The Moreland Corporation, B-283685, December 17, 1999

B-283685 Dec 17, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that in best value procurement agency improperly gave evaluation credit for aspects of awardee's proposal that exceeded the solicitation's minimum requirements is denied. Where detailed technical proposals are sought and technical evaluation criteria are used to enable the agency to make comparative judgments about the relative merits of competing proposals. Qualitative distinctions among the technical proposals are appropriately made under the various evaluation factors. There is no basis to object to the recognition of advantageous features of a proposal that are clearly related to the stated evaluation factors. The lease was also to include certain services. These would have the same weight as cost or price in the source selection. View Decision The Moreland Corporation, B-283685, December 17, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Moreland Corporation protests the award of a contract to Heidorn & Heidorn under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 573-184-002-99, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the lease of a building to be constructed for use as a VA outpatient clinic in Daytona Beach, Florida. We deny the protest. The SFO, issued on December 4, 1998, contemplated the award of a lease for a term of 15 years with one 5-year renewal option. The SFO sought offers to construct a clinic building with 44,500 occupiable square feet on a pre-selected site, and to lease the facility to the VA. The lease was also to include certain services, such as exterior maintenance, trash removal, and window washing. The SFO provided concept drawings of the site plan and floor plan to be followed. The SFO listed three technical evaluation factors and emphasized that when combined, these would have the same weight as cost or price in the source selection. SFO Sec. 2.2. The SFO listed the following technical evaluation factors in descending order of importance: operations and maintenance plans; technical quality; and offeror's qualifications. Id. The SFO also provided a brief narrative for the evaluation factors and identified subfactors that would be evaluated for each factor. The price comparison methodology, which the SFO explained in detail, involved a present value price evaluation based on occupiable square feet and including the option period price. SFO Sec. 2.3. The first two technical evaluation factors are relevant here. For operations and maintenance plans, the SFO provides that evaluators will consider "the adequacy and efficiency of the proposed Operations and Maintenance Plans to maintain standards of cleanliness, orderliness, and repair for the entire proposed facility." SFO Sec. 2.4. For technical quality, the SFO lists one subfactor, "the quality of the building and the design concept," which would be evaluated based on the following sub-subfactors: architectural concept; building design; quality of construction materials; and energy efficiency. For the building design sub-subfactor, the SFO provided the following guidance: This sub-factor refers to the technical excellence and the appropriateness of the design in meeting VA program needs and goals. Building efficiency, energy conservation, functionality, and building systems are key elements to be considered, as well as building quality . . . . Also included in this factor is the way natural daylight will be accessed within the building design, i.e., the number of windows, skylights and open courtyards as well as their relative location to administrative spaces and major [waiting] areas will be considered. The VA will only consider designs that incorporate the three open courtyard concept as depicted in the suggested floor plan. The only alternatives which will be considered are providing courtyards that are open to the outdoors with overhead screen enclosures or maintaining the courtyard space within the building and providing a minimum 15' X 15' skylight centered in the three courtyards. SFO Sec. 2.4(2)(a)(2). Under the energy efficiency sub-subfactor, the SFO provides that "offerors should submit information in the design narrative which addresses the proposed R-value of insulation, glazing of windows, lighting efficiency, HVAC efficiency, and any other factors related to energy conservation." SFO Sec. 2.4(2)(a)(4). The SFO stated that after negotiations had been conducted and final proposal revisions had been reviewed, the lease would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, price and other factors considered. RFP Sec. 2.8. Thirteen firms submitted initial proposals by the January 22 deadline. /1/ A five-member technical evaluation board (TEB) reviewed and scored the technical proposals. The agency scored proposals on a 100-point scale, allotting 50 points to the price factor and 50 points to the combined technical factors.