Intown Properties, Inc.

Intown Properties, Inc. BNUMBER: B-262236.2; B-262237.2 DATE: January 18, 1996 TITLE: Intown Properties, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Intown Properties, Inc. File: B-262236.2; B-262237.2 Date: January 18, 1996 Melton Harrell for the protester. Arnette L. Georges, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency unreasonably evaluated protester's best and final offer (BAFO) submitted in response to solicitations for real estate acquisition management services where the protester, in response to discussions informing the protester that certain of its personnel were not considered qualified, proposed different personnel in its BAFO, but the agency did not consider this when determining the protester's low-priced BAFO to be unacceptable. DECISION Intown Properties, Inc. protests the award of two contracts to Asset Management Specialist, Inc., (AMS) under request for proposals (RFP) Nos. H02R95064000000 (RFP-40) and H02R95064100000 (RFP-41), issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for real estate acquisition management (REAM) services. Intown, the incumbent contractor under RFP-40, argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal and the selection of AMS for the awards were unreasonable. We sustain the protests. The RFPs provided for the awards of firm, fixed-price, indefinite quantity contracts for the performance of REAM services in the city of Camden (RFP-40), and Camden (excluding the city of Camden), Burlington, Mercer, and Gloucester counties, New Jersey (RFP-41).[1] The contractor(s) under the RFPs will be responsible for preserving and protecting single family properties owned or in the custody of HUD and located in these areas until the units are sold to the public or accepted by nonprofit organizations. The RFPs provided that awards would be made to the responsible offeror or offerors whose offer or offers, conforming to the solicitations, were determined most advantageous to the government, cost and other factors considered. The RFPs stated that technical merit would be more significant than price in the award selection, and listed the following technical evaluation factors to be evaluated on a 100-point scale: "1. Demonstrated experience in the management of single family properties similar to and in the general area as those covered by this solicitation. [25 points] "2. Subfactor A- Demonstrated ability to inspect properties as evidenced by the completion of the HUD-9516[2], and supporting documentation, for one of the following properties: Case # 352-216537 - 316 N. 5th St., Millville, NJ 08332 [or] Case # 351-190246 - 1202 N. 26th St., Camden, NJ 08105. [15 points] "Subfactor B- Demonstrated experience in developing listings of needed repairs, such as is required by HUD's MPS [minimum property standards] and estimating the cost of repairs. [10 points] "3. Demonstrated experience in soliciting repair bids, coordinating and overseeing repair work and inspecting for satisfactory completion. [15 points] "4. Demonstrated experience in managing a rental program, including establishing fair market rentals and collections from present and former tenants, for single family properties. [10 points] "5. Understanding HUD objectives and required tasks as specified in the solicitation. [10 points] "6. Evidence of adequately staffed, trained, and equipped office (or the ability to establish such) reasonably located as to provide convenient service to HUD and its clients in the area to be served, and to carry out all duties specified in the solicitation. [15 points]" The agency received seven proposals responding to both RFPs, including Intown's and AMS', and one proposal which responded to RFP-40 only. The proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation panel (TEP). The TEP found in evaluating Intown's proposal that Intown had failed to "clearly state the location of [its] office." The TEP also found that two of Intown's key employees had left that company to form AMS, and that Intown had not adequately replaced these individuals with qualified staff. Although the agency rated Intown's proposal as "good" under this evaluation factor, and awarded it 7 out of 15 possible points, the agency concluded that Intown needed to address the deficiencies in its proposal concerning the location of its offices and qualifications of its personnel before its proposal could be considered technically acceptable.