United Janitorial Services; Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-286769.3; B-286769.4, June 5, 2001

United Janitorial Services; Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-286769.3; B-286769.4, June 5, 2001 TITLE: United Janitorial Services; Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-286769.3; B-286769.4, June 5, 2001 BNUMBER: B-286769.3; B-286769.4 DATE: June 5, 2001 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: United Janitorial Services; Olympus Building Services, Inc. File: B-286769.3; B-286769.4 Date: June 5, 2001 Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., Sklute & Associates, and Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, for the protesters. Wilson J. Campbell, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposal on basis that it offered only one part-time quality control manager to perform all required inspections--which agency found would be inadequate to cover large number of buildings spread across large area--and did not include certain information required by the solicitation. 2. Price/technical tradeoff was reasonable where agency determined that only meaningful difference between awardee's and protester's proposals was in experience and past performance, and that protester's superiority in this area was not worth its higher price. DECISION United Janitorial Services and Olympus Building Services, Inc. protest the award of a contract to Nova Commercial Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68711-00-R-7734, issued by the Department of the Navy for janitorial services. United argues that the Navy improperly evaluated its proposal. Olympus protests the evaluation of its proposal, and price/technical tradeoff. We deny the protests. The RFP, which contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year, with four 1-year options, covers custodial and janitorial services at approximately 258 buildings spread over 11 locations covering an area 15 miles in diameter. RFP, amend. 3, Building List; Contracting Officer's Statement-United (COS-United) at 2. The solicitation provided for award on a best value basis with technical factors approximately equal to price, and notified offerors that the agency intended to award the contract without holding discussions. The technical evaluation factors and subfactors were listed as follows: Factor A: Past Performance Subfactor A1 - Specific Custodial/Janitorial Past Performance Factor B: Experience Subfactor B1 - Specific Custodial/Janitorial Experience Factor C: Management/Administration Plan Subfactor C1 - Management Plan for Work Accomplishment Subfactor C2 - Detailed Management Plan for Quality Control Subfactor C3 - Management Plan for Contract Administration Subfactor C4 - On Site Staff and Organizational Structure RFP amend. 3, sect. M, at 2-3. Fourteen offerors, including United, Olympus and Nova, submitted technical proposals, which were evaluated by a technical evaluation board (TEB) under each factor and subfactor as exceptional, very good, acceptable, marginal, unacceptable or neutral. The TEB reported its conclusions to a source selection board that analyzed the proposed prices, and performed an integrated assessment of the proposals based on the price and technical factors. Following this process, Nova's proposal was rated overall very good, and Olympus's exceptional, and both were determined to be reasonably priced, at $12,951,564.74 and $[DELETED] respectively. United's proposal was rated overall marginal, and unacceptable for award as submitted. Business Clearance Memorandum (BCM) at 9; COS-United at 5. The evaluation results were forwarded to the source selection authority (SSA), who determined that Nova's proposal represented the best value, and therefore made award to Nova on the basis of its initial proposal. UNITED PROTEST United's proposal was downgraded based on marginal ratings under subfactors C2 and C4. United challenges these ratings. [1] In reviewing a protest against an agency's proposal evaluation, our role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. National Toxicology Labs, Inc., B-281074.2, Jan. 11, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 5 at 3. We have reviewed the record and, as discussed below, find that the evaluation of United's proposal was reasonable. Subfactor C2--Detailed Management Plan for Quality Control Under subfactor C2, the solicitation stated: (i) Provide the offeror's detailed plan for Quality Control procedures and management in accordance with Section C, "Contractor Quality Control," and describe its intended plan to work with the Government Quality Assurance (QA) program. RFP amend. 3, sect. M, at 4. The agency found that, while United's proposal provided an adequate quality control plan, it included only one quality control manager, who was also the safety manager and the alternate project manager.