Cox & Associates CPAs--Costs, B-286753.3, June 19, 2001

B-286753.3 Jun 19, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Which were clearly meritorious. Corrective action was not taken until more than 3 months after the initial protest was filed and only after the GAO attorney handling the protest conducted "outcome prediction" alternative dispute resolution. The order was issued pursuant to a request for quotations (RFQ) issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to perform contractor compliance review services related to HUD's management and marketing (M&M) contractors. The property is assigned to one of its M&M contractors. /1/ and stated that an order would be placed with the schedule contractor whose quotation was evaluated as providing the best value to the government. The quotations were evaluated against the three technical factors. View Decision Cox & Associates CPAs--Costs, B-286753.3, June 19, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Cox & Associates CPAs requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the issuance of an order to Deloitte & Touche under Deloitte's federal supply schedule (FSS) contract. The order was issued pursuant to a request for quotations (RFQ) issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to perform contractor compliance review services related to HUD's management and marketing (M&M) contractors. We recommend that HUD reimburse Cox its reasonable protest costs. Pursuant to the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq., HUD provides mortgage insurance for low and moderate income home buyers. In the event a borrower defaults, HUD pays off the insurance and takes title to the home. After HUD takes title to a home, the property is assigned to one of its M&M contractors, who becomes responsible for inspecting, maintaining, and selling the property; HUD retains ongoing responsibility to review the work performed by its M&M contractors. The protest for which Cox seeks to recover its costs challenged HUD's placement of an FSS task order to perform the necessary oversight of HUD's M&M contractors. On August 10, 2000, HUD sent the RFQ at issue to five FSS contractors, including Cox and Deloitte. The RFQ provided that quotations must be submitted in two volumes (a technical volume and a price volume), identified various technical evaluation factors, /1/ and stated that an order would be placed with the schedule contractor whose quotation was evaluated as providing the best value to the government. In describing the technical information to be submitted, the RFQ specifically required that quotations "Identify the Project Team (Key Personnel) and demonstrate sufficient, qualified personnel and other resources, staffing time allocations, subcontracting arrangements, etc." Agency Report, Tab 7, at 2. Similarly, under the heading "Evaluation Factors," the RFQ required that quotations must "demonstrate clear lines of authority and accountabilities, staffing, physical resources and time schedules for specific tasks." Agency Report, Tab 7, at 9. On August 21, Cox and Deloitte submitted quotations responding to the RFQ and, at the agency's request, each firm made an oral presentation on September 7. Cox's quotation indicated an intent to perform the contract with the support of two subcontractors--PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and Soza & Company, Ltd.--and provided specific information regarding staffing allocation as required by the RFQ. Deloitte's quotation also contemplated contract performance using two subcontractors--Bert Smith & Company and Fry, Williams & Company; however, Deloitte's submission did not provide information from which the agency could reasonably determine Deloitte's intended staffing allocation and, also, did not identify the key personnel being proposed to fill certain key manager positions. Following oral presentations, the quotations were evaluated against the three technical factors--management experience, conceptual approach and past performance. Deloitte's quotation was evaluated as "exceptional" under each of the factors. Cox's quotation was rated as "exceptional" with regard to management experience and past performance, but only "very good" with regard to conceptual approach. The basis for downgrading Cox's quotation was the agency's perception that Cox had not allocated a sufficiently large portion of contract performance to PwC, and that certain PwC staff were going to be involved on only a "part-time" basis. Following the initial evaluation, the agency sought information from each vendor regarding various agency concerns. Although the primary basis for downgrading Cox's proposal was the agency's concern that PwC would not be sufficiently involved in contract performance, the agency did not identify this concern in any of the questions presented to Cox. On September 12, both vendors submitted their final quotations and, thereafter, the agency performed a final evaluation.