Main Building Maintenance, Inc.

B-260945.4 Sep 29, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest is sustained where source selection authority based the selection of the awardee over the protester on his erroneous belief that the awardee's proposal included certain "value added strengths" not included in the protester's proposal. REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. Main argues that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and failed to conduct meaningful discussions and that the source selection decision was based on an erroneous understanding of the differences between the proposals. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government based on an integrated assessment of technical and price criteria. View Decision Matter of: Main Building Maintenance, Inc. File: B-260945.4 Date: September 29, 1995 [*]REDACTED DECISION Protest is sustained where source selection authority based the selection of the awardee over the protester on his erroneous belief that the awardee's proposal included certain "value added strengths" not included in the protester's proposal. Attorneys REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. DECISION Main Building Maintenance, Inc. protests the award of a contract to DGR Associates, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. F08637-94-R-7011, issued by the Department of the Air Force for military family housing maintenance services, including service calls, change of occupancy maintenance, recurring maintenance, and appliance maintenance. Main argues that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and failed to conduct meaningful discussions and that the source selection decision was based on an erroneous understanding of the differences between the proposals. We sustain the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, fixed-price contract to provide services for a base year and 3 option years. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government based on an integrated assessment of technical and price criteria, with technical criteria more important than price. The RFP listed the following technical evaluation areas in descending order of importance: area A, comprehension of requirements; area B, management organization and staffing; area C, contract management; and area D, experience. Each of the evaluation areas included evaluation items. After an initial evaluation, 11 proposals were included in the competitive range. Discussions were held with the competitive range offerors and best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted and evaluated. Under each of the evaluation areas, the proposals were assigned color-coded ratings, performance risk ratings, and were ranked based on the color and risk ratings. [1] The final evaluation ratings and rankings of Main and DGR were as follows: Offeror Main DGR Comprehension of requirements blue, low risk ranked fifth +blue, [2] low risk ranked first Management organization and staffing +blue, low risk ranked first blue, low risk ranked second Contract management +blue, low risk ranked second green, low risk ranked seventh Experience green, low risk ranked seventh +blue, low risk ranked first Main's BAFO included a price of [deleted] and DGR's BAFO included a price of [deleted]. In a written source selection decision, the source selection authority (SSA) compared each of the competitive range proposals to DGR's proposal. Based on those comparisons, the SSA decided that DGR's proposal represented the best overall value. Among numerous other contentions, Main argues that the written source selection decision indicates that the SSA awarded the contract to DGR as a result of a mistaken understanding of the differences between the DGR and the Main proposals. In particular, the protester maintains that a number of significant strengths which the SSA attributed exclusively to DGR's proposal also were present in Main's proposal. As explained, the SSA compared each of the competitive range proposals to DGR's proposal.