Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc., B-277273, September

B-277273 Sep 24, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights That reference was from protester's parent company. Protester failed to include information in proposal showing work performed under that contract was similar to work under the solicitation. Eleven offers were received and were evaluated with scores ranging from 2.3 to 8.7 (on a 10-point scale). Were significantly superior to the others (the next highest-ranked offer received 5.9 points) and should be included in the competitive range. Consolidated's proposal was ranked tenth. EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE The experience and past performance factor was worth 40 percent of the evaluation score. Offerors were to "demonstrate that. Each of which must have been at least 12 months in duration . . . and for services similar in size and scope to those required by this solicitation and that [they] have provided satisfactory services.". View Decision Matter of: Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. File: B-277273 Date: September 24, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under General Services Administration (GSA) solicitation No. GS-07P-97-HXC-0007, for commercial facilities management services at four federal buildings in Texas. We deny the protest. The RFP indicated that the awardee would be selected on a best value basis considering two technical factors--staffing and work schedules (with three subfactors), and experience and past performance--and cost (less important than technical). Eleven offers were received and were evaluated with scores ranging from 2.3 to 8.7 (on a 10-point scale). GSA determined that the three top-rated offers--with scores of 8.7, 8.1, and 8.0--were significantly superior to the others (the next highest-ranked offer received 5.9 points) and should be included in the competitive range. Consolidated's proposal was ranked tenth, with a score of 3.5. Consolidated's score reflected a finding of deficiencies in the experience and past performance factor and the operation, maintenance, repair, and supervisory staff subfactor. EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE The experience and past performance factor was worth 40 percent of the evaluation score. The RFP required that offerors provide specific information on prior contracts; specifically, offerors were to "demonstrate that, within the last 5 years, for a minimum of three (3) contracts, each of which must have been at least 12 months in duration . . . and for services similar in size and scope to those required by this solicitation and that [they] have provided satisfactory services." The RFP stated that the agency would contact the firms for which the work was performed for an evaluation of the offeror's performance, and added: "Offerors are cautioned to submit accessible references. References which cannot be contacted and/or verified will not be considered." The information required to be provided included: type of facility and gross square footage; type of services performed under the contract (i.e., mechanical maintenance and operation, custodial, etc.); date of contract start and expiration; and name, title, complete address, and telephone number of reference contact. Consolidated's proposal included information pertaining to four clients for which it had performed contracts: the Office of Thrift Supervision; NationsBank; the Washington Navy Yard; and the Charles E. Smith Company (Smith). However, some of the required information was omitted. For NationsBank, the protester submitted the name of a reference and a telephone number, but no address, and when the agency attempted to contact the reference, it was told that the number was disconnected or not in service. The agency sent letters to the three other references. Neither the Navy Yard nor the Office of Thrift Supervision responded to the letters, and when the agency then attempted to contact the Navy Yard by telephone, it learned that the number provided by Consolidated was not a Navy Yard number, and that no one recognized the name of the individual Consolidated identified. Smith did respond to the reference request with an excellent rating. The agency noted, however, that Smith was the parent company of the protester and, further, that it was not clear that the work performed for Smith was similar to that required by the solicitation. Based on these considerations, GSA assigned Consolidated's proposal 0.8 (out of 4 available) weighted points for this factor. Consolidated challenges the evaluation under this factor on several grounds. First, it maintains that GSA should have made a better effort to contact the references it provided in its proposal. Thus, for example, Consolidated believes that when the agency could not contact the NationsBank reference, the agency should have attempted to get a more recent phone number and an address from directory assistance.