Pearl Properties, Inc., B-277250.2, September 18, 1997

B-277250.2 Sep 18, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of elimination of protester's proposal from the competitive range based on disagreement with agency's evaluation is denied where the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation. Pearl alleges that its proposal was improperly evaluated because HUD improperly disregarded corporate experience by a predecessor firm and because HUD considered an allegedly erroneous negative past performance report. The RFP was issued on July 24. 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. View Decision Matter of: Pearl Properties, Inc. File: B-277250.2 Date: September 18, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Pearl 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. Pearl alleges that its proposal was improperly evaluated because HUD improperly disregarded corporate experience by a predecessor firm and because HUD considered an allegedly erroneous negative past performance report. 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 Pearl'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 Pearl 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 the method of performance Pearl was proposing, negative past performance information received from one of HUD's offices, and certain aspects of Pearl's proposed management of the contract. The letter also transmitted an amendment to the RFP. HUD instructed Pearl to submit an amended proposal and to complete a pricing schedule that was included in the solicitation amendment. Pearl submitted an amended proposal, which was evaluated with the result that the protester's overall score improved by a total of 3 points. Nonetheless, the TEP continued to have concerns regarding the firm's lack of experience in managing a large inventory of properties and concluded that Pearl had not provided information to adequately refute the reference reports of Pearl's poor past performance. Nine amended technical proposals were considered superior to Pearl's, of which seven offered a lower price. Based on its relative standing, the contracting officer concluded that Pearl's proposal did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award and excluded it from the competitive range. Pearl was notified of its exclusion on June 2, and requested a pre-award debriefing. HUD provided a written debriefing on June 5, and this protest followed. The contract award has been stayed pending resolution of the protest. Pearl alleges that its proposal was excluded from the competitive range as the result of an improper evaluation. First, Pearl argues that it has 15 years of experience in the management of government properties and that this "more than qualifies it to receive the full 30 points for Factor (1)." Pearl asserts that its low score in this area must be the result of HUD's failure to consider the experience of its predecessor, Pearl Properties, Ltd. 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.