Millar Elevator Service Company, B-284870.5; B-284870.6, January 31, 2001

Millar Elevator Service Company, B-284870.5; B-284870.6, January 31, 2001 TITLE: Millar Elevator Service Company, B-284870.5; B-284870.6, January 31, 2001 BNUMBER: B-284870.5; B-284870.6 DATE: January 31, 2001 ********************************************************************** Millar Elevator Service Company, B-284870.5; B-284870.6, January 31, 2001 Decision Matter of: Millar Elevator Service Company File: B-284870.5; B-284870.6 Date: January 31, 2001 Susan L. Schor, Esq., McManus, Schor, Asmar & Darden, for the protester. Jeffrey S. Baird, Esq., Bewley, Lassleben & Miller, for Amtech Elevator Services, an intervenor. Robert J. McCall, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. During reevaluation of proposals (which was part of corrective action in response to protest against award), agency's failure to consider negative information regarding awardee's performance of contract following initial award is unobjectionable, where performance problem involved only one aspect of contract, awardee corrected the problem, and references awardee submitted with its proposal rated its past performance excellent. 2. Protest that awardee's evaluation score included points for items that were eliminated from the solicitation is denied where record shows that the agency did not consider these items in the final evaluation and award decision. 3. Protest that evaluator was biased in favor of awardee is denied where protester did not present any credible evidence of bias and, in any case, failed to show that any bias negatively affected the protester's competitive position. DECISION Millar Elevator Service Company protests the award of a contract to Amtech Elevator Services under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. GS-03P-00-CDC-0006, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for elevator modernization and maintenance in the Moorhead Federal Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Millar complains that GSA performed an unreasonable evaluation of its and Amtech's technical proposals, and that one of the evaluators was biased in favor of Amtech. We deny the protest. The SFO, issued on October 29, 1999, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract on a best value basis. The evaluation was to be based on the following 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; women-owned business and small disadvantaged business participation in subcontracting--and price, which was slightly less important than the technical criteria. Millar and Amtech were the only two offerors that responded to the solicitation. A source selection board evaluated the technical proposals and the contracting officer evaluated the price proposals. After two rounds of discussions and two rounds of best and final offers (BAFO), GSA performed a best value analysis and selected Amtech for award. Millar challenged the award decision in a protest to our Office (B-284870, B-284870.2). As part of an "outcome prediction" alternative resolution dispute conference conducted at the request of the parties, the General Accounting Office attorney handling the matter advised the parties that there appeared to be errors in GSA's evaluation. Following the conference, GSA proposed corrective action that led to our dismissing the protest on May 11, 2000. Thereafter, GSA issued amendment No. 4 to revise the solicitation, requested third BAFOs, evaluated those BAFOs, and performed a new best value analysis. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 3, 4. Amtech again was selected for award and Millar now protests that award decision. [1] Millar challenges the evaluation on numerous grounds. In reviewing a protest against a procuring agency's proposal evaluation, our role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. National Toxicology Labs., Inc., B-281074.2, Jan. 11, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 5 at 3. We have reviewed the record here and find all of Millar's arguments to be without merit. We discuss Millar's primary arguments below. AMTECH'S PAST PERFORMANCE Amendment No. 4 requested revised BAFOs, but provided that the agency would consider an offeror's original proposal if it chose not to submit a BAFO. Amtech did not submit a revised technical BAFO, and GSA based its award decision on an evaluation of Amtech's original proposal. Millar asserts that, during Amtech's performance of the contract (following the original award), Amtech experienced performance problems in completing the lobby modernization work (awarded under option 1 of the solicitation). Protest (B 284870.5) at 3-5.