All Star Maintenance, Inc.

B-271119 Jun 17, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that contracting agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. All Star argues that the Navy's evaluation of the offerors' proposals and its subsequent best value determination were unreasonable. Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was the most advantageous to the government. Five proposals were submitted by the October 3 closing date. Best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted on January 23. Eastern's price was $10. 303 and All Star's price was $10. The source selection advisory board (SSAB) was presented with the evaluation results and determined that Eastern's proposal represented the best value to the government: "Both Eastern and All Star have several similar strengths. View Decision Matter of: All Star Maintenance, Inc. File: B-271119 Date: June 17, 1996 Protest that contracting agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Attorneys DECISION All Star Maintenance, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Eastern Maintenance & Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62477-95-R-0099, issued by the Department of the Navy for base family housing maintenance at the Naval Air Station in Patuxent River, Maryland. All Star argues that the Navy's evaluation of the offerors' proposals and its subsequent best value determination were unreasonable. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued August 18, 1995, anticipated the award of a combination fixed-price, indefinite quantity contract to be performed over 1 base year, with up to 4 option years. The maintenance and repair of the 790 family housing units and real property at issue includes change of occupancy work, service calls, janitorial services, painting, appliance replacement, grounds maintenance, and pest control services. Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was the most advantageous to the government, considering three equally important evaluation criteria: technical/management, past performance, and price. The technical/management criterion consisted of three equally important factors: staffing, method of operation, and relevant experience. The past performance criterion involved a review of the references for each project listed under the relevant experience factor; the Navy's conclusions here would be highly influential in determining the relative merits and risk associated with an offeror's overall proposal in a comparative assessment with all competitors to determine the offer considered most advantageous to the government. Price, not at issue here, would be evaluated for realism and reasonableness. Five proposals were submitted by the October 3 closing date. In evaluating the proposals, the Navy assigned both a subjective risk rating and an overall adjectival rating to each proposal, [1] and eliminated two proposals from the competitive range. After conducting discussions and evaluating the discussion responses, the Navy narrowed the competitive range to two proposals, those of All Star and Eastern. Best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted on January 23, 1996, and the agency conducted its final evaluation. Both offerors received identical low risk and exceptional overall ratings. Eastern's price was $10,334,303 and All Star's price was $10,760,488. The source selection advisory board (SSAB) was presented with the evaluation results and determined that Eastern's proposal represented the best value to the government: "Both Eastern and All Star have several similar strengths. They have offered an experienced, empowered project manager, and an automated management system. The offerors possess the financial capability to successfully perform the contract and they have a reputation of satisfactory performance. Eastern also offers the government an extended warranty on all service call work and a commitment to customer satisfaction by ensuring the project manager will visit units that had after hours emergency or urgent work performed to ensure customer satisfaction. Although All Star's status as the incumbent is considered a strength because they will continue to operate from their currently leased facility and they are already mobilized, these strengths are not considered significant to offset the cost difference. . . . There is no quantifiable value which would support award to All Star at $416,185.16 above that of the technically exceptional lower priced offer submitted by Eastern." After considering the findings of the SSAB and the technical evaluation reports, the source selection authority (SSA) concurred, and Eastern was awarded the contract on January 29.