detailed repair history data prevented 

Richen from submitting a proposal and demonstrated bias in favor of the incumbent 

contractor.

As a general rule, a procuring agency must give sufficient detail in a solicitation to 

enable bidders to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. AirTrak 

Travel et al., B-292101 et al., June 30, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 117 at 13; Service 

Technicians, Inc., B-249329.2, Nov. 12, 1992, 92-2 CPD ¶ 342 at 2. Specifications 

must be free from ambiguity and describe the minimum needs of the procuring 

activity accurately. However there is no legal requirement that a competition be 

based on specifications drafted in such detail as to eliminate completely any risk for 

the contractor or that the procuring agency remove all uncertainty from the mind of 

every prospective offeror. American Contract Servs., Inc., B-256196.2, B-256196.3, 

June 2, 1994, 94-1 CPD ¶ 342 at 2. In this regard, proposals for service contracts, 

by their very nature, often require the computation of prices based on visual 

inspections, and the presence of some element of risk does not mean that fair 

competition is precluded or that a solicitation is improper. Ronald E. Borello, 

B-232609, Jan. 11, 1989, 89-1 CPD ¶ 28 at 3-4.

Here, we find that the agency provided sufficiently detailed information to allow 

offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis under both RFPs. 

The agency’s performance-based commercial item solicitations requested offerors 

to submit proposals for janitorial and maintenance services. The RFPs set forth a 

detailed list of all services required by the agency. The agency held multiple 

pre-proposal conferences with the potential offerors and gave responses to the 

questions received from the offerors. These answers provided further information 

regarding the services requested in the statement of work. With regard RFP -0023, 

this information included the current contractor’s name and address; the annual 

contract costs for janitorial, snow removal, and mechanical maintenance services; a 

listing of the number of repairs over $2,500 and under $2,000; and the total number 

of emergency call-backs conducted in the last year. AR (RFP -0023), Tab 5, 

Questions and Answers, at 4, 8. With regard to RFP -0050, the information 

provided included the current contractor’s name and address; the value of the 

current contract; and a listing of the number of repairs over $1,000 and under 

$1,000. AR (RFP -0050), Tab 5, Questions and Answers (May 31, 2012), at 3-4. 

All potential offerors were provided the same information.

We do not agree with the protester that the agency’s decision to withhold the 

incumbent’s subcontractor’s names, the service call log information and more 

detailed repair history data, hindered Richen’s ability to submit an intelligent

proposal. As our Office has previously stated, proposals for service contracts, by 

their very nature, often require the computation of prices based on visual 

inspections, and the presence of some element of risk does not mean that fair 

competition is precluded or that a solicitation is improper. Ronald E. Borello, supra. 

While Richen has provided evidence that the GSA has released subcontractor 
Page 5 B-406750 

information in response to potential offerors’ requests on at least some previous 

procurements, we think the agency acted reasonably in declining to do so here, 

given its determination that this information as it pertains to these procurements is 

proprietary or not subject to release.

4

 Moreover, we note that knowledge as to the 

nature of the incumbent contractor's work force is strictly an advantage of 

incumbency, and the government thus has no obligation to disseminate that 

information to other offerors. See Master Security, Inc., B-232263, Nov. 7, 1998,

88-2 CPD ¶ 449 at 3-4. Thus, the agency’s refusal to provide subcontractor 

information, service call logs or more detailed repair history data here did not 

prevent offerors from competing intelligently and on a relatively equal basis.

Richen also argues that the agency’s failure to provide this information shows bias 

towards the incumbent and an intent to harm Richen. Because government officials 

are presumed to act in good faith, we do not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to 

them on the basis of inference or supposition. Dynamic Aviation-Helicopters, 

B-274122, Nov. 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD ¶ 166 at 4. Therefore, where a protester alleges 

bias on the part of government officials, the protester must provide credible 

evidence clearly demonstrating a bias against the protester or for the awardee and 

that the agency's bias translated into action that unfairly affected the protester's 

competitive position. Id. We have no basis on which to conclude that the GSA has 

demonstrated a preference for the incumbent or acted unfairly so as to favor that 

firm, or disfavor the protester here. The agency provided answers to questions 

posed by potential offerors and published those results to all offerors. While the 

agency chose to withhold certain information, this information--as stated above--did 

not prevent any offeror from submitting an intelligently written proposal or prevent 

offerors from competing on a relatively equal basis.

Accordingly, the protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 4 The GSA received FOIA requests from Richen in January 2012 seeking, among 

other things, copies of contract amounts, staffing, and a list of subcontractors for the 

incumbent contracts covered by these RFPs. The GSA responded to the requests

by stating that subcontractor information was being withheld under exemption four 

of the FOIA since release would reveal to competitors commercially sensitive 

information concerning the incumbent contractor’s internal operations and business 

practices. The requester did not appeal this decision. Our Office has no authority 

to review agency decisions under FOIA regarding the release of documents in the 

possession of the agency, and therefore, will not resolve the issue of whether the 

information was properly withheld by the GSA under FOIA. All Am. Moving and 

Storage, B-243630, B-243804, July 8, 1991, 91-2 CPD ¶ 32 at 2 n.1.