UNICCO Government Services, Inc., B-277658, November 7, 1997

B-277658 Nov 07, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The protester's mere disagreement with an agency's evaluation of the awardee's experience and past performance does not demonstrate that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable. An agency's site visit to a facility/building identified by the awardee as an experience/past performance reference does not constitute discussions where no information was obtained from the awardee that was essential for determining the acceptability of the awardee's offer or that modified or revised the awardee's proposal. Proposals were to be submitted in two volumes: an experience/past performance information volume and a price proposal volume. Offerors were to include in the experience/past performance information volume an "Experience Reference Matrix. View Decision Matter of: UNICCO Government Services, Inc. File: B-277658 Date: November 7, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION UNICCO Government Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Meridian Management Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP-97-2660, issued by the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) for consolidated facility management services at the Harold Washington Social Security Center (HWSSC) in Chicago, Illinois. UNICCO challenges the SSA's evaluation of Meridian's and UNICCO's proposals and failure to conduct discussions with UNICCO. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, requirements contract for consolidated facilities management services at the HWSSC building for a base with 4 option years. These services include mechanical equipment operation and maintenance, elevator maintenance, sustaining maintenance, custodial services, security (armed guard services), and utilities. Proposals were to be submitted in two volumes: an experience/past performance information volume and a price proposal volume. Offerors were to include in the experience/past performance information volume an "Experience Reference Matrix," on which they were to identify contracts that had either been awarded or completed within the last 3 years. Offerors were admonished to include a sufficient number of "citations/references" to demonstrate their relevant experience and past performance. The RFP requested 19 items of information that offerors were to provide for each citation; for example, offerors were to identify, among other things, the client name and address, provide the name and location of the contracting officer and contracting officer's technical representative, describe the services rendered, including information on the building/facility size and population. In addition, offerors were required to indicate and describe the extent to which the work required under the listed citation was applicable to the work sought by the RFP and to "[i]nclude any additional information which will further describe the activities/functions performed and demonstrate the relationship of such experience to the requirements of this solicitation." Offerors were cautioned that they should demonstrate that the contracts identified were similar in size, scope, and/or complexity to the RFP work. The RFP provided for a best value basis for award and stated that price was less important than the agency's evaluated level of confidence in an offeror. Level of confidence was to be ascertained by first evaluating each offeror's experience and past performance. In judging experience, the RFP stated that the agency would numerically rate how similar in size, scope, and complexity the offeror's experience was to the solicitation's requirements: a score of 1.00 reflected extremely similar experience; .75, very similar; .50, somewhat similar; .25, slightly similar; and .00, not similar. Experience of similar size, scope, and complexity was defined by the RFP to be: a building/facility near or approximately 750,000 square feet in size with a population near or approximately 2,300; and where facility management included, but is/was not necessarily limited to, Operations and Maintenance of Mechanical Equipment, Elevator Maintenance, Custodial and Related Services, Sustaining Maintenance, Utilities, and Armed Guard Services. In assessing past performance, offerors were informed that the agency would subjectively judge how well the offeror had satisfied its customers, obeyed applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, and conducted its business in an ethical manner. The RFP stated that past performance would be numerically scored as follows: 1.00, entirely favorable past performance; .75, more favorable than unfavorable past performance; .50, neutral, inconclusive, or no past performance; .25, more unfavorable than favorable past performance; .00, entirely unfavorable past performance.