Urban-Meridian Joint Venture, B-287168; B-287168.2, May 7, 2001

Urban-Meridian Joint Venture, B-287168; B-287168.2, May 7, 2001 TITLE: Urban-Meridian Joint Venture, B-287168; B-287168.2, May 7, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287168; B-287168.2 DATE: May 7, 2001 ********************************************************************** Urban-Meridian Joint Venture, B-287168; B-287168.2, May 7, 2001 Decision Matter of: Urban-Meridian Joint Venture File: B-287168; B-287168.2 Date: May 7, 2001 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for the protester. Benjamin N. Thompson, Esq., and Jennifer M. Miller, Esq., Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, for B&W Contract Services, Inc., an intervenor. Thomas Y. Hawkins, Esq., GSA-Public Buildings Service, 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. In evaluating experience and past performance of joint venture under Small Business Administration mentor-prot�g� program, agency properly considered that small business prot�g�, which would be performing a majority of the work under the contract, had no relevant experience. 2. Agency's evaluation of protester's proposal as unacceptable under staffing and approach factor was unobjectionable where agency reasonably determined that protester did not propose sufficient staffing, and that the proposed on-site supervisor did not have all experience required by the solicitation. 3. In evaluating experience and past performance, agency reasonably credited awardee, a new business entity, with the experience of employees who worked on identical contract for predecessor firm. DECISION Urban-Meridian Joint Venture protests the award of a contract to B&W Contract Services, Inc. (BWCS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-09P-00-KSC, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for operation, maintenance and repair services at the United States Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California. Urban-Meridian principally challenges the evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for an evaluation based on experience/past performance, staffing/approach, and price; the non-price factors were more important than price. Eight offerors responded to the solicitation, including Urban-Meridian and BWCS. Based on the technical evaluation, Urban-Meridian's proposal was ranked fourth and BWCS's first. Urban-Meridian's price was low and BWCS's seventh low. The source selection authority found that BWCS's significantly superior technical proposal was worth its additional cost, and that it therefore represented the best value. Accordingly, award was made to BWCS. Urban-Meridian challenges the evaluation of its and the awardee's proposals under both the experience/past performance and staffing/approach factors on a number of bases. In reviewing a protest against a procuring agency's proposal evaluation, our role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. National Toxicology Labs., Inc., B-281074.2, Jan. 11, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 5 at 3. Based on our review of the record, we find that the evaluation under these factors was reasonable. We discuss Urban-Meridian's principle arguments below. EXPERIENCE/PAST PERFORMANCE Urban-Meridian's Proposal Urban-Meridian is a joint venture formed under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) mentor-prot�g� program. [1] See 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.520 (2000). It is comprised of Urban Systems, Inc., a small disadvantaged business, and Meridian Management Corporation, a large business. Under the firms' joint venture agreement, while Meridian, as the mentor firm, would be involved in performing the contract and would assist Urban, the prot�g� firm, in gaining the experience and training necessary to compete for federal contracts, Urban would be responsible for performing the majority of the work under the contract, and would be significantly involved in managing the contract. Mentor Prot�g� Agreement; Joint Venture Agreement; Protest at 4. Urban-Meridian's proposal received an experience/past performance rating of 5 (out of 10 available) points. In reaching this rating, GSA considered that Urban, the entity that would actually be responsible for performing the day-to-day work at the courthouse, had no directly related experience; Urban's only experience was performing two parking garage management contracts. Evaluation Memorandum at 5. GSA also considered Meridian's experience and past performance. GSA found that Meridian had some, though not extensive, experience working with all required systems, and some experience performing at courthouses. Id.