J&J Maintenance, Inc., B-284708.2; B-284708.3, June 5, 2000

J&J Maintenance, Inc., B-284708.2; B-284708.3, June 5, 2000 TITLE: J&J Maintenance, Inc., B-284708.2; B-284708.3, June 5, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284708.2; B-284708.3 DATE: June 5, 2000 ********************************************************************** J&J Maintenance, Inc., B-284708.2; B-284708.3, June 5, 2000 Decision Matter of: J&J Maintenance, Inc. File: B-284708.2; B-284708.3 Date: June 5, 2000 James J. McCullough, Esq., and Catherine E. Pollack, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for the protester. Stephen G. Anderson, Esq., Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell, for Day & Zimmermann Services, an intervenor. Nicholas P. Retson, Esq., and Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of source selection decision is sustained where the record does not establish the reasonableness of the evaluation or the cost/technical tradeoff underlying the source selection. DECISION J&J Maintenance, Inc. protests the Army's award of a contract to Day & Zimmermann Services (D&Z) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF11-98-R-0011. [1] The protester contends that the decision to award to D&Z on the basis of its higher-priced proposal was flawed because the agency unreasonably downgraded the protester's proposal and evaluated proposals unequally, giving D&Z's proposal higher ratings in a number of areas even though J&J's proposal contained similar or better features. We sustain the protest. Issued on June 8, 1998, the RFP solicited proposals for maintenance and repair of family housing and for operation of a "self-help" center at Fort Polk, Louisiana. RFP amend. 7, sect. C.1.1. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price requirements contract to include a 1-month phase-in period, a 1-year basic contract period, and two optional 1-year periods. Id., sect. B. The contract was to be awarded on the basis of best value. The evaluation factors (and their relative weights) were quality ([deleted] percent), price ([deleted] percent), and past performance ([deleted] percent). RFP amend. 0009, sect.sect. M.2, M.5; Agency Report, Tab Q, Source Selection Decision, at 1. Within the quality factor, management and technical were equally important subfactors. Management approach, staffing and qualifications, subcontracting plan, and phase in/phase out were listed as elements of the management subfactor. Resources, quality control/corrective action program, and methodology were listed as elements of the technical subfactor. RFP amend. 9, sect. M.6. Only quality and past performance were given point scores; price was evaluated for reasonableness and balance. Id., sect. M.7. The RFP required the quality portion of each offeror's proposal to be presented orally, with slides, and indicated that the agency intended to award the contract without discussions. RFP amend. 0007, sect. L.13.1. Six firms, including J&J, the incumbent contractor, submitted proposals by the February 10, 1999 closing. Each offeror made an oral presentation in April, and revised price proposals were received in August. [2] After evaluation, two proposals were rated unsatisfactory, while the four acceptable offers were ranked as follows: Offeror Quality/Past Adjectival Total Price Performance Rating Score D&Z [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] Offeror B [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] Offeror C [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] J&J [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] Agency Report, Tab P, Combined Pre-Negotiation Objective/Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 10-14. After reviewing the evaluations, the source selection official (SSO) decided to award the contract on the basis of initial proposals without discussions. Noting that D&Z's proposal had the highest score under the quality factor, the SSO determined that D&Z's proposal represented the best overall value to the government and that it would be worth the additional expenditure to have D&Z, rather than J&J, perform the work. Agency Report, Tab Q, Source Selection Decision Document, at 1, 3-4. Accordingly, the contract was awarded to D&Z on February 14. After a debriefing, J&J filed this protest. Our Office will question an agency's evaluation and selection decisions only where they violate a procurement statute or regulation, lack a reasonable basis, or are inconsistent with the stated evaluation and selection scheme. See B. Diaz Sanitation, Inc., B-283827, B-283828, Dec. 27, 1999, 2000 CPD para. 4 at 6. We cannot perform a meaningful review of an agency's evaluation and source selection if the agency record lacks adequate documentation to support the evaluation of proposals and the selection decision. Biospherics Inc., B-278508.4 et al., Oct.