AAA Painting and Janitorial Contractors, Inc.

B-270168 Feb 13, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Allegation that agency improperly downgraded the protester's proposal under the experience subfactor based on an inadequate resume for its executive housekeeper is without merit where the record shows agency in fact determined that the resume met the solicitation requirements and that the downgrading was properly based on the protester's failure to provide required information on the firm's corporate experience. Allegation that downgrading of the protester's proposal under understanding of solicitation requirements subfactor improperly ignored proposal's excellent rating for proposed work schedule and procedures for scheduling work is without merit where the protester failed to submit with its proposal the technical manuals that were also to be evaluated under this subfactor. View Decision Matter of: AAA Painting and Janitorial Contractors, Inc. File: B-270168 Date: February 13, 1996 Allegation that agency improperly downgraded the protester's proposal under the experience subfactor based on an inadequate resume for its executive housekeeper is without merit where the record shows agency in fact determined that the resume met the solicitation requirements and that the downgrading was properly based on the protester's failure to provide required information on the firm's corporate experience. Allegation that downgrading of the protester's proposal under understanding of solicitation requirements subfactor improperly ignored proposal's excellent rating for proposed work schedule and procedures for scheduling work is without merit where the protester failed to submit with its proposal the technical manuals that were also to be evaluated under this subfactor. Selection of the awardee on the basis of its overall technical superiority, notwithstanding its higher price, was proper where the agency reasonably determined that the awardee's higher-priced proposal was worth the additional cost. Attorneys DECISION AAA Painting and Janitorial Contractors, Inc. protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Makro Janitorial Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68925-93-R-A808, for custodial services at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. The protester primarily argues that its proposal was not properly evaluated. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price/indefinite quantity contract on a best value basis, with consideration of two factors of equal weight, technical and price. The technical factor was divided into management capability and technical capability, each of which contained several subfactors. The RFP stated that award may be made without discussions and that initial proposals thus should contain the offeror's most favorable terms. Twelve proposals were received. AAA's proposal, priced at $1,258,142, received a rating of marginal, and Makro's, priced at $1,632,737, received a rating of exceptional. Makro's price was considered reasonable, and the Navy determined that Makro's proposal was most advantageous to the government and made award to that firm without discussions. EXPERIENCE SUBFACTOR AAA argues that its technical proposal was improperly downgraded under the experience subfactor under management capability on the erroneous basis that the resume AAA submitted for its proposed executive housekeeper failed to include information (required by the RFP) concerning the individual's experience on prior contracts, such as contract time frames, dollar values, and locations; AAA claims that the resume clearly contained this information. AAA's argument is based on the incorrect assumption that its proposal was downgraded in this area due to a resume deficiency. This was not the case. The record shows that AAA's proposal failed to list any specific contracts performed by the firm within the past 5 years with dollar values, customers, durations, locations, and type of work performed, and how the work related to the work requirements here; this information was specifically called for under the experience subfactor description. The Navy downgraded AAA's proposal on the basis that "[t]he contractor has not identified all of the required information pertaining to relevant experience[,]" and that the "[c]ontractor has not demonstrated a clear explanation of how any past or previous experience relates to this contract." We find that the downgrading of AAA's proposal in this area was reasonable. UNDERSTANDING THE RFP REQUIREMENTS SUBFACTOR AAA maintains its proposal was improperly evaluated as marginal under the understanding of the RFP requirements subfactor under technical capability.