Beautify Professional Cleaning Service, Inc., B-277238,

B-277238 Aug 19, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST A customer complaint program used by an agency as part of its quality assurance plan as a means for collecting information regarding the contractor's performance is not objectionable where it is the assessment by the government of the contractor's performance. Which will determine whether contract deductions are warranted. The RFP was issued on April 25. The RFP summarized this detailed listing of what would constitute an "outstanding" level of cleaning by stating that this level of performance would deliver a "highly defect-free environment" and by stating that when at least 90 percent of all items or surfaces cleaned are free of any of the conditions described. The RFP explained that the purpose of these meetings is to review the contractor's compliance with the customer satisfaction and cleanliness components of the government's quality assurance plan. View Decision Matter of: Beautify Professional Cleaning Service, Inc. File: B-277238 Date: August 19, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Beautify Professional Cleaning Service, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-97-P(GG)-0025, issued by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, for custodial services for a large number of government buildings. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on April 25, 1997, and contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract. As relevant to this protest, the RFP's statement of work categorized space in existing and any future buildings into five room groups (public, staff, health, support, and exterior) and identified five performance/acceptable quality levels (outstanding, very good, good, fair, and minimal) for each room group. The RFP contained a detailed list of the conditions likely to be evident at each performance level. For example, for an "outstanding" level of cleaning, the RFP required that waste containers be empty of trash and litter; that dust very rarely be seen on some surfaces; that litter only rarely be seen on a surface or in any container; that corners and edges exhibit insignificant detailing problems; that streak or residue problems rarely be seen on any surface; that buildup or neglect problems not be evident on any item or surface; that there be excellent gloss or shine on floor and polishable surfaces; that spots or marks rarely be visible on any surface; and that carpeted floors and furniture exhibit insignificant fiber, litter, or dust buildup problems. The RFP summarized this detailed listing of what would constitute an "outstanding" level of cleaning by stating that this level of performance would deliver a "highly defect-free environment" and by stating that when at least 90 percent of all items or surfaces cleaned are free of any of the conditions described, the performance would be considered "[w]orld [c]lass." The RFP also described the government's quality assurance plan. Under the direction of the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR), the government would assess customer satisfaction (complaint management and customer survey) and the cleanliness of the work environment (continuous improvement and acceptable quality levels by room group) to measure, monitor, and evaluate the contractor's compliance with acceptable quality levels. The COTR would meet with the contractor's project manager on a weekly basis during the first 2 months of the contract and after this period, at least once a month. The RFP explained that the purpose of these meetings is to review the contractor's compliance with the customer satisfaction and cleanliness components of the government's quality assurance plan, to review the monthly accomplishment report, and to resolve issues that adversely impact the contractor's performance. Finally, the RFP incorporated by reference the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.246-4, captioned "Inspection of Services--Fixed Price," which reserves the government's right to inspect all services at all times during the contract and, when defects in service cannot be corrected by reperformance, to reduce the contract price for services that do not conform with the contract requirements. The protester first argues that the RFP used ambiguous terms, for example, "highly defect-free environment" and "world class," to summarize what the agency would consider an "outstanding" level of performance. [1] We disagree, since the protester's position is not supported by the record. To the extent there was any ambiguity in the RFP as initially issued, the record shows that by amendment No. 1 (containing answers to potential offerors' pre-proposal questions), the agency clearly explained that the quoted terms were defined by the detailed conditions listed in the RFP for the five quality levels.