The Communities Group, B-283147, October 12, 1999

B-283147 Oct 12, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that procuring agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions is denied where protester was generally led into area of its proposal that required amplification. 2. Protest that agency did not consider recent performance problems of subcontractor of awardee in evaluating past performance is denied where the problems were under investigation at time of past performance evaluation and record shows that the agency was favorably impressed by the subcontractor's prompt and appropriate response to the problems. The RFP is to procure real property inspections in three geographic areas for the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center. /1/ The RFP contemplated the award for each area of an indefinite-quantity contract for 1-year with two 1-year options. View Decision Matter of: The Communities Group File: B-283147 Date: October 12, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Communities Group (TCG) protests the award of a contract to Management Solutions of America, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-21303, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for real property inspections. TCG contends that HUD failed to conduct meaningful discussions and properly evaluate proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP is to procure real property inspections in three geographic areas for the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center. /1/ The RFP contemplated the award for each area of an indefinite-quantity contract for 1-year with two 1-year options. RFP Cover Letter, Sec. B. The inspections will be performed on HUD-insured and HUD rental assisted multifamily properties using a data collection device with special HUD software. Agency Report at 1-2. Among other things, the contractor was required to provide a contract manager, available during normal duty hours, that would be responsible for the performance of the work, with full authority to act for the contractor on all contract matters relating to daily operations of the contract. RFP amend. 3, Sec. C.1.3. Offerors were requested to submit separate proposals for each geographic area for which they were interested in being considered for award. RFP Cover Letter. The RFP provided for award on a best-value basis and technical factors were said to be more important than price. RFP Sec. M.4.A. The following technical evaluation factors and their weights were listed: 1. PRIOR EXPERIENCE - Demonstrated experience of the offeror's staff and proposed subcontractors in performing physical inspections of multifamily housing. (20 points) 2. PAST PERFORMANCE - Documented evidence of the offeror and subcontractors in successfully performing physical inspections within established schedules. (20 points) 3. MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY - Demonstration of the offeror's capability to adequately staff and execute the contract and managing the performance of staff and subcontractor over geographically disbursed areas. (30 points) 4. TRAINING AND QUALITY CONTROL - Documented evidence of the offeror's ability to establish and maintain initial and ongoing training and quality control programs. (30 points) RFP Sec. M.5A. In addition, the RFP provided that proposals could also receive up to 10 points for proposing an acceptable small business subcontracting plan. RFP Sec. M.5.B. Offerors' prices were not to be separately scored, but were to be evaluated for reasonableness and unbalancing. RFP Secs. M.4.A, M.6.B. In response to the RFP, 45 proposals from 25 offerors were submitted, including proposals from TCG and Management Solutions for Area 2. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) performed an initial evaluation of proposals, which resulted in the proposals of TCG and Management Solutions and two other firms being placed in the competitive range for Area 2. Both written and oral discussions were conducted with the competitive range offerors, after which HUD received final proposal revisions (FPR). Management Solutions' FPR priced at $10,772,056 received the highest technical score for Area 2 of 106 points. TCG's FPR priced at $9,652,745 received the third highest score of 82.2 points. One of the other competitive range offerors submitted an FPR priced at $10,084,192 with a point score of 90.1 points and the remaining competitive range offeror submitted the lowest-priced FPR, which was, however, rated substantially inferior to the other FPRs. Agency Report, exh. 11E, Final Technical Evaluation Report, at 51. HUD concluded that Management Solutions' highest-rated proposal represented the best value for Area 2 and that the significant technical advantages reflected by its point score were worth the price premium over accepting one of the lower-rated proposals. Id.