Tidewater Homes Realty, Inc.

B-274689 Dec 26, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's best value award selection is not reasonably supported where the record reflects that the selection of the awardee was based on an unequal evaluation of the protester's and awardee's proposals. Such as is required by HUD's Minimum Property Standards (MPS). Offerors were required to submit a completed Form 477. Offerors were cautioned that: "Proposals submitted without this form will not be disqualified from competing for the award. A HUD official stated that if evidence of the foregoing license were not included in the proposal. Whose principals were a manager and former employee of the local incumbent contractor performing these services. Were included in the competitive range. View Decision Matter of: Tidewater Homes Realty, Inc. File: B-274689 Date: December 26, 1996 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Tidewater Homes Realty, Inc. protests the award of a contract to CitiWest under request for proposals (RFP) No. H03R95062400000, a total small business set-aside, issued by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for real estate asset manager (REAM) services for single-family properties owned by HUD or in its custody in Virginia Beach, Virginia area under a firm, fixed-price, indefinite quantity, contract for a base year with 4 option years. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside on June 1, 1995, provided for a best value award with the technical evaluation being worth more than cost/price. The RFP listed the following technical evaluation factors and corresponding values: 1. Demonstrated experience in the management of single-family properties similar to and in a like area as those covered by this solicitation. [25 points] 2. Demonstrated experience in developing lists of needed repairs, such as is required by HUD's Minimum Property Standards (MPS), and estimating the cost of repairs. [25 points]. 3. Demonstrated experience in soliciting repair bids, coordination and overseeing repair work, and inspecting for satisfactory work completion. [15 points] 4. Demonstrated experience in managing a rental program, including establishing fair market rentals and collections from present and former tenants, for single-family properties. [10 points] 5. Understanding of HUD objectives and the required tasks as specified in the solicitation. [10 points] 6. Evidence of adequate office--staffed with appropriately trained staff and equipped appropriately (or the ability to establish such), reasonably located so as to provide convenient service to HUD and its clients in the area to be served, and to carry out all duties specified in the solicitation. [15 points] As part of their technical proposal, offerors were required to submit a completed Form 477, List of Repairs (included in RFP), for a specified property in Virginia Beach. Offerors were cautioned that: "Proposals submitted without this form will not be disqualified from competing for the award, but omission of the form may adversely affect the offeror's technical points achieved in [factor 2]." In addition the RFP required: "The contractor must supply with its Technical Proposal evidence of its Virginia Real Estate Broker License--in the contractor's name as it appears on the offer--to be determined responsible and eligible for award." [Emphasis in original.] At the pre-proposal conference, a HUD official stated that if evidence of the foregoing license were not included in the proposal, "evidence of [the offeror's] ability to provide the license at award must be provided." The RFP expressly stated that proposals would be initially screened to ensure that they contained a Form 477 for the specified property and evidence of a Virginia Real Estate Broker License. HUD received 12 initial proposals by November 13. Tidewater, whose principals were a manager and former employee of the local incumbent contractor performing these services, and CitiWest, from Tucson, Arizona, both submitted proposals. A technical evaluation panel (TEP), comprised of members from the regional contracting office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania evaluated proposals. Five proposals, including those of Tidewater and CitiWest, were included in the competitive range. Three of the proposals, including CitiWest's, with a score of 91 points, were found technically acceptable and two, including Tidewater's, with a score of 37 points, were found capable of being made acceptable. By letter of June 21, 1996, HUD conducted discussions with the competitive range offerors, during which it advised Tidewater of the weaknesses and/or deficiencies in its proposal. HUD received best and final offers (BAFO) by July 9. CitiWest's BAFO at an evaluated unit price of $1,317 received the same technical score of 91 points.