Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.; Meridian Management, B-281287.5; B-281287.6; B-281287.7, June 21, 1999

Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.; Meridian Management, B-281287.5; B-281287.6; B-281287.7, June 21, 1999 TITLE: Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.; Meridian Management, B-281287.5; B-281287.6; B-281287.7, June 21, 1999 BNUMBER: B-281287.5; B-281287.6; B-281287.7 DATE: June 21, 1999 ********************************************************************** Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.; Meridian Management, B-281287.5; B-281287.6; B-281287.7, June 21, 1999 Decision Matter of: Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.; Meridian Management Corporation File: B-281287.5; B-281287.6; B-281287.7 Date: June 21, 1999 Kathleen C. Little, Esq., David R. Johnson, Esq., James R. Farnsworth, Esq., and Suzanne Reifman, Esq., Vinson & Elkins, for Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.; and Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for Meridian Management Corporation, the protesters. Jacqueline B. Gayner, Esq., Ross, Suchoff, Hankin, Maidenbaum, Handwerker & Mazel, and Richard Feldman, Esq., Feldman & Markman, for Citywide Office Management Services, the intervenor. Joseph J. Cox, 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 Agency's evaluation of technical proposals was unreasonable under the best value evaluation plan stated in the solicitation where it failed to evaluate differences in technical merit of proposals beyond minimum requirements. DECISION Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. and Meridian Management Corporation 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 evaluation and award selection. We sustain the protests. The RFP, issued March 5, 1998, contemplated the award of fixed-price contract (with some cost reimbursable items) for 1 year with 4 option years. The performance work statement (PWS) stated that the scope of work includes the following major functional areas: 1. Work Reception and Management 2. Buildings and Structures and Utilities Systems 3. Roads and Grounds 4. Pest Control 5. Refuse Collection 6. Housing and [Unaccompanied Personnel Housing] Operations 7. Supply and Storage 8. Elevator Maintenance and Repair 9. Logistical Support 10. Personal Property Shipping Office (PPSO) 11. Transportation Motor Pool (TMP) RFP sect. C.1.1, at 11, amend. 0002, at 34. The PWS stated the performance requirements for each of these major functions. RFP sect. C.5, at 67-203. The RFP stated that award would be made "based on the best overall proposal with appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors stated below," RFP amend. 0002, sect. M.1.b, at 1, and that technical "is more important than price." RFP amend. 0002, sect. M.2.B, at 5. The RFP stated a total of 3 factors and 10 subfactors under technical. The RFP listed, in descending order of importance," the technical factors: Factor I, Technical Approach, Factor II, Management, and Factor III, Quality Control. Each technical factor had either three or four subfactors "listed in descending order of importance" within each factor. Id. Factor I, Technical Approach, had the following three subfactors: (1) Technical Capability, (2) Labor qualifications/mix for projects, and (3) Past Performance. Factor II, Management, had the following four subfactors: (1) Organizational Procedures, (2) Operational Structure, (3) Sub-Contract Plans, and (4) Management Qualifications. Factor III, Quality Control, had the following three subfactors: (1) Quality Control Plan, (2) Corrective Action, and (3) Records and Reports. The RFP stated that offerors should prepare technical proposals in a format following the identified evaluation factors, and specified information to be addressed in proposals that would be considered by the agency for evaluation purposes. RFP amend. 0002, sect.sect. L.9, at 2-5, M.2.A.1, at 2-5. The agency received proposals by the June 5, 1998 closing date from Johnson (the incumbent contractor), Meridian, and Citywide. The agency's evaluation team evaluated technical proposals on a 900-point scale with factor I, technical approach, being allotted 400 points; factor II, management, 300 points; and factor III, quality control 200 points; the subfactors under each factor received a share of the total points allotted to the factor consistent with the descending order of importance evaluation scheme. The agency conducted discussions and evaluated revised proposals.