HSG-SKE

HSG-SKE BNUMBER: B-274769; B-274769.3 DATE: January 6, 1997 TITLE: HSG-SKE ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:HSG-SKE File: B-274769; B-274769.3 Date:January 6, 1997 John S. Pachter, Esq., and Jonathan Shaffer, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & D'Ambrosio, and Otto K. Weixler, for the protester. Reed L. von Maur, Esq., and J. Casey Fos, Esq., von Maur & Partners, and Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Piper & Marbury, for Pacific Architects and Engineers GmbH Planning and Construction, an intervenor. Laura Smith, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Adam Vodraska, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a solicitation for hospital facility operations and maintenance services, the agency reasonably, and in accordance with the evaluation criteria, found the awardee's low priced proposal, which was reasonably found to be essentially technically equivalent to the protester's proposal and realistically priced, represented the best value to the government. DECISION HSG-SKE, a joint venture of HSG-Holzmann Technischer Service GmbH and SKE Maintenance GmbH & Co. KG, protests the award of a contract to Pacific Architects and Engineers GmbH Planning and Construction (PAE) for physical plant operations and maintenance services at the 67th Combat Support Hospital, W�rzburg, Germany, and its outlying clinics, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA90-96-R-0053, issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wiesbaden, Germany. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract with an indefinite delivery/quantity feature for a base year with 2 option years to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the government. The RFP's evaluation scheme consisted of 3 equally weighted evaluation factors: management; technical and experience; and price. The management, and technical and experience factors were each worth 150 points for a total possible 300 points. Price was not separately scored, but was to be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. The management, and technical and experience factors contained various stated subfactors. Line items AA (management), AB (preventative maintenance-hospital), and AC (preventative maintenance-clinics and repair and new work) called for fixed lump sum prices for the base year and option years. Line items AL through AZ, BA through BZ, and CA through CL requested various fixed hourly rates for different types of crafts personnel (e.g. plumbers and electricians) for the base year and option years to perform demand maintenance, minor construction, and emergency work; when such demand services were required, the Corps would negotiate a work order with the contractor based on the proposed labor rates. The RFP informed offerors that prices, including the hourly labor rates, should be inclusive of all general administrative costs, direct/indirect costs, profit, and any other incidental costs associated with performance of the contract. The agency received 4 proposals in response to the RFP, including HSG's and PAE's. After the management, and technical and experience proposals were evaluated by an evaluation team, the contracting officer, who was also the source selection authority, established a competitive range of 3 proposals, including HSG's and PAE's. The contracting officer conducted discussions with, and requested best and final offers (BAFO) from, the competitive range offerors. In the final evaluation, PAE's and HSG's proposals were considered to be essentially technically equivalent, with PAE's BAFO receiving a management/technical/experience score of 266 points and HSG's BAFO a score of 262 points.[1] Because PAE's BAFO had the lowest total evaluated price of Deutsche Mark (DM) [DELETED] (as compared with HSG's BAFO's DM [DELETED] total evaluated price), the contracting officer determined that PAE's proposal represented the best value to the government. HSG protests that PAE's high technical score was unwarranted because PAE (1) failed to propose sufficient personnel to perform the contract; (2) lacked experience in operating and maintaining a fully operational hospital; and (3) failed to submit a draft preventative maintenance plan for non-critical equipment as required by the RFP.