CitiWest Properties, Inc., B-274689.4, November 26, 1997

B-274689.4 Nov 26, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contract award for real estate asset manager services for single-family properties, contending that HUD: (1) treated the protester unfairly and unequally; (2) did not conduct meaningful discussions with the protester; and (3) improperly implemented a GAO recommendation to exclude the protester's proposal from the competitive range where it had not received meaningful discussions. GAO held that: (1) HUD failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the protester; (2) HUD's reevaluation of the protester's proposal was unfair and reflected unequal treatment; and (3) HUD's implementation of disclosures from GAO's earlier decision was inappropriate. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that: (1) HUD reopen and conduct appropriate discussions with all bidders in the the first competitive range, including the protester, request best and final offers, and make a new source selection; and (2) the protester should be reimbursed for its protests costs. View Decision Matter of: CitiWest Properties, Inc. File: B-274689.4 Date: November 26, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION CitiWest Properties, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Tidewater Homes Realty, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. H03R95062400000, a total small business set-aside, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for real estate asset manager services for single-family properties owned by HUD or in its custody in the Virginia Beach, Virginia area. Although CitiWest originally received award under the RFP, in Tidewater Homes Realty, Inc., B-274689, Dec. 26, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 241, we sustained Tidewater's protest because we found that Tidewater's proposal was evaluated unequally vis-a-vis CitiWest's proposal. In response to our recommendation, HUD reevaluated proposals, determined that CitiWest's proposal was not in the competitive range, and selected Tidewater's proposal for award. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued on June 1, 1995, provided for the award of a firm, fixed- price indefinite quantity, contract for a base year with 3 option years, on a best-value basis with technical worth more than cost/price. The technical evaluation factors and corresponding values were as follows: 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 costs of repairs. [25 points] 3. Demonstrated experience in soliciting repair bids, coordinating 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] Among other things, the RFP required offerors to submit a completed Form 477, List of Repairs (included in RFP), for a specified property in Virginia Beach and cautioned that omission of the form may adversely affect the evaluation of the offeror's proposal under factor 2. The RFP also required that the offeror submit with its proposal evidence of its Virginia real estate broker license. Twelve proposals were received in response to the RFP, including one from Tidewater, whose principals were a manager and former employee of the local incumbent contractor, and one from CitiWest from Tucson, Arizona. Five proposals, including CitiWest's, which received a score of 91 points, and Tidewater's, which received a score of 37 points, were found to be in the competitive range and received discussions. HUD advised Tidewater and the other offerors of the weaknesses/deficiencies in their technical proposals. Among other things, HUD asked Tidewater to provide additional information detailing its experience, more specificity in its Form 477, and information establishing the adequacy of its proposed office. CitiWest, on the other hand, was not advised of any specific weaknesses/deficiencies in its technical proposal.