Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc, B-279565.5, March 19,

B-279565.5 Mar 19, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where agency reasonably determined that features were unlikely to contribute significantly to satisfying agency's stated needs. 2. Protest that discussions were not meaningful because agency failed to point out excesses in protester's technical proposal is denied where claimed beneficial features in fact were not excesses. Rather (1) were considered by the agency to be desirable. (2) were simply protester's approach to complying with the solicitation requirements. CESI argues that HUD's new determination that Halifax's proposal offered the best value to the government was based on an unreasonable evaluation. Award was to be made on a best value basis. A maximum of 300 evaluation points were available under two technical evaluation factors: (1) management and plan of operations (140 points). View Decision Matter of: Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc File: B-279565.5 Date: March 19, 1999 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. (CESI) protests the Department of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD) reevaluation of proposals undertaken in response to our decision in Consolidated Eng'g Servs., Inc., B-279565.2, B-279565.3, June 26, 1998, 99-1 CPD Para. ___. In that decision, we sustained CESI's protest against the 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 argues that HUD's new determination that Halifax's proposal offered the best value to the government was based on an unreasonable evaluation. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued on April 23, 1997, 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 price. A maximum of 300 evaluation points were available under two technical evaluation factors: (1) management and plan of operations (140 points), which included subfactors for phase-in, staffing, quality control, day-to-day work, materials and supplies, training, emergency response, interface with HUD management, and method for reporting building deficiencies and problems; and (2) experience and qualifications (160 points), which included subfactors for company profile, experience in performing custodial, elevator, operations and maintenance, security, electrical, space alterations, mail, audio visual, moving, painting, parking, landscape, locksmith and messenger services, and key personnel. A maximum 14 extra points were available under a small business subcontracting program evaluation factor. In the original evaluation, HUD's technical evaluation panel (TEP) recommended award to Halifax on the basis that Halifax's best and final offer (BAFO) received the highest technical score--289 points, compared to CESI's next highest 282 points--and had the lowest evaluated price ($44,864,494, compared to CESI's $45,410,864). Source Selection Recommendation, Feb. 5, 1998, at 4-5. In sustaining CESI's protest against the ensuing award to Halifax, we concluded that the evaluation record did not establish that HUD had properly evaluated the relative merits of CESI's and Halifax's proposals. Specifically, neither the contemporaneous evaluation record nor the agency's response to CESI's protest adequately explained why the two proposals were rated similarly--with CESI receiving the maximum 140 points available under the management and plan of operations factor and Halifax also receiving a near perfect rating of 139 points--despite certain of CESI's proposed features that, on their face, appeared to be potentially beneficial to the agency such that they reasonably could be expected to be reflected in the evaluation results. In addition, we found that HUD unreasonably had assigned Halifax's proposal a 3-point higher score for proposed elevator maintenance organization, under the experience and qualifications factor, even though both offerors proposed the incumbent HUD elevator maintenance contractor. We recommended that the agency reevaluate proposals consistent with our decision. In its reevaluation of Halifax's and CESI's proposals, the TEP determined that, although the proposals indicated that both offerors were "very capable of performing" the contract, Halifax had a "superior technical proposal" because of the overall strength and experience of its subcontractors, its stronger staffing plan, and the more complete and comprehensive information in its proposal. /1/ Source Selection Recommendation, Oct. 5, 1998, at 2-4.