U.S. Property Management Service Corporation, B-278727, March

B-278727 Mar 06, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where both firms were newly formed corporations. The RFP provided for award based on a cost/technical tradeoff and stated that the combined weight of the technical evaluation factors was more significant than price (including options). Proposed staffing was stated to be a consideration under the office location(s) factor. The qualifications of the "offeror" were to be evaluated under the prior management experience factor. Offerors were asked to supply references for recent. Did not submit a proposal because it is not a small business. Property and the president of ESA are former Intown managers. For the purpose of submitting independent propoals in response to the RFP. /1/ Because they were newly formed corporations. View Decision Matter of: U.S. Property Management Service Corporation File: B-278727 Date: March 6, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION U.S. Property Management Service Corporation protests the award of a contract to Ernie Stefkovic Associates, Inc. (ESA) 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. We sustain the protest. HUD issued the RFP on July 24, 1996, as a total small business set-aside for the acquisition of management and other related services. The RFP contemplated a fixed-price, indefinite quantity contract for a base year with 2 option years. RFP Sec. B.2, B.3. The RFP stated that HUD anticipated an inventory on the effective date of award to include approximately 850 to 900 properties. RFP Sec. L at 182. The RFP provided for award based on a cost/technical tradeoff and stated that the combined weight of the technical evaluation factors was more significant than price (including options). RFP Sec. M(a) at 191. The RFP listed the following technical 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). RFP Sec. L at 184-85, M at 192. Proposed staffing was stated to be a consideration under the office location(s) factor, which required "evidence of an adequately staffed and equipped office (or offices)," and the management capability factor, which required a description of the offeror's "proposed staffing" and information "to support the qualifications, including relevant experience, specialized training and education, of all proposed key personnel." RFP Sec. L at 185. The qualifications of the "offeror" were to be evaluated under the prior management experience factor, which required "evidence of the offeror's experience in the management of single family properties similar to the type of inventory covered by this solicitation," and the past performance factor, which required "evidence of the offeror's past performance" in accomplishing substantially similar work as required by the RFP. RFP Sec. L at 184-85. Offerors were asked to supply references for recent, relevant contract work under the prior management experience and past performance factors. Id. The agency received 17 proposals, including U.S. Property's and ESA's, by the August 23 due date. The incumbent contractor for these services, Intown Properties, Inc., did not submit a proposal because it is not a small business. The president of U.S. Property and the president of ESA are former Intown managers, who, in 1994, began their own property management company, Asset Management Specialists, Inc. (AMS). AMS did not submit a proposal in response to the RFP because a business dispute arose between the principals shortly before the August 23 proposal due date. As a result of this dispute, AMS's president formed ESA and AMS's vice president formed U.S. Property, for the purpose of submitting independent propoals in response to the RFP. /1/ Because they were newly formed corporations, both ESA and U.S. Property used their presidents' shared experience with AMS and Intown to establish their qualifications under the prior management experience and past performance factors. Both proposals identified six REAM contracts awarded to AMS, which were jointly managed by ESA's and U.S. Property's presidents. The major difference between the two proposals was in the personnel proposed. ESA proposed to retain the incumbent's key personnel and staff, and its proposal emphasized the qualifications and experience of the [deleted] proposed Intown [deleted], including a past performance reference to the incumbent contract. In comparison, U.S.