Shel-Ken Properties, Inc., B-277250, September 18, 1997

B-277250 Sep 18, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of elimination of proposal from the competitive range based on disagreement with agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal is denied where the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation. Shel-Ken alleges that its proposal was improperly evaluated. That the contracting officer was biased against the firm. That HUD was required to make a referral to the Small Business Administration for certificate of competency consideration before the agency could exclude Shel-Ken's proposal from the competitive range. The RFP was issued on July 24. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting "the proposal that best conforms to the solicitation. View Decision Matter of: Shel-Ken Properties, Inc. File: B-277250 Date: September 18, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Shel-Ken Properties, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. H03R96015600000, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for real estate asset management (REAM) services for single-family properties owned by HUD in its District of Columbia Office jurisdiction. Shel-Ken alleges that its proposal was improperly evaluated, that the contracting officer was biased against the firm, and that HUD was required to make a referral to the Small Business Administration for certificate of competency consideration before the agency could exclude Shel-Ken's proposal from the competitive range. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on July 24, 1996, as a total small business set-aside for the acquisition of management and other related services. The RFP listed the following evaluation factors, with their relative weights, to be scored on a 100-point scale: prior management experience (30 points); past performance (25 points); office location(s) (20 points); and management capability (25 points). Award was to be made to the offeror submitting "the proposal that best conforms to the solicitation, and is most advantageous to the Government (that proposal which represents the best value.)" The agency received 17 timely submitted proposals, including the protester's. After the proposals had been scored by individual technical evaluation panel (TEP) members, the TEP developed a consensus score for each proposal. Five offers were rated as technically acceptable, and seven offers, including Shel-Ken's, were deemed technically unacceptable in their current form but capable of being made acceptable through clarifications/discussions. These 12 proposals were included in the competitive range. On February 3, the contracting officer notified Shel-Ken by letter that its proposal was considered to be within the competitive range for further negotiations, and identified areas in the proposal that required additional information and/or clarification. The letter requested further detail or specific information regarding Shel-Ken's experience, especially the property management experience of proposed employees; past performance (such as complete mailing addresses for references); proposed satellite offices; equipment to be provided; and responsibilities of the various proposed employees. The letter also transmitted an amendment to the RFP. HUD instructed Shel-Ken to submit an amended proposal and to complete a pricing schedule that was included in the solicitation amendment. Shel-Ken submitted an amended proposal which was evaluated with the result that the protester's overall score improved by a total of 9 points. Nonetheless, the TEP concluded that the additional information and changes that Shel-Ken had provided were not sufficient to make its proposal acceptable. For example, the TEP continued to have concerns regarding the level of the firm's relevant experience and to question whether Shel-Ken proposed to provide fully equipped main and satellite offices. Five amended technical proposals were considered superior to Shel-Ken's. Among these five, three offered a lower price. The contracting officer concluded that Shel-Ken's proposal did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award and excluded it from the competitive range. Shel-Ken was notified of its exclusion, and this protest followed. The contract award has been stayed pending resolution of the protest. Shel-Ken alleges that its proposal was excluded from the competitive range as the result of an improper evaluation. First, Shel-Ken essentially argues that its prior experience was not given the credit to which it was entitled under the evaluation criterion. The RFP lists "prior management experience" as the most heavily-weighted single technical evaluation factor, and states: The offeror shall provide evidence of the offeror's experience in the management of single family properties similar to the type of inventory covered by this solicitation.