Quality Elevator Company, Inc., B-276750, July 23, 1997

B-276750 Jul 23, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that contracting agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable because it was inadequately documented is denied. The government estimate is unobjectionable. That the award price was 14 percent below the government estimate does not show that the awardee's price was unreasonably low or that the price realism evaluation was inadequate. Quality argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable. The Building is 7 stories high. Is served by 16 elevators. All of which were manufactured by the U.S. Quality is the incumbent contractor. Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. This latter factor was broken down into three subfactors: qualifications and experience of the firm's management staff (20 points). View Decision Matter of: Quality Elevator Company, Inc. File: B-276750 Date: July 23, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Quality Elevator Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Maryland Elevator Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-36-96-HHS-OS, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for elevator maintenance and repair services at the agency's Hubert H. Humphrey Building in Washington, D.C. Quality argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued January 27, 1997, anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract for the maintenance and repair of all elevator equipment and systems in the Humphrey Building for 1 base year, with up to 4 option years. The Building is 7 stories high, with an additional penthouse and mechanical floors, and is served by 16 elevators, all of which were manufactured by the U.S. Elevator Company. Quality is the incumbent contractor. Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, considering technical and price factors. Technical factors would be more important than price, but proposals had to be fair and reasonably priced to be selected for award. The technical aspect of the evaluation would consider written proposals and oral presentations, both of which would be pointscored, with a total maximum possible score of 100 points. Business proposals would not be scored but would be evaluated to assess the realism of the proposed price. Written technical proposals would be evaluated under two factors: understanding of the scope of work (5 points) and qualifications of the offeror (40 points). This latter factor was broken down into three subfactors: qualifications and experience of the firm's management staff (20 points); qualifications and experience of key mechanical personnel to be assigned to the contract (10 points); and past performance (10 points). Oral presentations would be evaluated under one factor, operating plan and quality control plan (55 points), which was broken down into numerous subfactors. HHS received two proposals by the March 6 closing date, and the agency's three-member evaluation team evaluated both the written technical proposals and the oral presentations. Their individual rating sheets show that each team member assigned each proposal 100 points--the maximum points available under each factor and subfactor [1] --but made no substantive narrative comments pertaining to strengths, weaknesses, or distinctions between the two offers. The evaluation team's recommendation that award be made to Maryland, whose proposed price of $825,120 was lower than Quality's price of $1,002,420, was equally bereft of narrative comment. The contract specialist concurred with this recommendation, stating that "[t]echnical considerations were of more importance than cost, and both firms had been ranked equal technically and it had been determined by the contracting office that Maryland's price was more competitive." Award was made to Maryland on April 8. Quality filed this protest after its debriefing. Quality primarily argues that the agency's failure to document its evaluation of proposals renders that evaluation unreasonable. Quality asserts that differences between the two proposals merited, at a minimum, an explanation for the identical ratings. While judgments concerning the evaluation of proposals are by their nature subjective, they must be reasonable; such judgments must bear a rational relationship to the announced criteria upon which proposals were to be evaluated. Management Technology, Inc., B-257269.2, Nov. 8, 1994, 95-1 CPD Para. 248 at 6-7. Implicit in the foregoing is that the rationale for these judgments must be documented in sufficient detail to show that they are not arbitrary and that there was a reasonable basis for the selection decision. Id. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec.