The Law Offices of George E. Hill

B-272168 Sep 04, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the record shows that the offeror's listing of these alleged client conflicts would not have altered the agency's award decision. As follows: "(a) It is the [HUD] policy to avoid situations which place an offeror in a position where its judgment may be biased because of any past. That the offeror may have which relates to the work to be performed pursuant to this solicitation or where the offeror's performance of such work may provide it with an unfair competitive advantage. "(b) Offerors shall provide a statement which describes in a concise manner all relevant facts concerning any past. The agency states that because it determined that typically all firms that would submit proposals under this solicitation were likely to have contractual relations with FHA lenders and other mortgage companies. View Decision Matter of: The Law Offices of George E. Hill File: B-272168 Date: September 4, 1996 Contracting agency properly awarded real estate property closing services contract to law firm offeror where offeror did not intentionally misrepresent or omit information about its prior representation of major real estate lenders in its proposal, the solicitation did not require the listing of these clients, and where the record shows that the offeror's listing of these alleged client conflicts would not have altered the agency's award decision. Attorneys DECISION The Law Offices of George E. Hill protests the award of a contract to Waller, Smith & Palmer, a law firm, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H01R96000100000, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a small business set-aside to provide real estate property closing services in connection with the sale of HUD-acquired defaulted family properties in Connecticut. Hill alleges that Waller has had lawyer-client relationships with several major Federal Housing Administration (FHA) lenders in Connecticut that Waller did not disclose in its proposal and that present "a substantial organizational conflict [which prevents the firm from rendering objective advice to HUD] and that should lead to the firm's disqualification." We deny the protest. The RFP, issued February 20, 1996, contemplated multiple awards of indefinite quantity contracts for a base period and 2 option years with services secured by issuance of task orders. [1] The RFP required offerors to propose fixed-unit prices per sale closed. The RFP stated that the government would make award to the responsible offeror submitting the conforming, low-priced technically acceptable offer. The RFP contained the following technical evaluation criteria which offerors had to meet to be considered technically acceptable: (1) general experience and qualifications of the offeror; (2) ability to establish offices reasonably located in the service area and with adequate resources; and (3) a management plan that reflects the offeror's ability to perform requirements, including the management of staff and subcontractors and the "management of cases in which a conflict of interest [has] been identified," as well as a quality control plan. The RFP stated that the government would evaluate prices by multiplying the unit prices for each performance period by an estimated minimum number of stated closings and that the price for each period would be added together to obtain a total evaluated price. The RFP included in Section L the provision at HUD Acquisition Regulation (HUDAR) L.1 (1995), "Organizational Conflicts of Interest Notification (FEB 1987)," which provided, in relevant part, as follows: "(a) It is the [HUD] policy to avoid situations which place an offeror in a position where its judgment may be biased because of any past, present, or currently planned interest, financial or otherwise, that the offeror may have which relates to the work to be performed pursuant to this solicitation or where the offeror's performance of such work may provide it with an unfair competitive advantage. "(b) Offerors shall provide a statement which describes in a concise manner all relevant facts concerning any past, present or currently planned interest (financial, contractual, organizational, or otherwise) relating to the work to be performed . . . [bearing on whether the offeror can render objective advice and whether it would receive an unfair competitive advantage]. "(c) In the absence of any relevant interests referred to above, the offeror shall complete the certification at [HUDAR Sec. 2452.209-71], Organizational Conflicts of Interest Certification. "(f) If the [c]ontracting [o]fficer determines that a potential conflict exists, the selected offeror shall not receive an award unless the conflict can be avoided or otherwise resolved through the inclusion of a special contract clause or other appropriate means. . .