Madison Services, Inc.

Madison Services, Inc. BNUMBER: B-271306; B-271306.2 DATE: June 13, 1996 TITLE: Madison Services, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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. Matter of:Madison Services, Inc. File: B-271306; B-271306.2 Date:June 13, 1996 Christopher Solop, Esq., and Lynn Hawkins Patton, Esq., Ott & Purdy, for the protester. Daniel J. Riley, Esq., and Jeffrey A. Stonerock, Esq., Baker & Botts, L.L.P., for Baker Support Services, Inc., an intervenor. Clarence D. Long III, Esq., and Martin F. McAlwee, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's contention that agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated proposals in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation, and the record reasonably supports the evaluators' conclusions. 2. Agency properly made award to offeror that submitted higher-priced, lower-risk proposal where agency reasonably determined that award to protester based upon its proposed limited manning presented a moderate risk of performance, and that the awardee's higher-priced, lower-risk proposal, which was reasonably evaluated as having additional comparative strengths, was worth the cost premium involved. DECISION Madison Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Baker Support Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. FO8650-94-R-0032, issued by the Department of the Air Force for military family housing maintenance services at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. Madison contends that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and awarded the contract to Baker at a higher price than proposed by Madison. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on May 2, 1995, sought proposals for military family housing maintenance services, including maintenance management, service calls, change-of-occupancy management, pest management, recurring equipment maintenance, and facility maintenance. The RFP's performance work statement reflects an increase in service requirements from those required under previous contracts to service the more than 1,600 housing units and facilities at three geographically separated housing units. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price-award-fee contract for a base period plus 4 option years. Section M of the RFP provided that award was to be made to the offeror which the government determined can best satisfy the objectives and requirements set forth in the solicitation, in a manner most advantageous to the government. The three equally weighted factors for evaluation were cost, technical/management, and performance. Each technical/management proposal, which included the offeror's proposed manning, was to be assigned a color rating (blue, green, yellow, or red) for evaluation purposes as well as an independent "proposal risk" rating (high, moderate, or low) reflecting "how likely the proposed approach will actually be achieved" considering "the probability of success, the impact of failure, and the alternatives available to meet the requirement." Each proposal was to be assigned a separate "performance risk" rating (high, moderate, or low) under the RFP's performance evaluation factor (which included subfactors for availability of or ability to obtain financial resources to perform the contract, and performance history.) Eleven firms submitted initial proposals in response to the RFP, the proposals were evaluated, one proposal was rejected for its numerous deficiencies, and discussions were conducted with the remaining 10 offerors. Best and final offers (BAFO) were received and evaluated. Several firms, including the incumbent contractor, submitted proposals that were higher rated technically, but which were considerably higher priced, than the Baker and Madison proposals. The Baker and Madison proposals received the same performance risk rating of low, and the same color rating (green, indicating a rating of acceptable) under the technical/ management factor. Madison's proposal received a moderate proposal risk rating due to its limited proposed manning of [deleted] employees; Baker's proposal received a low proposal risk rating--Baker proposed a manning level of [deleted] employees. Madison submitted the lowest cost proposal (at $[deleted]) of the 10 BAFOs received under the RFP. Baker's cost proposal (at $15,842,812) was the fourth lowest priced of the BAFOs received (i.e., six BAFOs were higher priced) and Baker's proposed cost was lower than the agency's cost estimate (of $[deleted]).