Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-285351.3, May 31, 2001

B-285351.3 May 31, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging several aspects of evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposed personnel training program. Protest regarding remaining evaluation areas is academic. Since awardee would remain in line for award even if protester's proposal were awarded the maximum points possible under each of those areas. Olympus's proposal was eliminated from the competitive range. Advised offerors that the combined weight of the technical factors was more important than price. Seven proposals were received by the October 27 closing date. Four proposals were rated unacceptable. 000 possible points) were rated poor. MMMM's (948 points) was rated excellent. /1/ AR. View Decision Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-285351.3, May 31, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Olympus Building Services, Inc. protests the evaluation of its revised proposal, and the award of a contract to Mitch Murch's Maintenance Management Company (MMMM) under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS06P-99-GXC-0021, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for janitorial and related services at the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri. Olympus principally maintains that the agency did not properly evaluate its proposal. We deny the protest. The solicitation, initially issued on September 16, 1999, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year, with four 1-year options. Based on the evaluation, Olympus's proposal was eliminated from the competitive range. Olympus challenged the evaluation of its proposal in a protest to our Office. In our decision Olympus Bldg. Servs., Inc., B-285351, B-285351.2, Aug. 17, 2000, 2000 CPD Para. 178, we sustained the protest, finding that GSA improperly had applied undisclosed standards in evaluating proposals. We recommended that the agency amend the solicitation to provide a rational and reasonably disclosed evaluation scheme, request and evaluate revised proposals and make a new source selection decision. In response to our decision, the agency issued an amendment that, among other things, revised sections L and M of the solicitation. Revised section M identified five evaluation factors--experience, past performance, staffing and training, cost control and resources, and quality control--and advised offerors that the combined weight of the technical factors was more important than price, RFP amend. 6 (RFP), Secs. M.2.a, M.2.b, and that GSA intended to make award without discussions. RFP Sec. M.2.c. Revised section L provided descriptions/explanations of each of the evaluation factors, and listed standards of evaluation the agency would apply in evaluating proposals under each factor. RFP Sec. L.2. Seven proposals were received by the October 27 closing date. Agency Report (AR) at 2. Members of the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) individually evaluated the proposals; the evaluators documented and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal and, in internal discussions, reached a consensus regarding final evaluation ratings. AR, Tab 12, SSEB Scores and Notes, at 1-42. Based on the consensus, the evaluators rated the proposals under each technical factor using adjectival ratings and corresponding point values. Based on this evaluation, four proposals were rated unacceptable, two, including Olympus's (575 of 1,000 possible points) were rated poor, and MMMM's (948 points) was rated excellent. /1/ AR, Tab 14, SSEB Report, at 1. Olympus's evaluated price was $6,063,527, and MMMM's $5,655,288. Contracting Officer's Statement at 12. The agency determined that there was a clear delineation between MMMM's proposal and the next two highest-rated proposals, and that award therefore should be made without establishing a competitive range. AR, Tab 14, SSEB Report, at 26. The agency notified offerors of its intent to award a contract to MMMM and, after receiving a written debriefing, Olympus filed this protest with our Office. Olympus challenges the evaluation of its revised proposal under several factors under which its proposal was significantly downgraded: experience (135 of 240 possible points), quality control (35 of 120), and resources and cost control (70 of 200), and also under the training subfactor (40 of 100). Protester's Comments at 3-15. Olympus also argues that the evaluation deviated from the stated evaluation scheme under the experience and cost control factors. Protester's Supplemental Comments at 4-5. In reviewing protests against the propriety of an evaluation of proposals, we will review the record to ensure that the evaluation was fair and reasonable and consistent with the criteria stated in the RFP. Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc., B-239223, Aug. 10, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 129 at 4; Institute of Modern Procedures, Inc., B-236964, Jan. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 93 at 3.