Property Analysts, Inc., B-277266, September 12, 1997

B-277266 Sep 12, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Firm which submitted the highest priced of three technically equal proposals is not an interested party to protest an award since price properly was the determinative factor for award and protester would not be in line for award if the protest were sustained. General Accounting Office will not consider challenges to contracting officer's affirmative determination of awardee's responsibility absent evidence of bad faith. The contractor will perform on-site field reviews of appraisals to determine the accuracy and quality of the appraisals completed by authorized appraisers. Offerors were advised that field review appraisers must be licensed by the State of Indiana and that this licensing requirement could be satisfied through reciprocity or temporary practice provisions to the extent permitted by state law. View Decision Matter of: Property Analysts, Inc. File: B-277266 Date: September 12, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Property Analysts, Inc. (PAI) protests the award of a contract to MT Mullen Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. HO5R96010800000, issued by the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) for field review of appraisals for single family homes in the Northern Indiana geographic area. PAI protests the technical acceptability of Mullen's proposal and contends that the contracting officer otherwise improperly determined Mullen to be a responsible contractor. We dismiss the protest. The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base period and two 1-year options, not to exceed 36 months in total. The contractor will perform on-site field reviews of appraisals to determine the accuracy and quality of the appraisals completed by authorized appraisers. Offerors were advised that field review appraisers must be licensed by the State of Indiana and that this licensing requirement could be satisfied through reciprocity or temporary practice provisions to the extent permitted by state law. The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. The RFP stated that technical merit would be more significant than price in the award selection, and listed the following technical evaluation factors to be scored on a 100-point scale: work accomplishment (25 points), ability to perform (25 points), capacity (20 points), appraisal knowledge (20 points), and management plan (10 points). Price was not rated or scored but would be evaluated for reasonableness. The RFP further advised offerors that total evaluated price could be the determining factor for award if there were no significant technical or management differences among proposals. Proposals were received from five firms, including PAI and Mullen, by the July 1, 1996, closing date. [1] The proposals were evaluated by a three- member technical evaluation panel (TEP) and four proposals, including those submitted by PAI and Mullen, were determined to be technically acceptable and within the competitive range. On August 21, discussions were held, best and final offers (BAFOs) were requested, and three BAFOs were timely received and evaluated. Because the TEP considered the three competing proposals technically equivalent, the TEP recommended Mullen for award, noting that the firm has successfully performed under prior FRA contracts and offered the lowest evaluated price. However, the contracting officer was aware of a June 25, 1996, Small Business Administration (SBA) determination that MTB Investments, Inc. (the incumbent contractor) was other than a small business. Since this determination indicated that Mullen was affiliated with MTB Investments, the contracting officer questioned Mullen's self-certification as a small business concern. On September 13, the contracting officer filed a size status protest with the SBA regarding the business size standard representation of Mullen. After various appeals to the SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals and the submission of additional information by MTB Investments, the SBA ultimately determined that MTB, and its affiliate Mullen, was small under the size standard in this procurement and, as of February 19, 1997, recertified the firm as small and therefore eligible to participate in this procurement. Thereafter, on February 28, the contracting officer sent discussion letters to the three offerors who had submitted BAFOs. Each was asked to update/supplement its prior BAFO submission, including any changes to proposed key personnel and the use of subcontractors/appraisers, and to provide the names and current appraisal licenses for each proposed appraiser. A two-member TEP reconvened to evaluate the three offerors' responses to the contracting officer's discussion request.