Universal Building Maintenance, Inc., B-282456, July 15, 1999

B-282456 Jul 15, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a General Services Administration (GSA) contract award for custodial services, contending that: (1) GSA improperly evaluated the proposals; and (2) GSA's selection decision was unreasonable. GAO held that GSA: (1) failed to document its source selection decision; (2) failed to conduct a proper cost/technical tradeoff in selecting the awardee's proposal; and (3) improperly attributed the past performance of the awardee's parent company to the awardee, since the record did not establish that the parent company would be involved in the performance of the contract. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that GSA: (1) reevaluate the proposals, properly document its evaluation, and perform a proper cost/technical tradeoff; (2) refer the matter to the Small Business Administration for a certificate of compentency decision if it determines that the protester is nonresponsible; (3) terminate the awardee's contract and make award to the protester, if otherwise appropriate, and (4) reimburse the protester for its protest costs. View Decision Matter of: Universal Building Maintenance, Inc. File: B-282456 Date: July 15, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Universal Building Maintenance, Inc. (UBMI) protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) award of a fixed-price contract to Service Star USA, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-08P-99-JBC-0006, for custodial services at the New Customs House in Denver, Colorado. UBMI principally contends that its proposal, as well as the awardee's proposal, was improperly evaluated, and that the agency's selection decision was unreasonable. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, contemplated the use of commercial item procedures. This requirement also used simplified acquisition procedures as authorized by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 13.5. This subpart authorizes as a test program the use of simplified procedures for the acquisition of commercial supplies and services in amounts greater than the simplified acquisition threshold but not exceeding $5 million dollars. FAR Sec. 13.500. The RFP called for firms to submit written technical proposals limited to 10 pages. In their technical proposals, the firms were asked to address past performance, types of equipment, and organizational structure. For each of these items, the RFP described the standard to be met. Of relevance here, for past performance, the standard would be met when "the offeror demonstrates that they have performed similar work of comparable size to that described in this solicitation under at least five (5) contracts," and "[t]he past performance on similar contracts was satisfactory or better." The government reserved the right to request additional references and to query sources not specifically identified by the offeror. The RFP also called for oral presentations where offerors would be asked to address quality control and plan of operation. A price proposal also was to be submitted with the technical proposal. The amended RFP provided that award would be made to the responsible firm whose proposal was considered most advantageous to the government, technical factors and price, when combined, being considered equal in value. RFP at 38-40. On January 15, 1999, the due date for proposals, 18 proposals were received. Oral presentations were scheduled, and all but one firm made presentations. A competitive range of nine offerors was established. By letter, each competitive range offeror was sent written questions concerning its price proposal, and was requested to submit a best and final price proposal. The nine offerors submitted revised price proposals. UBMI significantly reduced its total price in its revised price proposal. As a result, its price was 24 percent less than the government estimate. Statement of Fact and Memorandum of Law at 9. The evaluation board, consisting of three members, prepared a document called "Recommendation of Awardee" for the contracting officer. The document provided a narrative summary of the strengths and weaknesses of each offeror's proposal, and rankings of the offerors based on points assigned to each offeror after evaluation of their technical proposals and oral presentations. Also, there were price charts summarizing the prices proposed by each offeror for the services. Of particular relevance is the chart which ranked the competitive range offerors by their technical scores with each firm's total price. This chart showed that the awardee and another firm received a point score of 19. Four other firms received scores ranging from 15 to 17. UBMI received a score of 14, but submitted the lowest price among the competitive range offerors. UBMI's price was 22 percent lower than the awardee's price.