OneSource Energy Services, Inc., B-283445, November 19, 1999

B-283445 Nov 19, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Evaluation of protester's past performance is unreasonable where it is based upon inaccurate information and improperly considered the protester's legitimate exercise of rights under its contract to be evidence of negative past performance. 2. Where there is no evidence that the agency considered the protester's technical approach. Was to obtain mechanical operation and maintenance services at the United States Court House and the Silvio Mollo Federal Building in New York. The technical evaluation factors listed in the RFP in descending order of importance were "Experience and Past Performance Providing Similar Mechanical Operation and Maintenance Services. Which was to be evaluated for reasonableness. View Decision Matter of: OneSource Energy Services, Inc. File: B-283445 Date: November 19, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION OneSource Energy Services, Inc. /1/ protests the award of a contract to Park Tower Management Ltd. under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-02P-97-CTC-0207, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), for mechanical operations and maintenance services at two buildings in New York, New York. OneSource contends that GSA improperly evaluated its past performance and proposed staffing, and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm. We sustain the protest. As amended, the RFP, issued August 22, 1997, was to obtain mechanical operation and maintenance services at the United States Court House and the Silvio Mollo Federal Building in New York, New York. RFP amend. 4, Sec. B, at 6-7. The contract contemplated a 36-month base period with two 36-month option periods. The RFP provided for award on a best-value basis to the most advantageous proposal, considering the technical evaluation factors and price. See RFP Sec. M, at Para. 4. The technical evaluation factors listed in the RFP in descending order of importance were "Experience and Past Performance Providing Similar Mechanical Operation and Maintenance Services," worth 60 percent, and "Operation and Maintenance Approach," worth 40 percent. Price, which was to be evaluated for reasonableness, was said to be less important than the two technical factors. Id. at Para. 2; Agency Report, exh. 2, Source Selection Plan, at 5. Regarding the past performance factor, the RFP explained that "[e]xperience is considered to be similar if the offeror provided mechanical operation and maintenance services for a courthouse, office building or hospital of at least 15 stories with at least 400,000 gross square feet." RFP Part C, at Para. 1. To evaluate past performance, GSA utilized a reference check form that required a building manager familiar with the offeror's performance at a referenced building to answer several specific questions regarding the offeror's past performance. For example the questions included "Was the firm able to handle irate and demanding tenants in a diplomatic fashion?" "Would you hire the firm again to provide the same services?" and "How would you rate the firms overall performance?" Agency Report, exhs. 5, 6. With regard to the operations and maintenance approach factor, offerors were required to provide a detailed approach, including the approach for the operation of the building equipment and the handling and response to tenant service calls and complaints; a preventive maintenance schedule and methodologies to be used in meeting maintenance requirements; a description of the type and number of staff and supervision to carry out the offeror's maintenance plan, daily and periodic work, building operation, tenant service calls and complaints, and emergency responses; and a quality control program. RFP Part C, at Para. 2. On October 22, 1997, nine proposals were received in response to the RFP. On July 22, 1998, amendment No. 4 to the RFP added the Mollo building to the scope of work. Offerors submitted revised proposals by August 14. The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the proposals and placed eight, including Park Tower's and OneSource's, in the competitive range. The SSEB rated Park Tower's proposal with the highest technical point score of 840 points, while OneSource's proposal was third highest ranked with a point score of 587 points. See Agency Report, exh. 9, Initial SSEB Report, at 4. OneSource's past performance was downgraded because of certain negative comments from the building managers contacted at two of the four buildings considered in the evaluation of OneSource's past performance. /2/ See id. at 14-15.