Citywide Managing Services of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12; B-281287.13, November 15, 2000

Citywide Managing Services of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12; B-281287.13, November 15, 2000 TITLE: Citywide Managing Services of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12; B-281287.13, November 15, 2000 BNUMBER: B-281287.12; B-281287.13 DATE: November 15, 2000 ********************************************************************** Citywide Managing Services of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12; B-281287.13, November 15, 2000 Decision Matter of: Citywide Managing Services of Port Washington, Inc. File: B-281287.12; B-281287.13 Date: November 15, 2000 John A. Ordway, Esq., Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, and Jacqueline B. Gayner, Esq., Ross, Suchoff, Hankin, Maidenbaum, Handwerker & Mazel, for the protester. Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for Meridian Management Corporation, the intervenor. Joseph J. Cox, Esq., and Michael Ryba, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 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 satisfied its obligations to perform a price analysis by comparing the widely variant line item prices proposed by the offerors under vigorous price competition for a fixed-priced contract and the government estimate; the agency was not required to downgrade awardee's highest-rated technical proposal because of its low price where the awardee verified its price and the agency reasonably determined that the awardee understood and could perform the contract at that price. 2. Protest alleging that the awardee's proposal has unbalanced item prices and that the agency failed to assess whether the unbalancing posed an unacceptable risk to the government is denied, where, despite the agency's erroneous determination that prices were not unbalanced, there is no evidence of significant risk to the government arising from unbalanced prices and the agency's action therefore did not prejudice the protester. 3. Protest of technical evaluation is denied where protest merely disagrees with the agency's evaluation and does not provide evidence of an unreasonable evaluation. DECISION Citywide Managing Services of Port Washington, Inc. protests an award to Meridian Management Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA51-98-R-0007, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, for base operations and maintenance services at Fort Hamilton, New York. We deny the protest. The RFP was initially issued on March 5, 1998 by the Corps's New York District. A contract was awarded under this RFP to Citywide on two prior occasions. Those awards were the subject of a number of protests by the other offerors, Meridian and Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. Our office twice sustained such protests, [1] in response to which the agency reevaluated proposals and made new source selections. The most recent reevaluation followed reassignment of the RFP to the Philadelphia District, which appointed new evaluation and source selection personnel and, by amendment, reissued the RFP. The RFP, as reissued, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract (with provision for some cost reimbursable work) for 1 year with 4 option years. For contract line item numbers (CLIN) under heading 001, monthly unit prices were requested for recurring and cyclic maintenance, repair and preventative maintenance work, and specific support and administration services. For CLINs under heading 002, monthly unit prices were requested for maintenance and repair service orders. For CLINs under heading 003, hourly and square foot unit prices were requested for all maintenance and repair outside the scope of CLIN 002 service orders. For CLINs under heading 004, hourly unit prices were requested for "New Work," that is, minor construction incidental to the execution of base operations. For CLINs under heading 005, monthly and hourly prices were requested for logistics support functions. Estimated quantities for price evaluation purposes are designated for each CLIN; the estimated quantities for CLINs requesting hourly unit prices are also "not to exceed" figures. [2] The RFP stated a best value evaluation plan with technical and price being of approximately equal importance. Under the technical area, the RFP listed, in descending order of importance, the factors of technical approach, management and quality control. Each factor had various subfactors. Under price, the RFP stated that the government was interested in "proposals that offer value in meeting the management necessary in the performance of this contract while insuring quality performance with appropriate technical skills and quality control at a reasonable price." RFP amend. 7, at M-6.