Vero Property Management, Inc., B-285563.2, October 19, 2000

B-285563.2 Oct 19, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency reasonably determined protester's proposal for property inspection services was unacceptable because the proposal. Indicated that the protester did not understand the nature of the detailed inspection required by the solicitation and the realities of traveling in the metropolitan and urban areas where the inspections were required. Insured lenders' claims are paid and ownership interests are transferred to HUD. HUD then contracts for SPI services to inspect the condition of HUD-owned single family properties that are maintained by the M&Ms to insure that they remain in marketable condition. That the inspector is required to complete a two-page Property Inspection Form that outlines the inspector's responsibilities in the form of questions. /1/ RFP attach. 1. View Decision Matter of: Vero Property Management, Inc. File: B-285563.2 Date: October 19, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Vero Property Management, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal for special property inspections (SPI) services as technically unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-DEN-01108, issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). We deny the protest. Upon foreclosure of Federal Housing Administration insured mortgages, insured lenders' claims are paid and ownership interests are transferred to HUD, which then contracts with managing and marketing contractors (M&M) to manage the properties. The services provided by the M&Ms include providing maintenance and repair services, as well as marketing and selling the properties in order to recoup funds HUD paid on the mortgage insurance claim. HUD then contracts for SPI services to inspect the condition of HUD-owned single family properties that are maintained by the M&Ms to insure that they remain in marketable condition. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. The RFP, issued on November 30, 1999, requested proposals for SPI services for HUD's single family properties located within the jurisdiction of HUD's Santa Ana Homeownership Center in four geographic areas, including area 1a (Southern California counties of Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura) and area 1b (Southern California counties of San Bernadino, Riverside, Orange, Inyo, Mono and San Diego). RFP Sec. B.2. The RFP statement of work (SOW) specified that the contractor shall furnish all personnel, material, equipment and transportation to provide the required services. RFP Sec. C.1.3; the contractor "shall inspect and assess the physical condition of each assigned property to determine the cognizant M&M compliance with the property maintenance standards specified in the M&M contract," RFP Sec. C.3.1.1; and that the inspector is required to complete a two-page Property Inspection Form that outlines the inspector's responsibilities in the form of questions. /1/ RFP attach. 1. Some of the items required during an inspection are a physical walk-through of the entire property, including every interior room, walk-up attic and the complete exterior of the property; a physical examination of the inside of closets, drawers, and cabinets, to determine if the M&M has performed required clean-out and housekeeping; an examination of any repairs performed by the M&M or its subcontractors; and a reporting of any damage or vandalism to the property. RFP Sec. C.3.1.1.1-8. The inspector is required to include with each inspection report a photograph of the exterior front and rear of each property, and a photograph "showing in detail" each deficiency item noted in the inspection report with a description. RFP Sec. C.3.1.2. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price line items for a base year with 4 option years for each geographic area. RFP Secs. L.1.2.2, M.1.3. The RFP lists the estimated number of inspections that are expected for each area. Of relevance to this protest, for area 1a, HUD estimated a quantity of 7,260 scheduled and special inspections per contract year (605 per month), and for area 1b, a quantity of 7,884 scheduled and special inspections per contract year (or 657 per month). RFP Sec. B.4. The awards under the RFP were to be based on the best value to the government, cost or price and other factors considered. RFP Sec. M 1.5.a. The following technical factors were listed: (1) prior experience, (2) technical understanding, (3) management and oversight capability, and (4) past performance. Of particular relevance to this protest is the technical understanding factor, which required that an offeror "demonstrate that it will dedicate sufficient key personnel that possess technical skills and knowledge necessary to perform the scope of work required by the solicitation." The RFP stated that the failure of the offer to be found acceptable for any one of the first three listed factors would render the entire proposal unacceptable.