IT Facility Services-Joint Venture, B-285841, October 17, 2000

B-285841 Oct 17, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the agency determined that these employees would not be directly affected by the cost comparison because their positions were not in jeopardy. 4. Objecting that a source selection evaluation board evaluator whose spouse holds a position under study has a conflict of interest is denied. Where the protester was not prejudiced by the evaluator's alleged conflict of interest because. Even if that individual's evaluation is set aside. The protester's proposal was reasonably determined to be unacceptable. 5. Is denied. Asserts that the competition was tainted by conflicts of interest. The RFP was issued as part of a cost comparison under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. View Decision Matter of: IT Facility Services-Joint Venture File: B-285841 Date: October 17, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION IT Facility Services-Joint Venture protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable and the award of a contract to Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT60-98-R-0017, issued by the Department of the Army for public works and logistics services at Fort Lee, Virginia. IT challenges the Army's evaluation of its proposal and conduct of discussions, and asserts that the competition was tainted by conflicts of interest. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued as part of a cost comparison under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76 to determine whether it would be more economical to accomplish the work in-house using government employees or by contract. In the event that a contractor was selected to perform these functions, the RFP provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a base year with 4 option years and with phase-in and phase-out periods. RFP at F-1. The RFP provided a detailed performance work statement (PWS) describing the required services. The work to be performed was divided into two functional areas: public works and logistics. In the public works area, the contractor will provide buildings and structures maintenance, family housing maintenance, utility systems operation and maintenance, heating/ventilation/air conditioning systems operation and maintenance, dining and laundry facility equipment maintenance, grounds maintenance, surfaced area maintenance, pest control, and "U-DO-IT" services. In the logistics area, the contractor will provide transportation services, base supply services, and material maintenance. For each of these functional areas, the PWS provided historical workload data to allow offerors to forecast the anticipated level of effort required and provided detailed performance specifications. The RFP also provided for a pre-proposal conference, site visit, and tour of the facilities. RFP at L-11. Offerors were informed that proposals would be evaluated in a two-phased procedure. First, the agency would evaluate offerors' past performance, experience, key personnel, and phase-in and quality control plans. As a result of this evaluation, offerors would be informed that they were either a "possible candidate for award (PCA)" or "unlikely candidate for award (UCA)." RFP at L.14. Those offerors that were identified as PCAs and those that were UCAs but wished nonetheless to proceed were asked to make an oral presentations in the second phase. The agency would then evaluate, in this phase, offerors' oral presentations, technical approaches, staffing plans, cost proposals, subcontracting participation plans, and completed solicitation documents. The RFP provided that the basis for award would be the technically acceptable offer with the lowest probable cost. Offerors were informed that proposals would be evaluated as either acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable, and that only offers that were technically acceptable after assessing all factors and subfactors would be considered for award. The following technical evaluation factors were identified: past performance/experience; technical capability ("How the contractor will accomplish the requirements of the PWS"); management approach; and subcontracting. Subfactors were identified for each of these factors. The RFP also provided instructions for the preparation of proposals and the conduct of the oral presentations. Among other things, offerors were directed to provide a written technical approach, not exceeding 20 pages, that corresponded to the oral presentation and was cross-referenced to the cost proposal and staffing plan. RFP at L.16. With respect to the oral presentation, offerors were informed that no more than 120 "slides" could be presented and that only those slides that were projected and substantially addressed would be considered. At the oral presentation, offerors were required to demonstrate their understanding of the work required by the PWS.