Tidewater Homes Realty, Inc., B-274689.5, August 11, 1998

B-274689.5 Aug 11, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Higher-priced one under a procurement in which technical merit was worth more than cost/price is proper where the agency reasonably determined that the higher-rated offer was not so significantly superior to the lower-rated one as to be worth the associated cost premium. The technical evaluation factors and corresponding values were as follows: 1. Such as is required by HUD's Minimum Property Standards (MPS). Twelve proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. Five proposals were included in the competitive range. Determining that its technically superior proposal was worth the additional cost. We sustained Tidewater's protest because the record evidenced that Tidewater's proposal was evaluated unequally vis. View Decision Matter of: Tidewater Homes Realty, Inc. File: B-274689.5 Date: August 11, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Tidewater Homes Realty, Inc. protests the award of a contract to CitiWest Properties, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. H03R95062400000, 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 area. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued June 1, 1995, provided for the award of a fixed-price indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with 3 option years on a best-value basis with technical factors worth more than cost/price. RFP Sec. B, M.2.a. 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 cost 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] RFP Sec. M.3. 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. RFP Sec. L.2.b. Twelve proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. Five proposals were included in the competitive range, including Tidewater's and CitiWest's. After advising the offerors (except CitiWest) of the weaknesses/deficiencies in their proposals, HUD received BAFOs. CitiWest's BAFO, at an evaluated unit price of $1,317, had no notable weaknesses/deficiencies and received a technical score of 91 points. Tidewater's BAFO, at an evaluated unit price of $1,233, received a technical score of 47 points. HUD made award to CitiWest on August 23, 1996, determining that its technically superior proposal was worth the additional cost. CitiWest has been performing the contract since that time. Tidewater protested this award, and in Tidewater Homes Realty, Inc., B-274689, Dec. 26, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 241, we sustained Tidewater's protest because the record evidenced that Tidewater's proposal was evaluated unequally vis--vis CitiWest's proposal, particularly under factors 2 and 6. In this regard, as discussed in our decision, under factor 2, Tidewater's proposal, which contained similar information and detail as Citiwest's proposal, received 6 points, while Citiwest's proposal received 24 points, despite not submitting a Form 477 or assessing the Virginia Beach property specified in the RFP. Similarly, under factor 6, the agency awarded Tidewater's proposal 7 points for being vague as to location of the office space and the division of responsibilities among staff members, even though its proposal addressed these matters, while CitiWest's proposal was awarded 12 points, despite lacking the detail that Tidewater's proposal was said to lack. In response to our decision, HUD convened a new technical evaluation panel (TEP) to reevaluate the previously submitted BAFOs. CitiWest's proposal received a score of 81 points.