Matter of:B & K Enterprises

B-276066 May 07, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency should have given extra credit during proposal evaluation for hospital-specific experience is without merit. Protester's contention that allowing the awardee to substitute the protester's janitorial personnel for the personnel identified in the awardee's proposal presents no basis for concluding that the substitution of personnel constitutes an improper "bait and switch" where there was no limitation on substitution of personnel in the solicitation and there is no basis to conclude that the qualifications of the proposed personnel influenced the evaluation such that allowing the substitution would compromise the validity of the technical evaluation. Present expertise and [p]ersonnel that will perform the services under this [j]anitorial [s]ervice contract. "a. View Decision Matter of: B & K Enterprises File: B-276066 Date: May 7, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION B & K Enterprises protests the award of a contract to P. E. Hoover Enterprises, Inc. under solicitation No. 544-001-97, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for janitorial services. The protester asserts that the agency did not evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria listed in the solicitation. We deny the protest. On September 13, 1996, the agency issued the solicitation for a firm, fixed-price contract for a base year, with two 1-year option periods, to furnish all personnel and materials necessary to provide janitorial service at its outpatient clinic in Greenville, South Carolina. The solicitation incorporated by reference the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 52.215-16, providing for award based on the offer most advantageous to the government, price, and other factors, specified elsewhere in the solicitation, considered. Section M of the RFP, which contained the selection criteria for award, stated that the agency would score proposals, on a scale of 100 points, and listed the evaluation factors, in descending order of importance, as follows: "1. Offeror's previous experience, present expertise and [p]ersonnel that will perform the services under this [j]anitorial [s]ervice contract. "a. Offeror must provide three references with full names and addresses, point of contract and telephone number of others they have performed similar services for. If [o]fferor has performed similar services for other [g]overnment agencies, please provide this information also. Offeror will submit resume of individuals to perform the work under this contract. "b. Information should include at a minimum the offeror's record of conforming to the specifications and to standards of good workmanship, adherence to cont[r]act schedules and offeror's history for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction. "2. Offeror's understanding of the 'Scope of Work.' Offeror's [a]bility to successfully comply with contract requirements and offeror's proposed *Quality Control Program. "3. [Price]: The lowest evaluation price in Section B will be given the maximum points available for [price] evaluation purposes. Each other offeror will receive a percentage of the maximum points allowed for this factor based on the ratio of their [price] to the lowest [price]." The statement of work (SOW) required a minimum of three employees, with a minimum of 1-year experience in housekeeping/janitorial service, one of which would be a working supervisor "on duty daily and during special cleaning projects." Work hours encompassed a 40-hour work week--8 hours a day, 5 days a week. The SOW required the supervisor to have 2 years experience with housekeeping in a health care environment. The solicitation contained no limitation on substitution of personnel, but the SOW required the contractor to submit documentation and references of previous employment for all personnel. The agency received nine proposals on October 15 and referred them to a technical evaluation panel. The panel performed an evaluation, and the agency conducted discussions. The evaluation panel reviewed the offerors' responses to discussion questions, and the agency then asked the offerors to submit their best and final offers (BAFO) by December 11. The BAFOs of Hoover and the protester received the maximum technical score of 90 out of 90 available points. However, Hoover's slightly lower price received 5 out of 10 available price points, versus 4 points for the protester. On January 16, 1997, the agency awarded a contract to Hoover, and this protest followed. The protester's initial contention is that its specific VA hospital experience should have been the basis for a higher evaluation rating. This argument is untimely to the extent that B & K contends that the solicitation should have specifically provided for the consideration of such experience. 4 C.F.R. Sec.