NAHB Research Center, Inc., B-278876.2, May 4, 1998

B-278876.2 May 04, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest is denied where protester does not demonstrate that agency's evaluation of experience/performance was unreasonable so as to result in competitive prejudice to the protester. Awards were to be made to the responsible offerors whose conforming offers were most advantageous to the government. Which was equal in importance to the remaining factors combined. Which were nearly equal in weight and were each of greater importance than (4) management plan. The evaluation of the proposals submitted by the awardees and NAHB was as follows: TECHNICAL (experience + personnel + capabilities + management) = overall technical PRICE EY (1.85 + .86 + .65 + .16) = 3.52 $9.679 million AA (1.43 + .85 + .62 + .16) = 3.06 $6.703 million PW (1.55 + .78 + .59 + .12) = 3.05 $11.098 million KPMG (1.38 + .83 + .64 + .17) = 3.02 $3.943 million HDW (1.90 + .66 + .34 + .11) = 3.01 $10.677 million DT (1.47 + .76 + .56 + .14) = 2.93 $7.072 million NAHB (1.37 + .61 + .48 + .12) = 2.58 $6.146 million The RFP provided that the evaluation of experience and past performance "will be based on the extent. View Decision Matter of: NAHB Research Center, Inc. File: B-278876.2 Date: May 4, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION NAHB Research Center, Inc. protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) award of contracts to Hawkins, Delafield and Wood (HDW), Ernst & Young (EY), Deloitte & Touche (DT), Price Waterhouse (PW), KPMG Peat Warwick, and Arthur Anderson (AA), under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS11P97MMD970011, for professional consulting services. NAHB challenges GSA's evaluation of experience and past performance. We deny the protest. The solicitation contemplated award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for a 1-year base period, with 4 option years, for the professional services of project managers, budget analysts, financial analysts, architect/planners, market analysts, management consultants, and attorneys in support of the Department of Defense's housing privatization program. Awards were to be made to the responsible offerors whose conforming offers were most advantageous to the government, with price significantly less important than technical considerations. The solicitation listed the following four technical factors: (1) experience and past performance on similar projects, which was equal in importance to the remaining factors combined; and (2) key and operating personnel and (3) capabilities of the offeror, which were nearly equal in weight and were each of greater importance than (4) management plan. GSA received timely proposals from 16 offerors and selected 6 for award. The evaluation of the proposals submitted by the awardees and NAHB was as follows: TECHNICAL (experience + personnel + capabilities + management) = overall technical PRICE EY (1.85 + .86 + .65 + .16) = 3.52 $9.679 million AA (1.43 + .85 + .62 + .16) = 3.06 $6.703 million PW (1.55 + .78 + .59 + .12) = 3.05 $11.098 million KPMG (1.38 + .83 + .64 + .17) = 3.02 $3.943 million HDW (1.90 + .66 + .34 + .11) = 3.01 $10.677 million DT (1.47 + .76 + .56 + .14) = 2.93 $7.072 million NAHB (1.37 + .61 + .48 + .12) = 2.58 $6.146 million The RFP provided that the evaluation of experience and past performance "will be based on the extent, depth and quality of recent experience in performing the same or similar work," with "[p]articular emphasis [to] be placed on the degree to which the offeror's management can demonstrate a relationship between their past performance experience and the requirements of the proposed contract." Section M.3(a). The RFP required that "[t]he offeror . . . submit seven (7) references for projects performed by the offeror within the last five (5) years that are most similar to the requirements of this contract. The government will randomly select five (5) of these references for evaluation." Section L.13c(1)(B). The solicitation required the offerors to "ensure that each reference shall be willing to complete . . . a questionnaire" asking for "ratings of the Offeror's timeliness of performance, cost control, quality of the product, business relationships, design excellence, and qualification/continuity of personnel." Section M.3(a). NAHB and each of the awardees furnished the required seven references. However, while all of NAHB's references responded by furnishing a completed questionnaire, only some of the awardees' references responded; six references responded for one awardee (AA) (but only two of the responses were timely and were evaluated), five for another (KPMG), and only two (EY) or three (DT, HDW /1/ and PW) for the remaining awardees.