Meridian Management Corporation; Johnson Controls, B-281287.10; B-281287.11, February 8, 2000

Meridian Management Corporation; Johnson Controls, B-281287.10; B-281287.11, February 8, 2000 TITLE: Meridian Management Corporation; Johnson Controls, B-281287.10; B-281287.11, February 8, 2000 BNUMBER: B-281287.10; B-281287.11 DATE: February 8, 2000 ********************************************************************** Meridian Management Corporation; Johnson Controls, B-281287.10; B-281287.11, February 8, 2000 Decision Matter of: Meridian Management Corporation; Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. File: B-281287.10; B-281287.11 Date: February 8, 2000 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for Meridian Management Corporation, and Kathleen C. Little, Esq., David R. Johnson, Esq., James R. Farnsworth, Esq., and Suzanne D. Reifman, Esq., Vinson & Elkins, for Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., the protesters. Jacqueline B. Gayner, Esq., Ross, Suchoff, Hankin, Maidenbaum, Handwerker & Mazel, and John A. Ordway, Esq., Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, for Citywide Office Management Services, the intervenor. Lorraine Lee, Esq., and Barbara Affeldt, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency evaluation is unreasonable where the stated evaluation scheme contemplates an evaluation of labor qualifications and mix for each contract requirement, the agency did not so evaluate staffing for significant contract requirements, and the record shows that the awardee did not propose adequate staffing for those requirements. 2. Agency improperly relaxed the solicitation's minimum qualification requirement that key personnel have experience in the operation and maintenance of a comparable government functional activity of the same or similar scope where many of the awardee's key personnel lack governmental experience. DECISION Meridian Management Corporation and Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. protest an award to Citywide Office Management Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA51-98-R-0007, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, for base operations and maintenance services at Fort Hamilton, New York. The protesters allege that the agency conducted an unreasonable and unequal evaluation and award selection. We sustain the protests. The RFP, issued March 5, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract (with some cost reimbursable items) for 1 year with 4 option years. The agency received initial proposals from Johnson (the incumbent contractor), Meridian, and Citywide by the June 5, 1998 closing date. The agency conducted discussions, requested and received revised proposals, and, on September 18, awarded a contract to Citywide. Johnson protested the award alleging, among other things, that a conflict of interest involving one of the technical evaluators improperly biased the source selection in favor of Citywide. The Corps took corrective action in response to the protest and convened a new source selection team that reevaluated proposals, requested and received revised proposals by February 12, 1999, and again selected Citywide's proposal for award. Johnson and Meridian protested that action. Our Office sustained those protests in Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc.; Meridian Management Corp., B-281287.5 et al., June 21, 1999, 2000 CPD para. , essentially because the agency's "best value" evaluation did not evaluate the proposals for technical merit beyond meeting minimum requirements. In response to that decision, the Corps modified its evaluation methodology, reevaluated proposals, and once again selected Citywide's proposal for award. The present protests challenge the agency's latest reevaluation and source selection decision. The RFP stated that award would be made based on the best overall proposal with technical factors being "more important than price." RFP amend. 0002 sect.sect. M.1.b, M.2.B. The RFP listed, "in descending order of importance," three technical factors: Factor I, Technical Approach; Factor II, Management; and Factor III, Quality Control. RFP amend. 0002 sect.sect. M.1.g, M.2.A. Within each technical factor, there were either three or four subfactors "listed in descending order of importance." RFP amend. 0002 sect.sect. M.1.g, M.2.A. Factor I, Technical Approach, had the following three subfactors: (1) Technical Capability, (2) Labor Qualifications/Mix for Projects, and (3) Past Performance. RFP amend. 0002 sect. M.2.A. The RFP also stated that technical proposals "will demonstrate an understanding of the technical function/requirements, the technical capability, the requisite labor qualifications, and experience through past performance for providing the following [11] functions:" [1] 1. Work Reception and Management 2. Buildings and Structures and Utilities Systems 3. Roads and Grounds 4. Pest Control 5. Refuse Collection 6.