Kime-Plus, Inc., B-229990

• Decision Date: 04 May 1988
• Docket Number: B-229990
• Parties: Kime-Plus, Inc. No. 88-1 CPD 436
• Court: Comptroller General of the United States

Kime-Plus, Inc. No. 88-1 CPD 436

No. B-229990

Comptroller General of the United States

May 4, 1988

PROCUREMENT - Special Procurement Methods/Categories - Service contracts - Wage rates - Computation - Collective bargaining agreements DIGEST: 1. Agency is not required to warn bidders of the incumbent contractor's view that the Service Contract Act makes payable to employees in job classifications that were not used under the predecessor contract the fringe benefits set out in the incumbent's collective bargaining agreement. The Service Contract Act's requirement that a successor service contractor pay employees no less than the rates in the predecessor's agreement does not apply where the agreement is inapplicable to the work performed under the earlier contract. PROCUREMENT - Sealed Bidding - Bids - Computation - Collective bargaining agreements 2. Prospective bidders are responsible for ascertaining the details of any collective bargaining agreements and considering them in the calculation of their bids. PROCUREMENT - Special Procurement Methods/Categories - Service contracts - Wage rates - GAO review 3. General Accounting Office does not review the wage rate determinations issued by the Department of Labor in connection with solicitations subject to the Service Contract Act.

Kime-Plus Inc., the incumbent contractor, protests an alleged impropriety in invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAKF2488-B-0001 issued by the Department of the Army for dining facility attendant service and full food service at Fort Polk Louisiana. Kime-Plus argues that the agency improperly failed to warn other bidders of a possible interpretation of the terms of the protester's existing collective bargaining agreement with the employees' union at Port Polk which if correct, would be inconsistent with the wage determinations accompanying the IFB.

We deny the protest.

The issue the protester raises results from the fact that neither Kime- Plus' contract nor the collective bargaining agreement treats the job classifications of baker or cook since military personnel performed these duties during the predecessor contract period. The protester points out that the collective bargaining agreement entitles any covered food service employees to union membership shortly after employment, and that according to the agreement the employer expressly recognizes the union as the sole bargaining agent for all of its food service employees at ...