East Bay Elevator Company, Inc., B-286315.3, August 30, 2001

B-286315.3 Aug 30, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency reasonably assessed proposal favorably under solicitation evaluation criterion calling for specialized experience with a particular control system where the proposal listed corporate experience with the same or similar equipment and proposed to employ the predecessor contractor's on-site service mechanic whose experience at the building for which services were being procured explicitly encompassed the specialized experience in question. 2. Agency decision not to conduct discussions as part of a reevaluation performed as corrective action is unobjectionable where the underlying solicitation provided for award without discussions. The contract was initially awarded to Star on September 8. View Decision East Bay Elevator Company, Inc., B-286315.3, August 30, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION East Bay Elevator Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Star Elevator, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-09-00-KSC-0086, a total small business set-aside issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for elevator maintenance services at the Phillip Burton Federal Building/United States Courthouse in San Francisco, California. East Bay contends that the agency misapplied the solicitation evaluation criteria in its evaluation of the proposals, and improperly failed to conduct discussions. We deny the protest. The contract was initially awarded to Star on September 8, 2000, on the basis that its proposal was the low priced and highest rated technically acceptable proposal; after receiving a debriefing, East Bay filed a protest with our Office objecting to the award determination. Before responding with an agency report, GSA determined that there was a potential evaluation problem arising from the absence of technical proposal evaluation standards in the source selection plan (SSP) used by the evaluators. Agency Corrective Action Letter, October 18, 2000, at 1; Agency Cost Entitlement Report, May 30, 2001, at 2. As a result, the agency undertook corrective action in the form of reevaluating the extant proposals under a revised SSP. During the reevaluation period, GSA permitted Star to continue to perform the contract because the agency concluded that this was necessary in order to ensure the safety of tenants and building visitors. On May 11, 2001, based on the reevaluation, GSA's contracting officer determined that award to Star was appropriate. After receiving notification of this determination and a debriefing, East Bay filed this protest with our Office. The RFP evaluation clause called for a "best value" award based on price and the technical factors of experience and past performance, which were stated to be equal in weight and, when combined, of greater weight than price. RFP at 40. Under the experience criterion, the RFP stated that "[o]fferors which do not, as a minimum, demonstrate experience performing recurring operations and maintenance services of facilities comparable in size and complexity to the Federal Building . . . within the past five years (with at least five years of performance completed), will be determined to have an unsatisfactory level of experience, and will be excluded from further consideration." Id. This criterion further provided that "[t]he experience of subcontractors . . . will be considered commensurate with the scope of that entity's responsibilities in fulfilling contract requirements," and that "[s]pecialized experience with escalator[s] by Peelle, Haughton Elevator, Millar CVT micropro[cessor] controls (CVT/NET and CVT-AI) for low and high rise is required." Id. With respect to discussions, the RFP included Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 52.212-2-1(g), stating that the government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. RFP at 38. Under the evaluation clause, the RFP also contained a note stating: After receipt of the offers, the Government will initially perform a price analysis and rank proposals by price. The Government will then begin evaluation of Experience and Past Performance, beginning with the lowest priced offeror. If an offeror possesses sufficiently higher ratings for Experience and Past Performance, and has offered a low fair and reasonable price, the Government may elect to refrain from evaluating other offers, which have significantly higher pricing. Although it could be found that those other offerors possess higher Experience and Past Performance ratings, the Government may determine without further evaluation that their higher priced proposals do not justify the additional expenditure. The Government may then make award without discussions. RFP at 40. Three proposals were received. East Bay proposed a total price of $2,423,681.40, which was approximately 14 percent higher than Star's price of $2,124,903.