Ervin & Associates, Inc., B-280993, December 17, 1998

B-280993 Dec 17, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's determination that protester's initial proposal was technically unacceptable and outside the competitive range was reasonable where the proposal would require major revisions in order to become acceptable. BACKGROUND Before the property inspection program contemplated under this solicitation was operational. The MOBIS contractors were also to provide feedback and analysis to HUD regarding the new software and protocol before the property inspection program contemplated under this contract was fully operational. The inspectors for the MOBIS contractors and subcontractors were required to attend a training course in order to become certified to use the hardware and software to support collection of the testing information. View Decision Matter of: Ervin & Associates, Inc. File: B-280993 Date: December 17, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Ervin & Associates, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-21123, issued by the Department for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for property inspection services. /1/ We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Before the property inspection program contemplated under this solicitation was operational, HUD contracted with two firms under the General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) for management, organizational, and business improvement services (MOBIS) contracts which required the contractors to perform property inspections and to pilot test a newly developed software and protocol. The MOBIS contractors were also to provide feedback and analysis to HUD regarding the new software and protocol before the property inspection program contemplated under this contract was fully operational. The inspectors for the MOBIS contractors and subcontractors were required to attend a training course in order to become certified to use the hardware and software to support collection of the testing information. The certification that these inspectors received as a result of this training expires upon the completion of the MOBIS contracts. The solicitation in question was issued on June 4, 1998, to manage the performance of property inspections in three discrete geographical areas. The RFP requires that the contractors perform property inspections using HUD-certified inspectors, with hand-held computers, also known as data collection devices (DCDs), provided by the contractor, and using HUD's recently developed property inspection software. All data collected during inspections is required to be electronically transmitted from the inspector's DCD to the agency via the Internet, where the data will be evaluated and used to generate a score for the physical condition of the property. Award was to be based on a best value analysis using the following evaluation factors: prior experience (20), past performance (20), management capability (30), and training and quality control (30), for a maximum possible score of 100 points. Technical merit was more important than cost in the award decision. The RFP contemplated the issuance of one or more requirements contracts with fixed-price line items. By the July 23 closing time the agency received a total of 35 proposals from 20 different offerors for three geographic areas (9 proposals for Area 1, 12 proposals for Area 2, and 14 proposals for Area 3). The protester submitted a proposal for consideration under each of the three areas. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated proposals under the RFP evaluation scheme and established a competitive range for each area. Five technically acceptable proposals were included in the competitive range for Area 1, four acceptable proposals and two proposals that were capable of being made acceptable were included in the competitive range for Area 2, and four acceptable proposals were included in the competitive range for Area 3. The technical scores received by the proposals that were included in the competitive ranges were all between 70 and 88.5 points. The TEP determined that 13 offerors, including the protester, submitted proposals that contained serious deficiencies warranting evaluation as technically unacceptable, and these proposals were excluded from the competitive range. Ervin's proposal received a total technical score of 41 points for Area 1, 42 points for Area 2, and 43 points for Area 3, and its proposal, for each area, was found technically unacceptable. The TEP concluded that Ervin's proposal "materially failed to address the requirements of this solicitation and contained material weaknesses which increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance." TEP Initial Evaluation Report at 24. The agency conducted discussions with the competitive range offerors, requested best and final offers (BAFO), and reevaluated the proposals based on the BAFOs.