Intown Properties, Inc.

B-272524 Oct 21, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contracting agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range where the proposal was considered technically inferior to all of the competitive range proposals. Its price was substantially higher than two of the four competitive range proposals. Intown challenges a number of alleged weaknesses listed by agency technical evaluators in the firm's proposal and argues that the evaluation process was "superficial" and included numerous other flaws. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conformed to the solicitation and was most advantageous to the government. Was considered unacceptable. The evaluation of proposals and the resulting determination of whether a particular offer is in the competitive range are matters within the discretion of the contracting agency. View Decision Matter of: Intown Properties, Inc. File: B-272524 Date: October 21, 1996 Contracting agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range where the proposal was considered technically inferior to all of the competitive range proposals, and its price was substantially higher than two of the four competitive range proposals. Attorneys DECISION Intown Properties, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. H06R95006700000, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for real estate asset manager (REAM) services. Intown challenges a number of alleged weaknesses listed by agency technical evaluators in the firm's proposal and argues that the evaluation process was "superficial" and included numerous other flaws. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price, indefinite quantity contract for 1 year and 3 option years. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conformed to the solicitation and was most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. The RFP listed as technical evaluation factors (1) staff; (2) management plan; and (3) past/current contract performance and prior experience, and stated that the combined merit of these factors would be more significant than price in the selection decision. The agency received 15 proposals in response to the RFP. The contracting officer established a competitive range of four proposals, with the following technical scores and prices for the base and option years: Technical scores Prices 100 $10,102,800 100 $12,559,400 95 $29,294,080 87 $24,252,580 Intown's proposal, priced at $23,250,240 and assigned a technical score of 76, was considered unacceptable. The agency ultimately awarded a contract to Golden Feather Realty Services, Inc. at a price of $9,310,800. The evaluation of proposals and the resulting determination of whether a particular offer is in the competitive range are matters within the discretion of the contracting agency, since it is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. Crown Logistics Servs., B-253740, Oct. 19, 1993, 93-2 CPD Para. 228. In reviewing challenges to an agency's competitive range determination, our Office does not independently reevaluate proposals; rather, we examine the evaluation to determine whether it was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation criteria. Id. Intown's challenge to the evaluation focuses on a number of criticisms by agency evaluators concerning the firm's proposal. For instance, under the staff evaluation factor, on which Intown was assigned 50 out of 60 possible points, the evaluators commented that "[s]ome of the key personnel will only be assigned to this contract for one month." Intown argues that this comment, while true, ignores the permanent assignment of several key personnel to the contract. Intown also argues that no firm, except the incumbent, can have staff standing by and available for this contract. The agency explains that the evaluators were concerned with Intown's plan to assign some key personnel to the contract for 1 month and then replace them. The evaluators believed this arrangement could create a lack of continuity, that there would be insufficient time to establish a working relationship with HUD, and that the replacement staff would not have appropriate knowledge and experience. We have no basis to conclude that the evaluators' concerns were unreasonable. First, although Intown states that the evaluators ignored the permanent assignment of several key personnel to the contract, since the criticism focused on "some" key personnel, we think it is implicit that the evaluators recognized that other key personnel would be permanently assigned. Moreover, Intown concedes that it proposed to assign staff to the contract and then to replace those personnel a month later.