Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc, B-279565.2; B-

Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc, B-279565.2; B- BNUMBER: B-279565.2; B-279565.3 DATE: June 26, 1998 TITLE: Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc, B-279565.2; B- 279565.3, June 26, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc File:B-279565.2; B-279565.3 Date:June 26, 1998 Thomas J. Madden, Esq., Jerome S. Gabig, Jr., Esq., and Johana A. Reed, Esq., Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, for the protester. Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., and Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray, Ruffner & Werfel, for Halifax Technical Services, Inc., an intervenor. Richard A. Marchese, Esq., Department of Housing & Urban Development, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is sustained where (1) protester argues that agency's relative assessment of proposals improperly failed to reflect specific beneficial features that allegedly made its proposal superior to awardee's, (2) it appears from record that the features in fact may have offered some significant benefit, and (3) the agency only generally asserts that the evaluation took the features offered by all offerors into consideration, without explaining or providing evidence showing why the protester's proposed features did not result in a superior score for protester's proposal under the relevant evaluation factor. 2. Agency improperly downgraded protester's proposal relative to awardee's based on awardee's more detailed description of proposed elevator maintenance subcontractor's experience; since protester and awardee proposed same subcontractor, they should have received same score for subcontractor's experience. DECISION Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. (CESI) protests the Department of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD) award of a contract to Halifax Technical Services, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DU100C000018529, for commercial facilities management services with respect to the HUD headquarters building in Washington, D.C. CESI challenges the evaluation results. We sustain the protest. The solicitation provided for award of a contract for a base year with four 1-year options, for custodial, security, operation and maintenance, elevator maintenance, landscape, mail, messenger, audio-visual, moving/receiving, parking, painting, electrical, space alteration, and locksmith services. Award was to be made on a best value basis, with technical factors more significant than cost/price (the contract is to contain both cost-reimbursement and fixed-price elements). A maximum of 300 evaluation points were to be available under two technical evaluation factors--management and plan of operations (140 points), and experience and qualifications (160 points)--each of which included a number of subfactors. An additional maximum of 14 extra points were available under a small business subcontracting program evaluation factor. HUD received proposals from Halifax, CESI and six other offerors; Halifax's, CESI's and three other proposals were included in the competitive range. At the conclusion of discussions, the agency requested best and final offers (BAFO). Based upon the evaluation of BAFOs, the technical evaluation panel (TEP) recommended award to Halifax. The TEP noted that Halifax's proposal received the highest technical score--289 points, compared to CESI's next highest 282 points--and found Halifax's proposal to be "technically superior because it received the maximum scores in factors for which other offerors had weaknesses." Source Selection Recommendation of February 5, 1998, at 4. Further, Halifax's evaluated cost, $45,159,742, was slightly lower than CESI's $45,595,733. (Another proposal was slightly lower-cost than Halifax's, but the agency determined that this was offset by Halifax's proposal's technical superiority.) The source selection official concurred in the TEP's recommendation and made award to Halifax. EVALUATION OF BENEFICIAL FEATURES CESI argues that the evaluation of Halifax's and CESI's proposals failed to reflect certain beneficial features of CESI's proposal which warranted CESI's proposal being rated technically superior to Halifax's. In this regard, although CESI's proposal received the maximum 140 available points under the management and plan of operations factor, Halifax's also received a near perfect rating of 139 points. In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, our Office will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria.