Millar Elevator Service Company--Costs, B-284870.3, August 3, 2000

B-284870.3 Aug 03, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Which was clearly meritorious. The evaluation was to be based on six technical evaluation criteria listed in descending order of importance. Which was slightly less important than the technical criteria. Offerors were required to submit a list of six comparable projects they had performed. Amtech's evaluated price was $5. That Millar therefore was not prejudiced. Since Amtech's score would have been reduced only slightly if the agency had considered Amtech's lack of past performance in the Pittsburgh area. Millar's price advantage would be increased only from 2 percent to 4 percent if the sales tax were removed. Also asserted that GSA's prejudice argument was based on mere speculation as to whether the award decision would change if the evaluation errors were corrected. View Decision Matter of: Millar Elevator Service Company--Costs File: B-284870.3 Date: August 3, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Millar Elevator Service Company requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the award of a contract to Amtech Elevator Services under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. GS-03P-CDC-0006, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for elevator modernization and maintenance in the Moorhead Federal Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We recommend that GSA reimburse Millar its protest costs. The SFO, issued on October 29, 1999, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract based on a best value evaluation. The evaluation was to be based on six technical evaluation criteria listed in descending order of importance--design, maintenance and performance history, modernization experience and past performance, schedule, key personnel and staffing plan, and women owned business and small disadvantaged business participation in subcontracting--and on price, which was slightly less important than the technical criteria. With respect to past performance, offerors were required to submit a list of six comparable projects they had performed, including two in the Pittsburgh area. After the agency evaluated the proposals, held discussions, and requested, received and evaluated two rounds of best and final offers, Millar received a score of 85 (out of 100 possible points) under the technical factors, and Amtech received a score of 91. Amtech's evaluated price was $5,877,919 and Millar's $5,742,203. Millar's evaluated price included $137,000 of sales tax added by GSA. The agency selected Amtech's proposal for award as representing the best value to the government. On March 7, Millar protested to our Office, asserting, among other things, that in evaluating Amtech's past performance GSA did not consider that Amtech had failed to show that it had performed two projects in the Pittsburgh area, and that GSA improperly added sales tax to Millar's bid. In its April 7 report, GSA acknowledged that it had improperly evaluated Amtech's proposal under the past performance criterion, and improperly had added sales tax to Millar's bid. GSA asserted, however, that these deficiencies had no effect on the award decision, and that Millar therefore was not prejudiced, since Amtech's score would have been reduced only slightly if the agency had considered Amtech's lack of past performance in the Pittsburgh area, and Millar's price advantage would be increased only from 2 percent to 4 percent if the sales tax were removed. In its comments on the report, submitted on April 18, Millar reiterated its complaints with respect to all issues, and also asserted that GSA's prejudice argument was based on mere speculation as to whether the award decision would change if the evaluation errors were corrected. On May 1, at the request of the parties, the GAO attorney handling the protest conducted an "outcome prediction" alternative dispute resolution (ADR) conference by telephone. /1/ During that conference, the GAO attorney informed the parties that she agreed that GSA had improperly evaluated Amtech's past performance, and improperly had added sales tax to Millar's price. She further informed the parties of her view that, given the close technical scores and Millar's lower price, it did not appear that there was a sufficient basis to conclude that the agency's errors in the technical and price evaluations had not prejudiced Millar. On May 9, GSA advised our Office that it had taken corrective action through issuance of an amendment to the solicitation.