Housing Services, Inc., B-281352.14, May 7, 1999

B-281352.14 May 07, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Santa Ana HOC is divided into six areas. The RFP stated that the technical factors were more significant than price. The technical proposal was to be limited to a maximum of 100 one-sided pages. Price was to be determined primarily by applying the offeror's proposed fixed-price factor to the sale or rental price of each property. Evaluated price was calculated by applying proposed price factors for each contract line item to a formula stated in the RFP. Initial proposals were due by October 20. United's proposal was considered to be deficient and to require an extensive rewrite to allow it to be considered acceptable. Most particularly information that would have demonstrated an understanding of the RFP requirements under the management capability and quality control factor. View Decision Matter of: United Housing Services, Inc. File: B-281352.14 Date: May 7, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION United Housing Services, Inc. protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-21230, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for management and marketing services for single family properties. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on August 17, 1998, contemplated the award of up to 16 fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contracts, covering 16 geographic areas, for 1 year with 4 option years. RFP Cover Letter at 1, Secs. B, M.VI. Offerors could submit proposals for one or more geographic areas. RFP Sec. M.IV(a), at 205. Each geographic area falls under one of four regional Home Ownership Centers (HOC) based in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Denver and Santa Ana, California. RFP Sec. B.II, at 2-4. The Santa Ana HOC is divided into six areas; Area 1, the subject of United's protest, consists of 11 counties in southern California. Id. at 4. The RFP stated that the technical factors were more significant than price. RFP Secs. M.III, M.V.A, at 205-06. The technical proposal was to be limited to a maximum of 100 one-sided pages. RFP Secs. L.IX.D, at 196. The RFP set out the following technical factors and their weight on a 150-point scale: Prior Experience - 50 points; Past Performance - 40 points; Management Capability and Quality Control - 30 points; Subcontract Management - 20 points; and Small Business Subcontracting - 10 points (this factor would be evaluated only for otherwise technically acceptable proposals). RFP Secs. M.VII, M.VIII, at 206-08. Price was to be determined primarily by applying the offeror's proposed fixed-price factor to the sale or rental price of each property. RFP Secs. B. III, B.IV, at 4-6. Evaluated price was calculated by applying proposed price factors for each contract line item to a formula stated in the RFP. RFP Sec. M.IX, at 208. Initial proposals were due by October 20. RFP amend. 0001, at 1. The agency evaluated proposals, and assigned numerical ratings and adjectival risk ratings. Agency Report, exh. 20B, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 3. The agency established a competitive range for Area 1 of the Santa Ana HOC that included all of the technically acceptable proposals. Agency Report, exh. 8, Competitive Range Determination, at 2, 5th attach., at 1. These three proposals received risk ratings ranging from low to moderate, and total numerical scores ranging from 82 to 105 (92 to 111.9 including the scores for the small business subcontracting factor). Id. United's proposal was considered to be deficient and to require an extensive rewrite to allow it to be considered acceptable, essentially because it failed to provide sufficient information, most particularly information that would have demonstrated an understanding of the RFP requirements under the management capability and quality control factor. Agency Report, exhs. 6A, 7, Initial Evaluation Report and Addendum. United's proposal received a high risk rating and a total numerical score of 62, and its price fell within the range of the evaluated prices of the competitive range proposals. Agency Report, exh. 6A, Initial Evaluation Report, at 7th unnumbered page. By letter of November 13, HUD notified United that its proposal had been eliminated from further consideration and that the agency would not conduct debriefings until after award. Agency Report, exh. 9. Following discussions with the competitive range offerors, HUD awarded a contract for this area to Golden Feather Realty Services on February 1, 1999. Contracting Officer's Statement at 3. On February 4, HUD provided a written debriefing to United, which presented in detail the evaluators' findings with regard to United's proposal. Id. at 4; Agency Report, exh. 19, Letter from Contracting Officer to United (Feb. 4, 1999).