WECO Cleaning Specialists, Inc, B-279305, June 3, 1998

B-279305 Jun 03, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Do not constitute discussions since the information solicited was not necessary to determine the acceptability of the awardee's proposal and did not provide the awardee an opportunity to modify its proposal. WECO principally contends that the agency should have conducted discussions. Proposals were to be evaluated using the best value methodology on the basis of three factors: (1) promised value. The factors were listed in descending order of importance. Scoring of the LOCAR factor was to be based upon the scoring of two subfactors: (1) the extent to which an offeror's experience is "similar in size. Both subfactors were to be scored on a 0 to 1.00 scale. 661) by the November 4 submission deadline were evaluated by an evaluation panel composed of three individuals. View Decision Matter of: WECO Cleaning Specialists, Inc File: B-279305 Date: June 3, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION WECO Cleaning Specialists, Inc. protests the award of a fixed-price contract to Beautify Professional Cleaning Service, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP-98-3288, issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for janitorial services. WECO principally contends that the agency should have conducted discussions, rather than making award on the basis of initial proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on September 16, 1997, required offerors to submit their proposals in two volumes: (1) business and pricing information and (2) experience and past performance information. Proposals were to be evaluated using the best value methodology on the basis of three factors: (1) promised value--an offeror's acceptability; (2) level of confidence--in the offeror's capability to perform--assessment rating (LOCAR); and (3) price. The factors were listed in descending order of importance. As pertinent to this protest, scoring of the LOCAR factor was to be based upon the scoring of two subfactors: (1) the extent to which an offeror's experience is "similar in size, scope, and complexity" to SSA's requirements and (2) past performance--how well the offeror had performed on prior contracts listed by the offeror in its proposal. Both subfactors were to be scored on a 0 to 1.00 scale. The RFP reserved the right to award without discussions on the basis of the initial proposals received. The 24 proposals received (prices ranged from $1,630,670 to $3,944,661) by the November 4 submission deadline were evaluated by an evaluation panel composed of three individuals. Each evaluator individually evaluated each proposal, and then the three evaluators reached a consensus rating for each proposal based on their own separate evaluations. After arriving at a consensus rating, the scoring was recorded and an award recommendation was made to the contracting officer. Even though WECO's price was lower that Beautify's, award was made to Beautify based on initial offers. Beautify's proposal was determined to represent the best value in view of the .55 score given WECO's proposal compared to the .90 score given to Beautify's proposal on the experience subfactor of the LOCAR factor. (Each firm received a perfect score of 1.00 on the past performance subfactor.) The evaluators found that WECO failed to elaborate on the scope and complexity of its prior experience and that the information provided "was very vague." The evaluators were concerned that the company did not understand the scope and complexity of the work. In contrast, while Beautify's narrative in some instances did not sufficiently explain the scope and complexity of prior contracts, Beautify had furnished copies of the statements of work from these contracts which supported the significantly higher experience score. The evaluators recommended award to Beautify. However, the project officer, who also was the evaluation panel chairman, still believed that Beautify's price might be too low to perform the work required, and he, accordingly, asked Beautify to submit cost and pricing data. After reviewing this data, the project officer still had some concerns regarding Beautify's low price due to staffing levels and some supply estimates. However, after checking with the references provided by Beautify as to Beautify's performance on prior contracts, he decided that Beautify could successfully perform at its proposed price. The contract was, therefore, awarded to Beautify. Following a debriefing, WECO filed this protest. WECO contends that SSA improperly evaluated Beautify's proposal by considering information that was not requested by the RFP. According to WECO, the RFP required offerors to summarize prior contract experience. WECO asserts that it complied with this requirement and was downgraded for not providing more information.