Air-Flo Cleaning Systems

B-259562.2 Jan 18, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency reasonably downgraded the protester's proposal because it failed to include information required by the request for proposals and because its past performance was reasonably found deficient based on the agency's experience with the protester under prior contracts. Air-Flo contends that its technical proposal was improperly evaluated. That its low price should have entitled the firm to the award. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conformed to all requirements of the solicitation and was considered to be most advantageous to the government. The RFP expressly reserved the right to award the contract to other than the offeror whose price was lowest and provided that the evaluation of proposals would be based on the following factors. View Decision Matter of: Air-Flo Cleaning Systems File: B-259562.2 Date: January 18, 1996 Agency reasonably downgraded the protester's proposal because it failed to include information required by the request for proposals and because its past performance was reasonably found deficient based on the agency's experience with the protester under prior contracts. Attorneys DECISION Air-Flo Cleaning Systems protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 539-11-95, for duct-cleaning services at the VA Medical Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. Air-Flo contends that its technical proposal was improperly evaluated, and that its low price should have entitled the firm to the award. We deny the protest. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conformed to all requirements of the solicitation and was considered to be most advantageous to the government, price, and other factors considered. Further, the RFP expressly reserved the right to award the contract to other than the offeror whose price was lowest and provided that the evaluation of proposals would be based on the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical approach, past performance, and price. Each factor, including price, was to be scored and firms were to be ranked based on the combined score. The RFP provided detailed instructions for preparing proposals, directing offerors to furnish as part of their proposals: "all descriptive material necessary for the contracting officer to determine whether the equipment offered meets the requirements of the RFP, and to establish exactly what the offeror proposes to furnish and what the government would be binding itself to purchase by making an award." Offerors were directed to provide proof "of having state of the art equipment for cleaning HVAC ductwork and systems." The RFP also advised that all equipment used in the performance of the contract had to conform to OSHA standards, listed specific requirements for various types of equipment, and required offerors to comply with the latest standards developed by the National Air Duct Cleaning Association (NADCA). Six firms submitted proposals in response to the RFP. Air-Flo did not submit a technical proposal or references, but submitted a pricing table as its offer. When proposals were evaluated, Air-Flo received a "not rated" score for its technical approach and past performance. The VA determined that two proposals were in the competitive range and made its source selection based on those firms' initial proposals. After the contract was awarded, another firm protested the competitive range determination and the VA agreed to conduct discussions with all offerors as corrective action. During discussions, the agency informed Air-Flo of its failure to submit a technical proposal with its initial offer. When best and final offers (BAFO) were requested, Air-Flo submitted some information concerning its technical approach and past performance in a letter. The agency's technical evaluation team reviewed the BAFO submissions and revised its scores for each offeror. Air-Flo's proposal offered the second lowest price and received the fifth lowest overall score, which was based on all three evaluated factors. Air-Flo's proposal was considered weak in the areas of technical approach and past performance. The other firm whose proposal was found in the initial competitive range was selected for award, the original contract was terminated for convenience and a new award made. Upon receiving notice of the new award, Air-Flow submitted an agency-level protest. When the VA denied that protest, this protest followed. Air-Flo protests that it is qualified to perform the work and that it should have received the award because its price was lower than the awardee's price.